Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive50

Prem Rawat
(Copied from Reliable_sources/Noticeboard)


 * Editors on Prem Rawat are discussing whether or not including a particular item sourced to a 1974 Rolling Stone article is consistent with good BLP practice.


 * For background, the article on Prem Rawat is subject to mediation; any proposed edits undergo a process of drafting proposals on pages in the mediator's user space. (The page housing the proposal we are concerned with is here).


 * Editors have proposed a draft that includes the following sentence:


 * This is cited to a Rolling Stone article that includes the following passage:


 * Note that the person referred to in the previous sentence, "Bal Bhagwan Ji", is not Prem Rawat, the subject of our article, but Rawat's brother (also considered a holy person by movement members at the time, but not usually referred to as "guru", a title reserved to Rawat himself, and applied consistently to Rawat throughout the Rolling Stone article).


 * The anecdote is ascribed to "another premie" (i.e. an unnamed member of Rawat's movement). It is not clear from the text of the article whether this anecdote was recounted to Levine, the author of the piece, by the actual eye-witness of the events described, or whether it was hearsay that Levine was exposed to in the course of his research.


 * Editors have researched and are working with hundreds of sources concerning Prem Rawat. This 1974 Rolling Stone article is, to our knowledge, the only available source that mentions this alleged incident.


 * The qustion we would like feedback on is:
 * Is it good WP:BLP practice to include a report
 * ascribed to an unnamed individual,
 * possibly based on hearsay,
 * possibly referring to the subject's brother mentioned in the preceding sentence,
 * not present or repeated in any other source, to editors' knowledge,
 * published in a source that has a documented history of having included fabricated statements in its articles on at least two occasions,
 * or would that make us fall foul of
 * the basic WP:BLP stricture that says, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.", as well as
 * the WP:BLP requirement to source conservatively,
 * WP:DUE policy and
 * WP:REDFLAG, which requires that exceptional claims require exceptional sources; is this encyclopedic requirement satisfied by the reproduction of an item of hearsay in a 1974 Rolling Stone magazine article?


 * Related discussions to date are here. Jayen 466 10:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you copied this here - do you accept that Rolling Stone is a highly reliable source, as folks at WP:RSN said? If it is then REDFLAG, which I don't think is even triggered here, is satisfied. If you don't agree that RS is highly reliable then the other noticeboard is the right place to discuss that.
 * As for the other points, journalists don't make a habit of naming every individual they quote and I don't think that we exclude any such statements. The "source" is the journalist and the publication. Further, the anecdote isn't titillating and doesn't assert any illegal or immoral action. Instead it is used in the context of explaining the subject's view of materialism, an important issue in light of his many luxury cars and homes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained why, and I said yesterday that even if there had never been any fact-checking problem with Rolling Stone, it wouldn't make any difference to me. In my view, it's cruft and don't belong in a BLP. Jayen 466 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We report many things that are only in one source. One source is sufficient if it is reliable, and you're not contesting the reliability of the source. The anecdote is interesting and illustrates the subject's view of materialism. It is not out of character for the subject to have done things like that in that period of his life and we have numerous accounts of similar pranks. Please explain what is titillating about this story. As for BLP, the story is not derogatory. I don't see how it could be harmful to the subject to include it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I would say on first look that the draft addition looks reasonable, neutral, and appropriate. Whatever decision is ultimately arrived at, I see no possible violation of WP:BLP in the proposal. Even if the material were derogatory or contentious - which I do not grant - it is properly cited and attributed to a reliable published source, and a single sentence could hardly be taken as disproportionate, given the length of the article. Good luck working it out. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Shock Doctrine, Anders Åslund, Lee Raymond
Can someone review the edits between me and Special:Contributions/99.157.98.136 on these three articles. Thanks. Troopedagain (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've mostly reverted the edits and offered some comments on the appropriate talk pages Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Antonie Ronnie Dixon
Since this article concerns a convinced murderer it's obviously at some risk of unbalanced editing. I've looked through this article and it seems okay other then perhaps the lengthy pop culture section which doesn't IMHO cause great BLP concerns. But as I'm fairly familiar with the case being a kiwi, it would be helpful if someone else could take a look Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, what's the question? It doesn't take a social worker or lawyer, etc. to see that there's nothing here that could be construed as unfair to the subject. I don't notice any jumping to conclusions. I do find it faulty, but not for BLP reasons. There are too many references I don't get, like "P". I suspect these references are "New Zealand things". An encyclopedia article is supposed to be written so that anybody fluent in the language can follow it. Hurmata (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that BLP policy is not just about jumping to conclusions. An article also needs to not give undue weight to any issue, become a WP:COATRACK or otherwise violate NPOV. The primary reason I brought this was because when I came across it, it read like this which I fixed myself. The was also an earlier dispute about whether to include links to or mention of his MySpace page (which received some media coverage) although that appears to have resolved itself and a lack in inline citations. From reading through the article, it appeared okay to me but again, since I have resonable knowledge of the case I wanted an additional eye from someone who'd never heard of it before which you've provided (thanks for that). While this isn't the place for more general issues, I agree the article needs work. As for the specific 'P' issue, originally it was a bit better  but an anon simplified the intro effectively removing the explaination of P and why it was relevant to the case. I've added it back  altho it clearly still needs work. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy change - remove "do no harm"
There is a proposal at WT:BLP to remove the The "do no harm" wording has been removed from BLP. BLP interested editors might want to contribute. It will be particularly helpful to have examples of where editors feel reference to "do no harm" has either helped or harmed a discussion Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-worded my comment since it didn't reflect the current situation. The "do no harm" wording has already been removed ~4 days ago Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support keeping "do no harm" in the BLP. WP:NPF is reason enough, it requires a conservative approach for a secondary source to assit in possible truth verification.  I am in a dispute with this issue right now.   Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Henllan
Just a simple question. I came across this page a few days ago, and made a couple of edits; on revisiting now, i wonder, does the identification of the football team as "special needs" children border on BLP questionable? The more so, perhaps, because there is a picture, with names, of the children. Cheers, LindsayHi 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it entirely - the exploits of a village's under 16 football team and a team list are not particularly encyclopedic material. Neıl   ☄   16:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards love child allegations
I speedily deleted this article under criterion G10 ("attack page") as a POV fork of John Edwards, also taking into consideration BLP concerns. In the interests of having some uninvolved BLP-conscious editors reviewing my actions here, it would be useful to have some feedback at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rajdeep Sardesai
A user is trying to add unsourced or thinly sourced content about this Indian journalist, editorializing about their role in an apparently ongoing political scandal within India. If good sourcing can be provided, at least some of this might actually belong in the article. But any assistance/extra eyes would be greatly appreciated to keep any such mention NPOV and within the requirements of BLP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Story of My Life (novel)
- BLP material related to a figure named in tabloid allegations involving a prominent U.S. politician. I and Mastcell have reverted different versions at different times. Now, an editor just back from a 2 year break - and whose contributions 2 years ago were neither wide ranging nor related - has added material with what he considers to be reliable sourcing. I think the sourcing is not up to snuff and it is a WP:COATRACK problem. Looking carefully; I see the added material as being negative about 3 different living people. I don't want to undo myself; I'd like some new eyes on the matter. GRBerry 02:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your desription of this issue is biased and misrepresents the facts. Author Jay McInerney said that Rielle Hunter is the basis for his principal character in Story of My Life, according to the cited reliable sources, not tabloids—there's even a photograph of McInerney and Hunter together at their interview, it's Hunter's website, and a cursory glance at the novel confirms details that Hunter wrote about herself. Author Jay McInerney's inspiration for his book is WP:VER and WP:RS—this is very relevant, certainly not WP:COATRACK, and has nothing at all to do with with John Edwards, no matter who the father of Rielle Hunter's child is. Okay, McInerney and Hunter are still alive, but how does the language of WP:BLP possibly sanction the censorship of these very relevant verifiable facts from a reliable source, the author and his subject themselves? AdamKesher (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. You're right, I am back after a two year break. I gave up editing Wikipedia last time because of a flagrant censorship issue; an ArbCom ruling ultimately sided with my arguments, but the energy required to fight Wikipedia's very obvious censorship problems was simply too demanding on my time. I saw this flagrant censorship issue, and thought I'd attempt an edit and some discussion to see if Wikipedia has improved since then. AdamKesher (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

John Hardy (jewelry)
The previous query on the content of the John Hardy page has been archived without really reaching a resolution. Could someone please revisit and make a final recommendation? Steveb482 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing it further, and reading the references, there seems to be material for 2 articles, the person and the firm. The first NYT article  is about the man specifically, though it isn't really independent, since he wrote it--but  the NYT did publish it very prominently , and the third  is independent, and seems equally about both. The WWD article and others on the firm's website show the notability of the jewelry. As for the allegations, they are about the firm., not him--at least based on present material. DGG (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gayatri Sinha, Art Critic
Gayatri Sinha is an art critic and independent curator. She studied at the Lawrence School, Sanawar and read English literature and Economics Calcutta University with a post graduation in Media Studies Social Psychology and Critical Appreciation, Bombay.

As an art critic and columnist she has written for the Indian Express (1981-1991), the Telegraph (1991-1994) and the Hindu (1995-2006). Her concerns as a writer devolved around creating a language that could create a theoretical framework for the complex elements that enter Indian praxis – classical and vernacular strains, social polity and critical theory. As an editor her work has been art historical and critical in drawing together scholars and critics to examine Indian art practices from the 1850s onwards.

Publications: 1. Amit Ambalal, Gallery Espace, New Delhi, 2008 2. India Public Places Private Spaces Contemporary Photography and Video Art Marg/The Newark Musuem, USA 2007 3. Himmat Shah an Unreasoned Act of Being Mapin/ Lundhumphries, 2007 4. Local/Global, Indian Women’s Art Practice in the 19th century ed. Drs Deborah Cherry and Janice Helland, Ashgate publishers.,UK, 2006. 5. Krishen Khanna :The Embrace of Love Mapin, 2005 6. The Art of Adimoolam Mapin, 2004 7. Indian art: An Overview [ed. A collection of 15 essays, 1850-2000] Rupa books, 2003. 8. A Critical Biography of Krishen Khanna, Vadehra art gallery, 2002 9. Woman/Goddess catalogue for photographic exhibition 1998 10. Expressions and Evocations: Contemporary Women Artists of India, ( ed ) Marg publications 1996

Forthcoming Publications

Essay on Gender Art and Nation for the project Art Nationalism and Modernity, India Japan and Mexico, 1860-1940. Funded by the AHRB, UK. Duke University Press

Art and Visual Culture in India 1857-2007. (edited) Marg – National Culture Fund – Bodhi Art.

Young Indian Artists Bodhi Art

Curated Exhibitions

1. Frame/Grid/Room/Cell, Bodhi Art, Mumbai 2007*

2. Public Places, Private Spaces: Contemporary Photography and Video Art in India, The Newark Museum, New Jersey (September 2007). Minneapolis Institute of Arts, US (2008) *

3 I fear, I believe, I desire, an exhibition of video installation, photography, sculpture and painting, Gallery Espace, New Delhi 2007*

4. Watching Me Watching India Contemporary photography in India, Fotographie Forum, Frankfurt (co-curator, Celina Lunsford) 2006. *

5. Kashmir, A Passage in Time, for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India at New Delhi, March 2005, on 50 years of Kashmiri social history.

6. Middle Age Spread Imaging India 1947 – 2004 April 2004, National Museum, New Delhi. *

7. After Dark, Sakshi gallery, Mumbai, March 2004. *

8. Cinema Still Apparao galleries, New Delhi 2002. *

9. In Conversation, an exhibition of artists’ sketch books, Gallery Espace, September, 2001.

10. Vilas: The Idea of Pleasure, Birla Academy, Mumbai, December, 2000. *

11. Photo-exhibition Woman/Goddess 1999-2000 Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore, Calcutta, Chennai, and New York 2001. *

12. The Self and the World, fifteen women artists at the National Gallery of Modern Art, April, 1997. *

13. National Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi curator of Indian women artists for Utsav, the Festival of India in Bangladesh, 1996.

accompanying catalogue 2008

1. Bapu, Saffronart Gallery, New York, October 2008 2. Mutant Beauty, Anant Art Gallery, Noida, November 2008 3. Degrees of Separation, Bodhi Art, Mumbai, November 2008

Talks 1. Cartographic Necessities : Contemporary Practices and the making of a brave new world, Asian Seminar, New Delhi, 2007 2. Pursuit of Dream, Contemporary Photography, Bodhi Art Gallery, Bombay, 2007 3. Contemporary Indian Photography ,Tate Modern, 2007 4. Elusive Divinity, Aspects of Devi Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi, 2007 5. South Asian Photography,Tate Modern, London, 2006 6. Gender and Nation, from Bharat to Bharat mata at the seminar Cult of the Goddess, National Museum, 2006 7. The Visibility of the Feminine Myth and Metaphor in Indian Women’s Art, The Tate, Britain Conference, 2005 8. Curatorial Practices – TRAIN workshop, St. Martins, London, 2005 9. Curatorial practices, TAC, International Seminar, New Delhi, January 2005 10. Time man, Space woman, CIHA conference, Canada 2004 11. Asian Modernities – Cubism in India, Japan Foundation symposium, Tokyo, 2004 12. The Visibility of women’s art practice, international seminar at the Tate Britain, 2003 13. Gender and National Narrative 1860- 1940, University of Sussex, 2002 14. Gender & Nationalism, Victoria and Albert Museum, 2002 15. Picasso & Women : Picasso Retrospective, Indo-French seminar at the National Museum, 2002 16. Interpreting the Goddess, Indo Center for Art and Culture, New York, 2001 17. Public art in Old Cities, New Cultures – an Indo-British seminar, British Council, New Delhi, 2000 18. The Concept of Indianness in Indian Art, National Gallery of Modern Art, Mumbai, March,1998 19. Dhvana series lecture, Four Indian Mythic Women – Sita, Savitri, Shakuntala and Draupadi and the concept of the ideal Feminine, Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi, 1994 20. Changing Criteria for Art Criticism, Art Critics Association, India International Centre, 1992 21. Ravi Varma and the feminine ideal of beauty, Arts and Crafts Forum, India International Centre, 1992 22. Contemporary Art Within and Without Institutions – state structures, galleries, artist’s projects, TAC` 23. The use of photography in Indian art 24. Clothing [1860-1940] 25. Nation, Identity, Protest, Lady Shri Ram College, New Delhi

Catalogues/Essays

1. Amit Ambalal, Gallery Espace, New Delhi, 2008 2. Dhruva Mistry- A Persistent Heroism, 2008 3. Cubism Resonances En Asia, Japan, Cultural Association, Paris, 2007. 4. Three Narratives of Displacement, Chittrovanu Mazumdar, Onexone Gallery, Dubai, 2007. 5. Husain: Lightening Tamarind Art, New York, 2007. 6. Andrew Burton, Monument to Transience, Newcastle, UK, 2007. 7. Timeline, essay on Nataraj Sharma, Bodhi Art, 2007. 8. Child Speak/Woman Song – Vasundhara Tewari, Vadehra Art Gallery, 2007 9. V. Ramesh, Gallery Threshhold, New Delhi, 2007 10. Contemporary Indian Photography, Made By Indians, Gallerie Enrico Navarra, Paris, 2007 11. Absence of an Architect, Gigi Scaria, Palette Art Gallery, New Delhi, 2007 12. Rameshwar Broota: Recent paintings, Vadehra Art Gallery, New Delhi, 2007 13. Gopi Krishna The Cave in the Metropolis, Pallete Art Gallery, 2006 14. Anjum Singh City in Progress, Sakshi Mumbai 2006 15. Local/Global, Indian Women’s Art Practice in the 19th century ed. Drs Deborah Cherry and Janice Helland, Ashgate publishers.,UK, 2006. 16. Manisha Parekh, Memory/Membrane, Sakshi, Mumbai, 2006 17. Anita Dube Bose Pacia Gallery New York, 2005 18. Anjolie Ela Menon, solo show, Gallery Artsindia, New York, ArtsIndia West, Palo Alto, 2004 19. Atul Dodiya: Artist/Arranger Bose Pacia Gallery, New York 2003 20. Anandajit Ray, Gallery Espace, New Delhi, 2003 21. Cinema Still : Apparao Gallery, India Habitat Centre, 2002 22. India’s Indira, Works by M.F. Husain, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, New Delhi, 2002 23. Yayati Unbound [paintings and sculptures by A. Ramachandran], Art Heritage, 2002 24. Rameshwar Broota : The Edge of Crisis – Shridharani Gallery, 2002 25. Gods and Others, Apparao Galleries, Madras, 2000 26. Vilas – The Idea of Pleasure, Birla Academy, Mumbai, December, 2000 27. Point-Counterpoint drawings by K.G. Subramanyan, A. Ramachandran, Arpita Singh, Manjit Bawa, Gallery Espace, April, 2000 28. Amitava Das : The Outsider, Sakshi Gallery, Mumbai, 2000 29. Latika Katt, British Council Queen’s Gallery, March, 1998 30. Gouache and Contemporary Indian Art, Gallery Art Motif, January, 1998 31. The Self and the World, National Gallery of Modern Art, 1997 32. Manu Parekh : Fragments of Life ARKS Gallery, London, 1997 33. Arpana Caur : Between Dualities, ARKS Gallery, London, 1997 34. Icons of Womanhood, recent paintings of Gogi Saroj Pal, Foundation for Indian Artists, Amsterdam, 1997 35. An exhibition of women artists, NGMA collection, Festival of India, Bangladesh, 1996 36. Latika Katt, Cymroza Art Gallery, Bombay, 1996 37. The Devices and Desires of Anupam Sud, Gallery Art Heritage, New Delhi, 1996 38. Installation Art in Contemporary India, Lalit Kala Quarterly on Sculpture, 1995 39. Works on Paper : Five Artists, Gallery Espace, 1995 40. India Songs : An essay on five women artists, Art and Asia Pacific Journal, Australia, 1995 41. Studies in Loneliness : The Paintings of Shamshad Husain, Art Heritage Journal no. 9, 1990

Awards:

1. Best curator award, India Habitat Centre, 2003. 2. University of Sussex and the London Institute Project Art Modernity and Nationalism India, Japan and Mexico, 1860-1940 [2002-2004]. 3. French government award to study contemporary French art  practice,        September 2000. 4. Ford Foundation award for the study of the treatment of the Goddess image in Contemporary India, 1998-2000. 5. British Council and the Charles Wallace Trust, The Enduring Image from the British Museum, August, 1997. 6. Senior Fellowship by the Department of Culture for a critical biography on     the artist Krishen Khanna (1995 -1997) 7. French Government invitation, Festival d’Avignon, 1995. 8. Department of Culture award for Representation of the Divine Feminine in Himachali Painting and Sculpture (1995). 9. British Tourist Authority award, London Arts Festival, 1994. 10. French Government award, Festival d’Automne, Paris, 1994. 11. British Council/Charles Wallace award, opening of the Joseph  Hotung Gallery of Asian Art at the British Museum, 1992. 12. French Government invitation, Festival D’ Avignon, 1991. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Sinha%2C_Art_Critic" Hidden category: Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayatrisinha (talk • contribs) 08:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And your question was? -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Luis Moreno-Ocampo
- The bio subject, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has recently been in the news for apparent inappropriate sexual advances towards a subordinate. The relevant wiki content has been continually expanded and tweaked, with references, by a number of accounts and IPs. One of the first added shares a name with the author of an article he uses as a citation, where he is described as "Doctoral candidate in international law at Stockholm University, previously law clerk at the ICC trial division in the Hague." He has not reappeared since I warned him of the apparent COI. The only editors who have touched the article since are all IPs:, which resolves to Stockholm, , which resolves to Uppsala University in Sweden, , Stockholm, , Stockholm University, and , Stockholm. Given that there is indeed a well-reported incident and the wiki content is pretty well-cited, I have limited myself to moving the content out of the lede to a new section, but I would appreciate another pair of eyes to re-evaluate given the BLP concerns and apparent COI and agenda-driven editing. Thanks, BanyanTree 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hedy Epstein
There are no words. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutrality GET! &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Flare up at this article and the associated talkpage about how to include criticism of the chap's work. Watchlisting/intervention by the uninvolved welcome. Skomorokh 22:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would revert all the way back to S3000. Since S3000's last edit on 2 Aug, there has been a crew of aggressive partisans of Taleb (assuming they *are* all different people) who either don't log in or don't bother to put any content on their user pages. Epistemeter's edits are grossly POV, and Piahiefner removed a warning tag. Administrators should step in, heads should roll. Hurmata (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Hurmata. The pro-Taleb editors keep fighting to exclude the reliably sourced criticism of Taleb's positions from the American Statistical Association. It is overrun by them. II  | (t - c) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Neal Boortz
has posted the following message on his user talk page along with an adminhelp template:

''I wish to have my page omitted from Wikipedia. There is a college professor named Preston Coleman who has faced repeated failures in his attempts to harass me over the content of my radio show. Now he contents himself with making repeated negative entries to my Wikipedia page. Since there seems to be no way to stop this childish man's antics, I would like to request that my profile be eliminated alltogether.

Thanks

Neal Boortz''

Since BLP isn't really my area of expertise, I figured this would be the best place to raise the issue. The individual he mentions is. – xeno  ( talk ) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also Neal Boortz controversies, as a spin off. --Stephen 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor Prestoncoleman has agreed to remove the main point of dispute, since the issue has received little news attention. I tried to clean up the controversy section. As far as the spin off article, this may be a POV fork and might be a candidate for AFD. I'll look at the contents and see what is worth including in the Boortz article. Morphh   (talk) 2:51, 07 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed a merger of the controversy article into the main one. No need for a POV fork.  But I don't think we can delete a page just because the subject doesn't like it. Oren0 (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as he's notable, no, we aren't going to delete it. There's really no reason to so long as we can clear out the libelous stuff. Possibly a topic ban on Prestoncolman from editing this article? L'Aquatique [talk  ]  07:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would seem reasonable. And just to note I tagged Neal Boortz controversies Mww113       (Talk)       (Review me!)      (Sign!) 15:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Gladwell McGown
The above story more or less checks out tho I can't find much more, & nothing rs about the outcome of the trial. Want advice on whether we actually should keep the article & if so only if it's in a more balanced form? Thanx in advance.--Bsnowball (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Joji Obara

 * - An editor has proposed deletion of the article, disputing information contained in it. Because this article is related to a person arrested in a rape-murder case, it should be investigated as a biography of a living person. Proposed deletion is unlikely to be the final disposition. Fg2 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Patrick T. McHenry
Dispute regarding NPOV and BLP standards with an external link. Link is a blog that does not meet Wikipedia standards. Ziegfest repeatedly reverts good faith edits. He appears to have a WP:SPA and leaves accusatory messages with his reverts--using blogs as a source for his claims. I have tried to resolve this here and here without success. Repeated revert: 18:20, 6 August 2008 18:20, 6 August 2008 These two accounts appear to be the same person: Ziegfest and 152.17.138.92

This page may need protection while this is worked out. --Ystava (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit log, he's been using three different accounts on the quest to remove this blog- including one that tried to add the blog laughably titled "McHenry Rocks" (http://mchenryrocks.blogspot.com/). Clearly, the above user is not viewing this issue from a fair perspective- while I have no affiliations with the blog, it is a legitimate anti-candidate PAC that has been featured in numerous newspapers in McHenry's district (the Hickory Daily Record and News@Norman). Every single thing on the blog is mirrored in the "Controversy" section, and it would be more detrimental to the overall perspective of the article if it were to be removed (or would Ystava's "McHenry Rocks" blogspot to be added", which is MUCH more problematic). I'd be glad to discuss this, but this is getting ridiculous- we need an admin to sort this out. --Ziegfest (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ziegfest is wrong as any admin will be able to see. I am not associated AT ALL with the other two user accounts. My IP is available to the admins. I am not affiliated with the blog mentioned either. This is ridiculous. An editor that only corrects one article with a clearly defined interest in editing one way that refuses to follow wiki guidelines has absolutely no place making these accusations. --Ystava (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob Herbert
- An editor added a rather large section detailing comments this journalist made in regards to a recent McCain advertisement on a television show calling the section 'Journalistic errors'. The section was very biased and violated numerous WP:BLP and WP:NPOV guidelines. I removed it a few times and was reverted each time and the editor in question only once responded to numerous requests for discussion. Another editor has kindly edited the section down and made it much more neutral, however I still very much doubt the notability of the comments he made and if they have any actual relevance to deserve a section that is almost half the size of the page. I placed a RFC on the talk page yesterday but haven't received a response, however given that this is a biography I thought I would place concern here as well. // NcSchu (Talk ) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no way that this one event is worth 1/2 of the article. I would say remove it completely until its notability is clear or condense it down to one sentence. CENSEI (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This same editor has been continuously reverting any edit to erase the information. Another anon user and myself have shortened the information and removed any bias, however it is uncertain (though predicted) whether these edits will be pointlessly reverted too. <font color="#660000">NcSchu (<font color="#FF9900">Talk ) 13:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Storme Aerison

 * - I was using the random article feature to find articles to clean up and came across this article. The article has lots of conclusions about bad behaviour and criminal activity, but doesn't seem to mention anything about any criminal convictions. It seems to need more than just clean up. // Suntag (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed most of the content and left the pieces that are supported by the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mystere incident
This appears to be heading into BLP related matters. Can comeone who is familiar with how we apply BLP take a look at the comment and the article content and help. -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell (writer)
A newbie editor Anon. keeps slandering (read outright lies) a living author and reversing my edits. He keeps insisiting that the author is a follower of a famous fascist which is absurd. Please see my edit reversal and advise this newbie before he harms the reputation of a living author.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John W. Dickenson
The many-year influence tree created by Graeme Henderson (GH) posits references that were deeply forwarded becasue of his threats in Australia and on the Net. He has initiated a biography on John W. Dickenson that forwards an untenable rip at mechanical invention in hang gliding. Very strong Wiki editors fully conversant with NPOV will find that there is in play a slant that steals credit to old and new hang glider inventors via the GH tree of articles and references to his play over John W. Dickenson. The lead focus is not really on the biography but on a thesis of invention. And the play on invention cannot occur on the biography. So, Wikipedia is risking much on letting ride "On 1963, Dickenson invented the aircraft that became the modern hang glider." All of the mechanical invention in what he crafted was in public domain. All function, all mechanical principles, the full wing, the 1908 hang glder triangle control frame, the control methods. To let such theme focus ride in a veiled biography is to hurt hang glider history, hurt many inventors of the past and present. The deep effort over GH over-claim has been played out in OZ Report. Please note that FAI rubber-stamps what comes out of the Australian hang gliding org; and delve into how the error-filled paragraph of the diploma occurred via GH legal and loud push threats in Australia ...and you will begin to sense how a GH-free biography would be the only hope for having a neutral POV biography on JD. I must step aside from the controversy as I care too much about invention history for hang gliders, my life's work. Modern hang gliders are founded on inventors prior to JD. The format of modern hang gliders occurred before JD. To let the GH single thesis ride is to rip at the heart and soul of the creative invention body in hang gliding. Breslau 1908, the swing seats galore from 1800s on, the stiffened flexible wing hang gliders and aircraft ...prior to JD. The Paresev 1A wing, the Pamer four control systems, and much more. Designers of modern hang gliders are not referencing JD; they reference Breslau 1908 cable-stayed control bar, the Spratt cable-stayed control wing, the full of Rogallo's NASA givings galore, the Palmer tree of firsts, and their own inventions. Wishing Wikipedia the best on this. Joefaust (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dana Milbank
A dispute currently exists on the Dana Milbank article as how to incorporate a recent “scuffle” Milbank had over an article he wrote 8 days ago. The original version I modified found here was over half the article, a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. I have cut it down to one sentence, much more inline with the articles size IMO however there are other editors who believe that this one article Milbank wrote deserves a disproportionate amount of space. Feedback would be appreciated on this. CENSEI (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine as "pseudoscience"
An editor has repeatedly removed a infobox describing Orthomolecular medicine as pseudoscience from the article and has posted this on the article talkpage. People interested in a source for this discussion should read Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience, which specifically discusses the difference between science and pseudoscience using examples such as homeopathy, creationism and orthomolecular medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * diff of source of the following This is a serious WP:BLP issue for several living doctors, the box should stay deleted until any extraordinary (and scientifically deprecable) actions occur to the contrary here. Are there hot medical and scientific controversies? Sure, some the best PR pharma dollars can buy. A pseudoscience? No - the subjects are testable, the persons involved are qualified, peer published MDs and/or PhDs, with ongoing testing and clinical observation. I might note that the cranky sources of many long running quotes (and popular misinformation on this subject) against orthomolecular medicine have (1) suffered a number of legal defeats on their attacks including for their lack of credibility, (2) persistently spread scurrilous statements about OMM that would constitute gross scientific misconduct on any honest academic standard (e.g. making conclusory statements about a subject having repeatedly used confounded tests on a subject in the range 0 or 0.1x - 2x instead of on 10x-300x for *several* variables with known threshold phenomena, in an identifiably nonobjective manner), (3) are increasingly being recognized as such, e.g. "markedly biased" by medical science authorities at a national level, and (4) the public reversal of scientific position on some related issues, by national level medical science authorities (e.g. vitamin C). Not only are OMM recommendations testable (and subject to improved knowledge, hence not PS), in the recent past, various national medical bodies have belatedly adopted previous orthomolecular range recommendations for folic acid, fish oil and vitamin D for general population and vitamin C is progressing, slowly (as well as Hoffer's historical mega-niacin for CVD). Conventional multivitamin-multimineral makers have now widely copied the iron free supplements OMM sources provided decades earlier. Also I noticed that one of the doctors that you included has been pretty legally active before.  This "PS" agenda is politicalization & attack that needs to stop.--TheNautilus (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On BLP grounds? I am not sure any comment could do that justice..."WTF" does comes to mind though.  But anyway, if good sources show reasonable consensus that it is pseudoscience (and it seems they do), put the tag back on.  The remover seems not to understand many things both about pseudoscience as well as Wikipedia.  And while it's not exactly coherent, might there be legal threats in there?Baccyak4H (Yak!)
 * Since I do the heavy technical lift at OMM for references and accurate content, where Tim repeatedly shows speculation, not any knowledge much less RS, (one of today's), in conventional terms. The answer above seems uninformed about OMM and generally prejudicial.  The entire conversation above seems dismissive and designed to railroad or intimidate me by ignoring the fact *I* have provided the technical background to the article while some are there simply to POV deprecate the subject, remove accurate description and sabotage or trash the article with known "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kauffman, 2002), "severe...systematic biases" (Hufford, 2003) and "markedly biased" (Hemila, p64(2006) comments ala Quackwatch and its affliated authors spreading gross misrepresentations.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a concern I've raised with this editor before, see their talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim appears to try to deliberately misunderstand and miscontrue my answers at every turn. I don't have time and WP probably doesn't have enough electrons to parse every error and subreption. I have felt being (pseudo)"legally" undermined, below others' detection limits for months where AGF has been a suckerpunch on me.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This editor has continued to edit-war over this, claiming it is a "BLP issue" eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely there are BLP problems, attacking living individuals and their profession on barest pretext of RS sources for problems that I have spelled out in RS referenced detail at OMM Talk. The negative sources whether published in high impact journals, reflect simple aspersions & innuendo of a few lines by authors known to be highly biased (now) and not based any presentation of accurate data or peer reviewed results. Some articles that claim substantial data have later been heavily contradicted by later authorities or shown to be intrinsically flawed (total or irrelevant garbage).


 * Was the paper published anywhere? It says it was prepared for a Centre, but it doesn't look like it received any peer review. It certainly doesn't merit including the "former and current proponents" as psuedoscientists, because it doesn't even mention them, and devotes only a couple sentences offhandedly to "megavitamin therapy" rather than orthomolecular medicine per se. The problem with the template is that it states that several scientists and doctors, including Linus Pauling, are pseudoscientists. These sorts of bold claims should be attributed. LP is dead, but it's still unprofessional to slide in that dig. The others are alive. Seems to be BLP problems. II  | (t - c) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the BLP policy to get around neutral point of view, verifiability, and WP:FRINGE is extremely lame - not to mention textbook tendentious editing. Skinwalker (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been through several discussions that have concluded Orthomoecular Medicine although mired in flak from the Medical-Pharm-Govt complex, is not a pseudoscience, the largest attack, and discussion, ca August 2006.  That a number pro QW editors alight on OMM to trash the article, delete and ignore RS medical and scientific sources that reverse or seriously modify the misrepresentative POV violates policy.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the infobox itself should be edited. Would removing the "proponents" data help? That info seems extraneous there anyhow. Given the rigors of WP:PSCI, we should instead be listing the critics who support that this concept is pseudoscientific. That way it is clear to the reader where this point-of-view is coming from, and it makes it clear to us, the editors, just how this topic conforms to WP:PSCI (and whether or not this label and consequent infobox should rightfully be there). Currently, the infobox only references one critic (Beyerstein) - which alone may not be enough to categorize this subject as either an "Obvious Pseudoscience" or a "Generally Considered Pseudoscience". Make sense? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sourcing of the individual articles, not the infobox itself, should guide inclusion in the box. The articles on Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer, and Matthias Rust are each suitably referenced per WP:PSCI, or at the very least to demonstrate 1) that they advocated OM, and 2) that the medical community disapproves of their advocacy of OM, a demonstratable pseudoscience.  The articles on Julian Whitaker and Archie Kalokerinos do not contain suitable references to even show notability - I would recommend these for AFD or stubbification since they are badly sourced puff pieces.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * THis is not really a BLP discussion, so perhaps we should move it elsewhere - but should not the OMM article contain suitable references which indicate the subject is either an "Obvious Pseudoscience" or a "Generally Considered Pseudoscience"? I don't think the read should be expected to go to associated biography pages for confirmation. Currently the OMM article only cites Beyerstein  - in the entire article. Is no other source necessary to comply with WP:PSCI? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss  00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should warn the editor that because there is no consensus to treat it as a BLP issue, the 3RR exception does not apply and they therefore need to establish consensus for their edits and are subject to blocking for edit warring. Wikidemo (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done so with this warning. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:10, 9 ugust 2008 (UTC) They replied:


 * diff Thank you for your concern, I am not in violation of 3RR. I have cited a clear WP:BLP problem, and some editors appear to be there to push a clique's QW et al POV to deprecate not accurately describe. The QW POV that is long demonstrated at Orthomolecular medicine Talk to not be science based at all, much less current medical science, despite vociferous claims of expertise or "mainstream" something. (Something, not science, the persistent, multivariable, multi-order of magnitude missed inputs assure that, where Pauling also cited the claimed replication, misinterpretation & lack of full range testing as "fraudulent" and the recent NIH & Hemila papers back up the basis of his point.)
 * Okay, they've been warned. They can take their BLP argument up with the blocking administrator if they will not stop edit warring.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing some key points here, starting with the RS science and BLP parts. My understanding of BLP was that it was conservative, here it is promiscuously based on incredibly thin, obsolete, unqualified sources by, or based on, known unreliable sources spreading misrepresentations shown to be fraudulent by a Nobelist and now partially acknowledged by NIH.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've already stated, the paper is not published, and it is used to state that living doctors and scientist, as well as a dead Nobel Laureate, are pseudoscientists. Find a better source. SELFPUB can never be used to make claims about third-parties, especially things this sensitive. There are clear, and major, BLP concerns. II  | (t - c) 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tucker Max . His employee uses libel to cancel all properly sourced criticism.
McJeff has repeatedly negated all sourced criticism of his Tucker Max. Mcjeff identifies himself as an employee of tucker max. He refuses to propose and changes and engage in a meaningfull discussion of correct edits and procedures. Please notes that he has been warned before for engaging in this tactic.

I am a new user so I do acknowledge that my first edits were incorrect. Even as I have asked for ancillary help and advice Mcjeff has just "undid" them with no constructive criticism. Other than to say that somehow Tucker's own quoted words are not reliable.. nor those of Fox news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharon42 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to take this to the "conflict of interest noticeboard" - that's where they deal with self-interested editors. I haven't looked at your situation but you might want to review WP:RS about what's considered "reliable sources".  Fox news is reliable when it's in news mode, but not when it's in editorial mode - not just fox, but New York Times or anyone else.  If it's solid news reporting of a fact, then that's reliable.  If it's somebody's allegation or personal view in an editorial or debate show, no.  If you do decide to take your report to that other board let us know so we can close this one down to avoid having a "fork" of two active reports on the same subject.  Also please be sure to sign your contributions to talk pages and notice boards by adding four tildes at the end ( "~" ).  Best,  Wikidemo (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to comment on this. First of all, I am not an employee of Tucker Max.  Secondly, I've been trying to explain to the complaining user that his desired edits are a flagrant violation of WP:BLP, but he's not listening.  He's also unfamiliar with policies such as WP:OR.  I'm trying to explain things to him since he's new, but he does keep inserting his policy-violating edits into the article. I'm open to advice on how to deal with this situation - I believe I'm acting in accordance with BLP, but if I'm not I'll desist immediately. McJeff (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. As of now we are settling this on the talk page. Please shut down this line of complaint if that is allowed. aharon42 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Terren Peizer
SPA's and IPs - probably all the same, two SPAs blocked for socking - see Suspected sock puppets/Inshiningarmor have been persistently vandalizing this article by removing cited material and removing citations, at times leaving the material in and replacing valid cites to Forbes.com and major newspapers with fact tags, and making false statements about the unfindability of citations online. (The article was well referenced, but with very few links, even when they existed in online archives) He/they are trying to introduce new material, negative but mostly not too badly sourced, and are perhaps cutting some fat out, but insist on vandalizing the article at the same time, and have made seriously negative BLP talk comments. (I looked at the article after a seeing a prod; the SPA and sock & IPs have repeatedly speedied and prodded it, after deleting almost all content, and nominated it simultaneously for two AfD's.) Any help with this would be welcome; (s)protection may be necessary, the user account has been blocked for one week.John Z (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you should be blocked as well for repeatedly reverting the article back to improperly sourced material, and placing personal attacks in your edit summary. As stated below, a total of 10 links were added, along with the pertinent information from their proper sources, so rather than reverting the much needed clean up and having to add back these proven facts, you should stick to the facts and add additional ones you can prove from the previous poorly written biography. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

David Barrie
Hello, can someone with the relevant experience and expertise take a look at David Barrie and User:Mrdavidbarrie and advise this user as appropriate? I suspect this page is a candidate for speedy deltion, but I'm not too sure. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | <font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk 19:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should be deleted. He's a veteran producer (and maybe director too?) of documentaries. That in itself doesn't seem notable enough. The passage about one of his works was the inspiration for some minor film seems to be a desperate attempt to make him seem notable. Most of the article, e.g., the current second paragraph, reads like a resume for him. Hurmata (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've heard of this guy. I'm a bit busy right now, but I'll see if I can dig up additional sources. At minimum this is enough of a claim of notability that the article should go through AfD rather than speedy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion, or even AFD in my view.  There are several significant claims of notability, as well as multiple independent sources attesting to them.--Slp1 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Terren Peizer Article/Nonsense
Hello, this message is for the experts here at Wikipedia. Can you please take a look at the article on Terren Peizer and verify the clean up of it? I personally think the clean up was valid and see no reason why a few others (particularly John Z) keep trying to revert back to the prior sensationalized biography which was heavily "peacocked" and included unverified/questioned sources, which cannot compare to the ones recently added and validated online. In contrast, people keep removing facts from the related article Hythiam, facts which were also reliably sourced online. Personally, I think either one of the articles should be deleted or they should be merged into one. This fairly unknown person (Peizer) is one of millions of businessmen in the world, yet somehow one or two people feel that he is relevant. Thanks for your time. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the total of 10 properly sourced links added recently, this article looks better now than it was before. Therefore, I see no further reason why John Z, Jay Z, whatever keeps reverting the article back to unreliable sources, removing validated ones, and will report him for vandalism if he continues to do so. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that the IP considers anything that can't be found on the Internet an unreliable source, which is in considerable divergence from our policies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Far Cry (film)
- There have been a couple of derogatory comments by anonymous IPs in August 2008 about the director. I removed them, but I was wondering if there needs to be oversight due to libel concerns. Thanks. // Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just had to roll back yet another derogatory comment. Can someone please answer about removing these comments from the page history altogether? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Strickland
- This article has multiple issues. I believe it needs to be checked for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP violations. // Thanks John Sloan (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it up a little bit. However, looking through the original version, while I agree with the maintenance tags that were placed, I couldn't find any OR, NPOV, or BLP violations. Could you point to a specific example? Artichoker [ talk ]  23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that John Sloan was referring to additions such as which have been made a few times in recent days. CIreland (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also, I just realized part of the article was a copyvio of this site. I removed the offending content. Artichoker [ talk ]  23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply here - John Sloan (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Derek Acorah
Could someone take a look at this article and see if it still breaches BLP? It was in blatant violation but I have recently made some heavy edits to it to improve POV and removed anything that could be perceived as libellous. I believe it is now made clear that any controversy surrounding this person is based on notable, cited opinion. Please also check the paragraph that has been commented out (at the end of the controversy section). I didn't want to remove the notice on the talk page myself, being the one who made the edits. Please state on the talk page if any further work needs to be done? Thanks in advance for your input. <font color="#dc5f02" >ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 13:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)
Since Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive46, the problems have continued. Of the editors previously listed: New editors are:
 * - has been warned for an edit made after a block
 * - has been blocked
 * - warned - vandal/SPA that may be and/or
 * - SPA - warned and blocked
 * - SPA - warned
 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - not sure what to make of this long-time editor's single contribution to the talk page, but it is nearly identical to what other editors have written.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.

--Ronz (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - appears to be BrendaBeller - SPA - warned.
 * - appears to be 96.224.47.239 - SPA - warned.
 * - SPA - blocked.
 * The latest sockpuppets have been blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kaufmann
- Is it appropriate, in a BLP of a journal's editor, to include an online-publisher/content-aggregator of that journal's characterisation of its collection as "major religion and theology journals", from that online-publisher/content-aggregator's own press release? Edit introducing this material; Press Release; Google Scholar search of the journal in question // <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There must be some mistake or misunderstanding. We are talking about the American Theological Library Association. What they say about theological journals is significant. We are talking about the single word "important" (their selection criteria) they used in their own press release about adding to their own collection, which includes the academic journal Dialogue and Alliance. The publisher of Dialogue and Alliance is the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. The two are completely independent. If the American Theological Library Association refers to something in the sphere of theological writing as "important", that is noteworthy. Are you confusing part of this with a different reference? -Exucmember (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are talking about ATLA, whose relationship to Dialogue and Alliance is that of publishing it online as part of their collection (i.e. content-aggregation) of 117 journals. If you wish to argue that this journal which, by your own admission, is (self-)published by Kaufmann's own IRFWP (rather than by a serious academic publisher), is a serious "academic journal" (in spite of appearing to be largely ignored by the academic community), then I would suggest that you provide corroboration. Incidentally, what is its hard-copy circulation? What major seminaries include it in their library? The labels "important" and "major religion and theology journals" was never applied to D&A specifically, the closest is it being described as one of "four impressive titles". Such hyperbole is to be expected from press releases, that does not mean that it should be included in BLPs. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is what the article said before you deleted the quoted phrase:
 * He is editor in chief of the journal Dialogue and Alliance,[5] which in 2005 was added to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) ATLASerials online collection of "major religion and theology journals".
 * Here is what the article said after you deleted the quoted phrase:
 * Kaufmann is editor in chief of IRFWP's journal Dialogue and Alliance,[17] which in 2005 was added to the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) ATLASerials online.
 * I misremembered that the word you are describing as "such fulsome praise" was "major", not "important".


 * It really doesn't matter whether the American Theological Library Association is the only organization that provides online access to Dialogue and Alliance or whether they are one of hundreds of libraries and/or library associations that provide such access to it as part of their collections. An argument to exclude their phrase "collection of 'major religion and theology journals'" because it is not trustworthy (even though it comes from the American Theological Library Association) - "liable to include hyperbole" according to you - is certainly the most bizarre argument I have ever heard in my years of editing Wikipedia. I honestly don't know what to say. -Exucmember (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue and Alliance is not listed in the ARTS & HUMANITIES CITATION INDEX - RELIGION JOURNAL LIST of Thomson Reuters, the major publisher of journal impact factors & Journal Citation Reports. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 06:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Running Publish or Perish on D&A ' s 294 papers it has published, it has only 22 citations (for 0.07 citations per paper). In comparison a run of the first 1000 papers (the maximum number it can handle) over the last decade from journals with 'theology' in their title, yielded an average of 0.42 citations/paper. This would indicate that D&A's impact is well below average in the field. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Katherine Hanson
Only source for the article is 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Cited repeatedly. Durova Charge! 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should speedy this as an attack page. Thoughts anyone? Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like some other article I have been recently working on .... perhaps they should be speedy deletes as well? CENSEI (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to discuss the matter in a seperate section for that article. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Phil Chalmers
Two-sentence stub on a UK politician, with the second sentence focusing on his arrest for patronizing a prostitute. The info about the arrest seems to be accurate, but it might be undue weight for a figure of marginal notability anyway. The only reason I didn't kill it was that I don't know enough about UK politics to be sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP, I have removed the statement which was unsourced. Also added notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not unsourcable, though - I provided a link to a RS in my post above. My question was more about whether it should just be deleted outright as a coatrack. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jason Leopold
Would anyone be so kind as to keep an eye on this page, which was recently unprotected (a much needed unprotect). I was previously threatened with some legal action in regards to previous interactions with the IP editor, which I believe to be Jason himself. So, I am attempting to not edit the article in general, but the article is still in its scrubbed version, and the IP is once again editing. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Arkon (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nedra Pickler
- Pickler is an AP reporter who has covered presidential politics and has attracted some attention from some hyper-partisan individuals. At one point in time, this article was in such bad shape, that it was deleted as an attack page. Now, nearly 1/3rd of this article is criticism and is sole sourced to Media Matters for America. If the criticism of Pickler was truly notable, surely there would be more sources than MMFA and these sources would also appear in more mainstream media, but there are none and none are cited. Using a hyper partisan source like MMFA for 1/3rd of the article (and that’s actually less than before) constitutes a violation of WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:BLP. I would think that the most this information deserves is 1 sentence, if that. // CENSEI (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did a lot of editing of this BLP, prompted by learning of it by the above notice. I laughed over some dork(s) inserting lots of trivia about her early childhood. I mostly concur with the complaint. It is a violation of policies to construct an article that just echoes controversies transpiring in blogs. None of the non-blog content cited so far bears on the meat of the Wikipedia article, namely, criticisms of the subject. Lesson: if you want to find out why Democrats find Nedra Pickler a disgrace to her profession, so far you'll have to find the answer in blogs. I fault the actions of a Wikipedia administrator, User:Gamaliel who does not seem to share this assessment, who has edited the article today. The Washington Post reporting that blogs have complained about Nedra Pickler does not make the blog criticism about her notable. Every published report touching on the presidential election is going to draw complaint from somebody. I may yet propose this article for deletion. Hurmata (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore my edit summary there, since I thought you were deleting some things because they were from NY Times and Time magazine blogs. Instead, if I am reading your comments here correctly, you are contending that the mainstream coverage is irrelevant because the source of the criticism is "blogs". If the mainstream media deems criticism relevant, regardless of its source, then it is legitimate material according to WPLRS. RS does not prohibit us from using material that has ever touched a blog, it is merely designed to prohibit some crank blog with an audience of three from being used as a source for an encyclopedia article.  Now there are legitimate issues, certainly, with using this material, and we can discuss (as I have repeatedly urged Censei to do) wording, length, etc., and I have trimmed that section down myself, but we simply should not delete wholesale all legitimate criticism of a journalist's work. Sure, any journalist will be criticized, but criticism that is discussed in mainstream media and from legitimate watchdog groups should be discussed in any neutral article, otherwise it just becomes little more than their company's promotional biography. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The administrator counterfactually invokes "criticism that is discussed in the mainstream media". The Washington Post article Gamaliel is alluding to fails to discuss criticism of Nedra Pickler; it merely makes a flabby mention that she has drawn criticism, then gives her boss the spotlight for a retort of typical self serving puffery from the journalism profession: "we're [criticized] from the right and the left. That puts us right in the middle where we want to be." To look at it another way: the news that a politics reporter "draws criticism" from partisans "is not news". It is not sufficient to invoke a "reliable source" to justify an edit in Wikipedia when the sentences in the "reliable source" barely touch on the thrust of the proposed edit. Hurmata (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Expand my preceding comment. (1) The other commenter is so careless -- "if the mainstream media deems criticism relevant" -- Rutenberg at WaPo WAS NOT deeming the criticism of Pickler relevant, just reporting it's existence! Besides, Ruttenberg's whole article has a tone of disdain toward criticism by bloggers of his colleagues in the MAINSTREAM media. (2) You seem to misunderstand the rationale for blog policy. I am not convinced that "blogs at mainstream media" count. A blog is a genre where the writer can say almost whatever they want, free of the strict journalistic standards. It's not edited. IF the blogger at a mainstream news source were to write something that drew a lawsuit or a severe condemnation from organs of authority for the industry, then the blogger could face discipline -- after the horse is out of the barn. Hurmata (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just scrutinized the Web site of Media Matters for America (and verified that Wikipedia has an article on them -- at first my computer was slow to find it). I am not convinced that Media Matters for America is a reliable source: that it is not a blog and that it does exercise editorial control. Hurmata (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (1)I have checked all links in the article. Three or four inherited links were dead or unverifiable, so I searched for alternate sources and succeeded in some cases. I also copy edited for sophistication (e.g., not "McCain", but "Republican presidential candidate John McCain"). I would like to note that Talking Points Memo (TPM) should be added to the list of RS. Although it's partisan, it also established itself in 2007 as a serious news gathering and investigating outfit by single handedly driving the US attorney firings scandal. In a famous incident, a Time magazine reporter publicly ate crow once the scandal was confirmed by the MSM (mainstream media). This journalist wrote that he had pooh poohed TPM when they started hammering on the story, but that now he was declaring them to be right in ascribing high importance to the matter. Between Columbia Journalism Review, Media Matters for America, and Talking Points Memo, I think there are enough RS to retire the original complaint.
 * (2)To better focus a previous objection I made today: the NYT puff piece for the MSM by Jim Rutenberg is not a valid source (that's not saying, "the NYT is unreliable", but "this one article is invalid") because it did not report specific criticisms leveled at Nedra Pickler. Instead it reported two frustrated epithets that have been hurled at her, and epithets can be criticisms, but Rutenberg didn't dignify any specific claim against her by repeating it. If you are going to put in a BLP that somebody's professionalism is being criticized, cite specific acts they committed or specific utterances/statements and cite specific objections to those acts or utterances. Hurmata (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don’t believe that is so. At issue is the fact that this is still 1/3rd of the articles content, which is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Surely if the criticisms were truly that notable, then we could find them in less partisan places then MMFA and TPM. If all we can find is one article in the WAPO about this, then perhaps its not worth 1/3rd of the article. Gamaliel is a wrong in his assessment of why we don’t allow blogs: we don’t allow them because there is no editorial oversight, not because some crank might be writing there.


 * From WP:BLP
 * "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article."


 * Allowing 1/3rd of the article to be critics from MMFA is at the heart and sole of what the above paragraph is about. CENSEI (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both you and Hurmata are missing the point. A blog written by a professional journalist from a reputable mainstream media publication is subject to the same oversight and standards as any part of the publication, and thus qualifies as a reliable source. We can't simply say it is inherently unreliable because someone calls it a blog. I see that Hurmata has some issues with the content of a particular source, which is fine, and that is the sort of thing we should be doing instead of just writing off whole categories of arbitrarily chosen sources. But lest this comment be all criticism, I pretty much concur with most of the things he's written here otherwise. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you continue to not address the point that a biographical article which relies one ultra partisan source is in violation of WP:WEIGHT and need serious attention and revision. We most certainly can say that its unreliable because it’s a blog because that’s what the policy states. If you disagree with this, go get the WP:BLP policy changed, don’t dismiss it. CENSEI (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about here, since the article relies on many sources, including the New York Times, the Columbia Journalism Review, and the Associated Press. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don’t have any idea what I am talking about, then you really have not paid attention to the article and should stop reverting me without discussing your edits. The sources: AP, NY Times and the AP are all primary sources on Pickler's articles, they have nothing to do with the criticism. None of the above sources you listed, with the exception of the CJR (whose critical comments are also questionable at best), have indicated any controversy over Pickler’s reporting. In fact all criticism in the article is sourced to MMFA, and violates WP:WEIGHT. CENSEI (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Other sources in that section include the Weekly Standard, the Columbia Journalism Review, and Talking Points Memo. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you now stating that the material from the AP and NY Times were not appropriate sources for indicating a controversy? In addition, the Weekly Standard does not mention Pickler, so wouldnt that be Original Research? CENSEI (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating any such thing and I don't see how you could have gotten that idea from what I wrote. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, using primary sources from a Pickler to indicate controversy on Pickler and using a secondary source which does not mention Pickler is not original research? It appears to me to be the textbook definition of the term. CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, for the record now, how does 1/3rd of the article's content being critical and sourced from MMFA not violate WP:WEIGHT. Please be clear and concise, as this is the heart of the dispute. CENSEI (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think it is a little long and trimmed a bit of it myself yesterday. I would suggest discussing the issue on the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The criticism section is still 1/3rd of the article, you removed one sentence. Are you saying that the criticism section is still too long, or that it was too long before you removed the one sentence? According to Wikipedia policy, if this is a BLP issue, no discussion is needed to remove it. Are you now saying that there is a BLP issue with the article? CENSEI (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's clear to me that you are not trying to have a conversation, you are just trying to twist my words around. If you want to collaborate on the article, great, but that doesn't appear to be your goal here. So I'm going to get back to editing and leave you to argue with someone else. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not assuming good faith here. I am trying to make you understand that you have contradicted yourself here, several times now, and that you are not addressing the primary questions: is this a vioaltion of WP:WEIGHT and if so why did you revert me? CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, what she means is instead of trying to come to some agreement, you're playing gotcha and trying to pin her into some claim of being wrong. That isn't assuming bad faith, that's just a poor approach to collaboration.Yeago (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a few tweeks to the article to give a more neutral tone. The real problem is that Obama supporters are complaining about her (in blogs etc.) because she may be for McCain, all a part of the presidential campaign. I don't think she would be notable otherwise. Redddogg (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW it was mentioned on the article's talk page that attacks against a professional woman journalist would probably not be a good thing for Obama's campaign. Redddogg (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle
There is currently an on-going debate on the Kathleen Battle article regarding it's presentation of her dismissal from the Metropolitan Opera in 1994. Concerns about the article's neutrality and possible failure to meet the standards for the Biographies of living persons have been raised by User:Hrannar (also edits as 129.74.18.183) who proceded to delete several portions of that section of the article on July 20, 2008. This action was contested by myself, User:nrswanson, and later User:Rickterp. Another participant in the discussion, User:Voceditenore remained neutral. I personally felt that a delicate balance had already been achieved and Hrannar's edits, rather than fixing a neutrality problem, created one as well as inacting a strong amount of censorship (including refusing to allow the inclusion of facts from major news sources like the New York Times) to the article. I believed this because a long and tedious discussion about the presentation of the Met firing with multiple editors had already occured between February 2007 and November 2007 (see talk page archives) during which time that section of the article was highly unstable. Eventually the editors worked together to achieve a balanced presentation resulting in no major or disputed changes from late November 2007 to early July 2008. This was the first and only time any stability was seen in that part of the article since it's inception. Hrannar's edits, however, have undone the fruit of that discussion and have potentially caused an NPOV unbalance and in my view inflicted a high degree of unethical censorship that goes beyond a reasonable interpretation of BLP guidelines. Hrannar obviously contests this view, saying that the former agreed upon verion did not meet BLP guidelines (note Hrannar has a small edit history which is mostly made up of edits to the Kathleen Battle article). This resulted in an edit war until I sought help at both the opera wikiproject and the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This resulted in an informal mediation by User:Kleinzach between myself and Hrannar which has since proved unfruitful, largely because an agreed upon interpretation of BLP guidelines, WP:NPOV, and WP:Censor can not be reached between Hrannar and myself. Therefore, I have taken this discussion here. I believe both of us are seeking input as to what can reasonably be included in the article and are willing to work amicably with whatever is decided here. Perhaps a community discussion here would benefit us more than a detached mediator since neither of us has had tons of experience editing sensitive topics and neither of us is likely to give in to the other. I have done my best to summarize the long events here and appologize if any bias of mine has crept into the summary. I am doing my best to keep neutral here. For more details see the Kathleen Battle talk page. Nrswanson (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Further helpful info. To help chart this sections history, here is the version that was stable for several months in it's last version before Hrannar's edits: 23:38, 2 July 2008. and an earlier version 01:49, 22 November 2007. If you compere them they are virtually identical and if you look at the article history there were no edit wars/conflicts between November 22, 2007 and July 2, 2008 which again was the only period of stability in this article. This is not to say that the stable version was necessarily perfect and can not be changed. It just merely points out the fact that there was a significant amount of consensus on this version for some time.

Also, both of us have created different prefered presentations of the event in user space. My prefered version is at User:Nrswanson/sandbox and Hrannar's is at User:Hrannar/sandbox/k battle. I appologize for this being so long and I look foreword to everyone's input. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Response -- Invitation for facts speaking for themselves
Thanks to those who get involved. It is appropriate that you read nrswansons account and assertions above. However I kindly ask that before you make a decision, to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle ; and
 * 1. Read the talk page discussions here:
 * 2. Read the history of the logs beginning around January 2007.

I think that then, you can best judge for yourself how "fruitful discussions" were and how editors talked this out and made a presentation that, as Nrswanson states, "we" were satisifed was neutral. By the way, you can see my contributions are noted as Hrannar and 129.74.18.183 (before I understood how to properly sign in.); and you will also see nrswansons.

BACKGROUND INFO. About a year ago, after an edit war and editors just sort of stopped editing the section per recommendation to cool off, but did not agree nor stated anything close to suggesting we are satisfied with the neutrality, that I was aware of. In addition, Voceditenore made his suggestions for actions on making this a more neutral page (beginning of see talk page) and the editing stopped, but there was no confirmed statements of satisfaction or confirmation that this was NPOV. Later I actually tried to start implemented his recommendations including the chronological subheading (for career years only) that he suggested. And recently, he made another suggestion (see 1st suggestion) regarding text discussing dismissal that was his attempt to take the perspective of both editors (and the subject) into account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Battle#Another_attempt_at_reaching_consensus


 * Just a heads up that history log is misleading, in that several edits done, are not openly noted in the comment line. Occassionally, major edits, that support the Volpe/Metropolitan action are not noted: For example, note the edit that nrswanson did on on June 22, 2007 at 5:11,where he states that he is "rephrasing for professional language: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=139829673&oldid=139829248

ORIGINAL Some, though not all, of the other music professionals who have worked with Battle have viewed her as lacking appropriate professionalism. One of these was former Metropolitan Opera General Magager Joseph Volpe, who fired her from an engagement to perform the lead in La Fille du Regiment in 1994

NRSWANSONS and his "Rephrasing for professional language" A perfectionist in her own work, Battle became more and more difficult to deal with as her career moved forward. Some felt that her demands were becoming unreasonable, and her behavior became erratic. These difficulties came to public attention when she was dismissed from the Metropolitan Opera in 1994 for "unprofessional conduct." by former Metropolitan Opera General Magager Joseph Volpe.

IMHO, this is a change of content, not just whether this is professional language or not.

Please, just a heads up also, editors have inserted their editing, sometimes negative, that history comments to not reflect at all. There is just a blank. Here is another example. However, the editor wrote this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=144071074&oldid=144070720 ORIGINAL


 * ABOUT CONCENSUS and CIVILITY. But please look at the history around July 31 2008. When nrswanson seemed satisfied with the article, he removed the neutrality tag. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, he did not seek concensus. So when I expressed my concern over Neutrality by readding the neutrality dispute tag, nrswanson shortly thereafter removed my neutrality tag stating, "neutrality tag no longer applies. you are just trying to unbalance a balanced presentation in the name of neutrality. if it is altered from this version it will be an NPOV violation and censorship vio." I feel this is fairly typical of how nrswanson communicates with me.


 * Actually, I don't think the section at that time (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathleen_Battle&diff=228888117&oldid=228880525) wasn't that bad, save that it didn't offer an alternative perspective that others in fact found her professional and well prepared; but it only sort of "justifies" why she was supposedly "difficult" rather than the view of others who do not find her difficult, no more, no less demanding than say a person like Jessye Norman or Pavarotti.


 * I supportion inclusion of the termination. However it is my understanding that a conservative hand should be applied when discussing this in living bio regardless of our views of the person. Notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Volpe_(opera_manager) Often, assertions (other than the termination, a factual event) for ANY perspective are inconclusive and speculative.


 * Finally, some people seem to have very strong negative opinions of Kathleen Battle. And some have very strong positive opinions of her. I hope we can move to a balanced, neutral ground! And just keep the FACTS of EVENTS on record and principal parties, not anonymous background voices who can say anything they want, whether pro or con.


 * Finally, you can see in the text on the talk page, that voceditenore and kleinzach, after viewing our perspectives and differences of opinion between myself and nrswanson offered, at two different instances, solutions based on both our input. I was willing to agree to their suggestions.

Sorry for the length, and yet, I hope this info is useful in understanding this contested portion of the Kathleen Battle article!

Hrannar (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar


 * I could defend myself as I think that Hrannar has misrepresented the account of events and frankly I wish he/she would assume some more good faith about my intentions. I personally believe Hrannar (as I have said many times on the talk page) is acting in good faith towards this article and so am I. However, I am not going to go through an exhaustive defense and counter attack as it would just lead to another long unfruitful arguement between the two of us on this page which I want to avoid. I am frankly tired of all this back and forth between myself and Hrannar. We just need some help figuring out what can and can not be included in this article independent of our own reterict. I would simply appriciate it if someone looked at my suggested version and Hrannar's and actually talked about the facts of this case and the material to be included/not included which has never been done yet within a mediated context. Kleinzach, our previous mediator, started with the issue of sub-headings and never got to the actual content which I found to be detrimental to the whole process. Really the sub-headings should be a reflection on the content and not the other way around. I think it best to actually start by looking at the content in each of our proposed versions, sentence by sentence, and making a ruling as to whether it can be included under BLP guidelines. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well put. I appreciate the sentiments you state above just now i.e, "I am not going to go through an exhaustive defense and counter attack" ; And yet, please do not be surprised that if you make statements such as "Hrannar has grossly misrepresented the account of events...,(as you stated above") and accuse me of censorship, gaming the system, "grossly distorting BLP guidelines" etc...." than I must respond. However, if, as you wisely suggested, focus on the content (versus personal motives), then this back and forth (on your part as well) will be unnecessary. Looking forward to a positive resolution. Hrannar (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Hrannar I do think the issues of neutrality, the implementation/interpretation of BLP guidelines, and issues of censorship are the core issues of this discussion so they do need to be discussed by everyone, including yourself.Nrswanson (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, nrswanson! Hrannar (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Decision to withdraw
After repeated attempts to try to work with Hrannar with unsuccess I have decided to withdraw from this discussion. At this time I find it impossible to find an equitable solution to this problem. Although I have attempted to extend an olive branch to Hrannar in the most recent round of discussions, not enough common ground and good will on the part of Hrannar has been achieved to make me feel that I can work well with him. Rather than prolong a tedious conversation that may or may not achieve success, I am choosing to withdraw at this time. Hrannar can do what he wants with the article without my interference. However, I will caution other editors that a strong amount of cencorship has been advocated by Hrannar and that I believe this has had and will have a negative impact on this article's neutrality and integrity. Best of luck to all.Nrswanson (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I ask visitors to this page to suspend judgement about me, Hrannar, until you read the latest archives (as well as the conversations above). After reading the archives, you may or may not agree with nrswansons claim above. But I am seeking the help from administrators regarding this. I believe the statement above is inappropriate, and should not be the type of discussion on a talk page. It is my understanding that this page is designed for discussions of content, not personal beliefs regarding another editor eg., "not enough...good will on the part of hrannar". Thank you 129.74.18.183 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hrannar

Jazzy B
This article is a frequent target for both vandalism and unsourced changes which violate WP:BLP policy. More eyeballs from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated in keeping this article free and clear of dubious content. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Protected for a week to stop ongoing editwarring, per request for direct intervention on my talk page.  Sandstein   06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Terry_Farrell_(actress)
,, and keep adding ugly comments about her sex life. Comte0 (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. Vandalism only.  Ty  11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Taylor
- Mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma. I have recently stubbed this mess of an article, which is currently being edited exclusively by two opposing pov-pushing SPAs. Editors interested in BLPs may be interested in writing a neutral referenced article before someone again writes one which isn't. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dani DeLay Ferro
- The Dani DeLay Ferro article says she is notable for "questions about lobbyists payments she received." The article describes the actions of others (Washington Post, New York Times, Texas prosecutor) towards her as it relates to a single event, rather than describing her experiences in her education, work, relationship events. // Suntag (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Dial and Chloe Vevrier
I recently added the following paragraph for Nikki Dial and a similar one for Chloe Vevrier:

In 2001, escort agency NYCFantasies.com listed Dial as one of their "companions". Her rates ranged from $1,200 for one hour to $9,000 for twelve hours.

(I actually use the cite web template for the references but you get the idea). Morbidthoughts claims that since WP:BLP "requires that controversial claims require reliable secondary sources" these additions must be removed. My position is that the entry merely states that Nikki Dial was listed on the site and neither claims nor implies anything else. Some third-party guidance here would be appreciated. Hondo77 (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Morbidthoughts. There is a definite implication that these people were working as escorts, and the web site itself is not a reliable source. It seems quite possible that they had few or no celebs on their books, and were using these names to boost their business. If there is a secondary source to back this site up, then it could be included. Kevin (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Garvie

 * - repeated drive-by insertion of unsourced derogatory pseudo-information. // David in DC (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's still happening. Help please. David in DC (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mocking a BLP at Media Matters for America
Stephen Colbert is a comedian. He makes fun of people for a living. For instance:


 * Stephen Colbert, in character as a right-wing pundit, replied by satirically blaming Media Matters for the controversy. "By posting [Limbaugh's remarks] on the Internet," Colbert said, "the general public [heard] words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended."

That's fine for his show. But his show isn't a reliable source for shit. Since he's there to be a comedian, we can't even assume that the comedian even agrees with what he's saying on air to make money. This kind of statement isn't acceptable criticism on a BLP, in this case Rush Limbaugh at Media Matters for America. We present criticism of living people in Wikipedia, we don't use skits by comics to mock them. I removed this sentence and found it was put back with an edit summary saying that there was a consensus on it at the talk page for that article. I'm not going to remove it again. I'm not going to touch that damn article. I've done my part. Will some administrator advise the editors at that talk page that WP:BLP applies there, specifically
 * WP:BLP: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. and
 * WP:BLP: Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. [...] Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons.
 * WP:BLP, lead section: Be very firm about the use of high quality references [...] Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively'
 * WP:BLP: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.

If we allow Stephen Colbert skits to be used as sources for typical "commentary" on a BLP subject, even indirectly (and there can always be exceptions in certain cases where a Colbert skit or joke becomes notable), we basically hollow out WP:BLP and turn ourselves into a skit rather than an encylopedia. The Colbert sentences are in the article, mocking Limbaugh now. Is this the kind of encyclopedia we want? Noroton (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the reliability of Colbert. -- Noroton (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That citation is not applicable. It discusses the alleged splicing together of film clips of David Frum by the Colbert staff, it doesn't have any relation to what Colbert himself says or whether or not we should quote Colbert himself.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That cite is completely applicable. He's a comedian, not a commentator. He's not even expected to be fair. As you well know. The only reason to include a humorous comment from him is to disparage a BLP. Period. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your comment doesn't address the point at at all. No one is claiming that we could use Stephen Colbert as a source of factual information about the actions or comments of Frum. If we were then your citation would be applicable. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid splicing together of film clips of David Frum by the Colbert staff is only one of the activities the Colbert staff is employed doing. Another is writing the words that go into character Colbert's mouth. If the real-world Colbert had a completely different opinion from the one he mouthed on-air, would there be anything wrong with that? Is he supposed to do anything other than play a character on a television show? Has he written books about public affairs that contain opinions that the real-world Colbert has about topics of the day? Is he considered in any way someone whose opinions should be followed? If the script writer for the show wrote something funny that the script writer didn't happen to believe in, would there be anything ethically wrong with submitting it and having Colbert say it? Do you consider the Colbert Report reliable for anything at all? The point of the program is not to be truthful but to be funny, and if they aren't funny the shows ratings dip and they all get laid off. Whereas if they aren't truthful, nothing happens at all and they have still done their jobs. I'm afraid the Frum example is a perfect illustration of what that show is. You can't trust it for facts, you can't trust it for anything but laughter. There is no good reason to use a comment from that program unless there is some special circumstance involved. And there isn't. Noroton (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is between using a commentator as a source for factual information and using the commentary of a commentator. You are using an example of the unreliability in the former as a reason to disqualify it as a source for the latter.  I understand you have strong feelings about the matter but that is no reason to employ specious reasoning and examples. At first I could go either way on the issue (I have frequently edited the MMfA article but did not participate in the discussion regarding the Colbert quote) but the more strident you get on the issue the more you convince me that you are wrong.  Colbert and his parent program have won plenty of awards for journalism, not just comedy yucks, and are taken quite seriously by serious critics, and there's no reason we can't do so as well. Satire is an important literary and cultural force and we shouldn't strip mention of it from encyclopedia articles because we don't understand it and don't know how to handle it properly within the bounds of our policies. So while I don't think it's particularly important whether or not this single quote remain in the article, I think the underlying principle being debated here is important. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Satire, though nuanced and high-brow, is just another form of criticism; we shouldn't be scrubbing criticism because it comes from a comedian (though technically he's really a satirist). Additionally, Media Matters for America is not biographical article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful link, Blaxthos. You're not too familiar with the page you just linked to though, are you? Maybe you could read down as far as the fourth regular paragraph of the lead section: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.-- Noroton (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is no "biographical material" in question here. Nobody is attempting to add biographical details about Rush Limbaugh based on something a commentator (humorous or not) said. That would be absurd.  Opinion is presented as opinion (in the context of responding to Limbaugh's criticisms).  I really don't see how this is a WP:BLP issue at all.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'd agree there is no real BLP issue here regarding the Colbert quote. Moving outside the scope of this noticeboard for a second, though, I do question its inclusion on notability grounds. I mean, if Stephen Colbert had a recurring gag on his show about MMA or the "phony soldier" thing, then maybe it would warrant a place in the MMA article. But this was a throwaway remark he made during a monologue one night. I like the Colbert Report as much as the next person, but it's hard to argue that every passing joke he makes needs to find its way into the subject article. MastCell Talk 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we building an encyclopedia or using comments by comedians to tear people down? There is no sense that a comedian's routine comments on a comedy show are acceptable commentary touching on criticism of someone else in Wikipedia -- unless you're a except for POV pushers. If this stays, Wikipedia is nothing but a pile of shit. And you all know it. Should I start adding Jay Leno's and David Letterman's comments on John Edwards to the John Edwards article now? Noroton (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (((refactored a bit -- don't want anyone to think I'm accusing MastCell of anything -- Noroton (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC))))
 * I'm agreeing with you (not about the pile of shit, but about the fact that these remarks are not particularly encyclopedic for the MMA article). Comedian's routines can sometimes be relevant, even when critical of a living person (e.g. Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner), but this instance is a complete stretch, and regardless of the letter of BLP it seems unencyclopedic to me to include it. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't just directed at you, except to the extent that you don't see the broad-as-a-barn-door BLP violation. Just how much more obvious can it be? We're not supposed to disparage or mock people: correct or incorrect? We don't stick comedians' comments into articles unless the comments have become notable in and of themselves or have some particular value outside obvious disparagement. I'm trying to fathom how anybody would not be disgusted that this shit is in the encyclopedia, but I can't. How you can look at this and not be immediately embarassed for this project is absolutely beyond me. We're talking about simple vandalism. There is no justification for it whatever. The editors who added it and supported it should be given a warning. Because if they continue to do this kind of thing they are making a mockery of the project. Clue: We don't mock living people. -- Noroton (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely support removing it. In my personal opinion, it's not a BLP violation nor vandalism, but it is certainly unencyclopedic and I can understand your reaction. I recommend its removal, but I should also say that I don't feel like arguing strenuously about it, because I'm trying to pick my battles more effectively and I see some of the more egregious medical misinformation on this site as a higher priority at present. MastCell Talk 03:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I've been so snappish. I appreciate your honest consideration of this, and I hope you'll continue to think it over. My concern is that since there is no consensus here that this is a BLP violation, no one can take it down, given the consensus at that talk page. I know I sound mad at you, but I'm really angry that the editors controlling that page haven't just been mocking by proxy a living person but they've made a mockery of Wikipedia. To me this is an extremely obvious, grotesque BLP violation. Noroton (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't want to have one. Yet I feel compelled to reply.  So, under what grounds then is a satire sufficiently on point and correctly documents something about a living person?  (Or, more to the point, documents when relevant satire is done about a living person?)  So far, everything I've read seems to suggest that you're saying that nothing can *ever* be quoted or cited about a living person if said comment was uttered by a satirist or comedian.  Or am I misreading what you're advocating?  And I think you misread the "We don't mock people," attitude.  Chronicling that someone *has been mocked*, in reference to the subject at hand, if it is well sourced and on point...  Well, honestly I don't see the problem.  First, *WE* as editors aren't doing the alleged mocking.  Second, Mocking is different from Satire.  Finally, I can't see how what you reference "disparages" Limbaugh, beyond what I would consider normal satire.  Maybe the reason I'm not understanding this is because there's something I fundamentally misunderstand about what you're trying to say.  More likely, you find little support because you're fundamentally misunderstanding something about the allowance of negative opinions, when properly sourced and verified, be they satire or otherwise.  But good luck to you in either case!   <span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan  03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether a satire is "on point" or "correct", but whether it is encyclopedic. That is, does it add something vital to the complete understanding of a subject? Is a reader in the future going have an incomplete concept of Media Matters because they don't realize that Stephen Colbert mentioned them in passing one night in 2008? Would Encyclopedia Brittanica mention Colbert's remark as part of their coverage of Media Matters? MastCell Talk 04:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Professional disparagement by a comedian is not an opinion, it's entertainment. It isn't meant to be serious and it isn't encyclopedic. There are a few instances where it becomes so notable that it's worth adding, but in each case there would have to be a reason that goes beyond the comedy intent. There are other websites where you can go put up material for the purpose of mocking people. This isn't one of them. Readers come here for other reasons. I don't need luck. Wikipedia needs editors and admins who take WP:BLP seriously. Chronicling that someone *has been mocked*, in reference to the subject at hand, We're not here to chronicle that, we don't do it in any other article I know of (except when it becomes particularly notable -- a rare exception), and there's the minor problem that it's against WP:BLP policy in various ways I mention at the top of this thread. Mocking is certainly different from satire, but all satire is mocking. And there's no reason for satire to get a special pass that aren't eligible to other forms of humor, so it's a distinction that doesn't matter. Noroton (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I suggested, I still am not personally involved, but I thank you both for your responses. Towards MastCell, I'd equally ask if Encyclopedia Britannica would have a section critiquing Media Matters in the first place in an article about it?  And yes, I do believe that the Brittanica may well quote Colbert, were it on point, correct, and relevant to the criticism at hand.  Towards Noroton, I then infer that you suggest no quotation of satire would be allowed in Wikipedia.  To me, that is a completely unjustifiable position, and if BLP truly has no place for that, then it's BLP that should change, not all articles which note satirisms.  Failing that, I can see why those opposed may think it's IAR time.  And no, I don't think that's BLP's intent, either.  But I see where you might.  Thanks again for your explanations.   <span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan  00:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't see a BLP matter either - it's not contentious or uncited information disparaging a living person. And I don't concur on the broader points regarding the role of political satirists like Colbert (or Limbaugh, for that matter). I do think the Colbert information is irrelevant and of undue weight, though. In fact the whole criticism section is mostly overly detailed fluff. But that's a matter for consensus-gathering on the talk page. It looks like Colbert was discussed and consensus was to leave it in there earlier this year. But consensus changes of course. Maybe a new crew of people will decide to be more encyclopedic.Wikidemo (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly is contentious, as can be seen in the text of the WP article, and it certainly is an assertion about facts. Colbert isn't a reliable source for anything but his own opinions, and we can't even say that his comments on his comedy show are his own opinions, so sourcing to his show is not reliable sourcing even for that. This is wrong any way you look at it. It's so flagrantly wrong and so obvious that it embarasses the encyclopedia. Under this standard, the satire on Limbaugh's own show is as admissable as his commentary would be. Go ahead, make us Encyclopedia Dramatica. -- Noroton (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The inclusion is contentious, however it's not a claim about a live person. Colbert is indeed not a reliable source to validate claims about most subjects, but the article is not using him as such.  It's mentioning the fact that he did a particular comedy routine.  Limbaugh is in the same position if he spoofs some other show.  A perhaps notable example of the same sort of thing is Evil Dave Letterman (and while we're at it, Evil Steve Jobs).  Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not representing the facts correctly. It was a claim that Media Matters was accurate in its accusation about a living person. That is absolutely BLP-related. Colbert's comment was to assert that MM was accurate and Limbaugh was therefore guilty as MM charged, and there is no other way to read it. Colbert's comment was presented in the article right after a television commentator's comment. Wikidemo, you don't have a leg to stand on here. This is the passage immediately before the Colbert passage that I quoted above. The context is crystal clear:
 * In September 2007, the conservative National Review accused Media Matters of creating a "phony controversy" and trying to "manufacture outrage" regarding Rush Limbaugh's controversial remark about "phony soldiers". National Review wrote that Media Matters took Limbaugh out of context and suggested that they may have intended to present a "completely false account of what happened". Media Matters has argued that their item was accurate and included context and that Limbaugh and his defenders sought to remove context to cast his remarks in a more favorable light. John Gibson, while a commentator of Fox News Channel, offered an opinion that criticized Media Matters' reporting of Limbaugh.
 * The article needs to stop violating WP:BLP and some parts of WP:UNDUE and it's obvious. It's mentioning the fact that he did a particular comedy routine. Well particular comedy routines are done every day. What's so special about that one, other than it can be used to disparage and mock? Noroton (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That shows that Colbert was criticizing (by way of parody) the National Review, not Rush Limbaugh. It is National Review and Media Matters that commented directly about Rush Limbaugh - neither a reliable source for the purpose, but one may argue that the criticism is okay because the criticism is in itself notable and about a public figure, in fact about notable statements the public made in a radio broadcast.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not ask that the issue of the Colbert quote be revisited on the talk page, perhaps with outside input solicited via RfC? I think you'll find editors like me who don't quite see the BLP angle, but who feel that a one-time throwaway remark by a comedian is not part of encyclopedic coverage. MastCell Talk 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would support removing the reference. Concurrence on a content question doesn't require that we all share the same reasoning.  Wikidemo (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Colbert's opinion is relevant to the matter being discussed in the section. If we're going to remove that comment as inappropriate for an encyclopedia, then I'd argue that we should remove the entire "criticism" section on the same grounds. If we talk about Limbaugh and his defenders criticizing Media Matters for "lack of context," we can certainly quote Colbert's satire of that criticism. Croctotheface (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added this comment but I see the basic point applies to yours as well. You don't even know what the real Steven Colbert's opinion is, because it doesn't matter for him to do his job of portraying the character Steven Colbert. You don't even know if Colbert came up with the idea or is only reading from a script. And it doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters for Colbert is to make you laugh. That's why they call it entertainment. And the only reason to add the comment to this article is to make you laugh at a BLP. Noroton (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of any commentator. Who knows if Bill O'Reilly actually in his own mind believes what he says (and what difference does it make anyway?) Further, I think we can assume that he doesn't actually write his hour-long show himself every day and reads off a teleprompter. I don't see how authorship has anything to do with it (and if it did, we would have to start excluding all network newscasts). --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Limbaugh was the subject of the tirade, so his opinion is notable an National Review is a RS. Colbert is a comedian reading from a script, not notable in this instance. CENSEI (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of this discussion of the merits belongs on the article talk page, not here. However, briefly, to the notion that "you can't know what Colbert thinks:" if we accept that, then, as Vulcan said, no article can ever quote anything from any comedian if it relates in any way to a living person.  I don't see disinterested parties here saying that this is a BLP violation.  As to the "unencyclopedic" argument, that's valid so long as it applies to the whole section.  If the criticism is notable, then Colbert's defense of Media Matters is.  If it's not, then delete the whole thing.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not what the arguement is. National Review is a reliable source on its own for material like this. No additional context is needed and its completely encyclopedic. Steven Colbert is not. CENSEI (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I really have no idea why you would bring this up here without first discussing it on the talk page of that particular article or reading through the very extensive discussions that have already taken place there. Further, wikiquette (and common courtesy) would be to at least post a notice of this discussion on the talk page there so that involved parties could weigh in. Not doing so can leave the impression of attempting to achieve some sort of "stealth consensus" without the knowledge of regular contributors.

That said, Stephen Colbert is a satirist. He makes political statements using satire as a device. Political satire is fundamentally ingrained in American political discourse. In fact it, it's a tradition older than this country (see Jonathon Swift's A Modest Proposal for example) that extends through the nineteenth century (Mark Twain and others), to today. In fact, even editorialists not known for satire regularly write satirical columns (Paul Krugman, George F. Will, William Safire, etc.) Are you arguing that those columns should be excluded as sources of opinion but their other columns should not? The argument that those who use humor in presenting their political arguments cannot be considered is not based on any valid WP:BLP guideline. It is a completely invented rationale, and an absurd one at that. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the elaborate defenses brought up so far don't knock down the simple, important point that makes this unacceptable: Clue: We don't mock living people. It's at the heart of WP:BLP, and nearly everything else said here distracts from that. While we have lighter topics in mainspace, we are trying to be, fundamentally, a serious encyclopedia. This is completely contrary to that. It's true that we make exceptions to this general rule, as we make exceptions to most policies and guidelines for commonsense reasons that are for the good of the encyclopedia and its readers. But the defense here isn't to make an exception but to overturn the idea and set up another one: We'll mock any well-known person we damn well please. No one has argued that there is a way to stop the spread of using "satire" everywhere against BLPs, and you won't be able to stop other forms of comic mocking once we allow satire (what principle would you use to stop it?). What's being argued here is to overturn the general principle at the heart of WP:BLP. And you're doing it so that jokes can be inserted into articles, not so that readers can get a better understanding of the subjects of our articles. In fact, it will divert readers and editors from the purpose of the encyclopedia (to transmit and gain greater understanding of a subject) as we compete with one another to find tidbits to entertain readers. A little bit of this is good (a humorous quote, for instance, but generally only if its well-known itself, and probably never at the expense of a living person). It's like a bit of trivia worked into an article. But everything in WP:BLP tells us to be cautious regarding living people. I've already quoted the relevant lines in WP:BLP at the top of this thread, and they've just been ignored by the participants in this discussion. It is almost impossible to be cautious in reprinting satirical lines here. On the other hand, it's extremely easy for us to use satire to attack and mock (it's impossible not to do so if the satire is directed against an individual). We can't do either of these things normally, but this exception will open the door wide to it. We're not here to attack public figures we don't like in clever ways. Helping readers understand those subjects is supposed to be enough for us. Noroton (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course we don't mock living people. But we do record instances of people who mock other people. I can't imagine a full and neutral account of the career of Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle or Bill Clinton without recording the fact that they were frequently mocked for certain aspects of their personalities. Gamaliel (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the "mockery" of a living person here. Colbert is ridiculing a criticism of Media Matters, not any person.  However, even setting that aside, I agree with Gamaliel that jokes about a living person are hardly unacceptable by definition.  Noroton, your standard seems to be that any content that is inclined to make a living person look bad is a BLP violation.  That is not supported by consensus.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.
 * The opening lines of the Media Matters for America page that the footnote for the Colbert quote points to: On the October 8 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert mocked Rush Limbaugh
 * Gamaliel, you're saying that because mockery has become so noteworthy in a few instances that we need to cover it in order to understand a subject, we must therefore be allowed to put mockery of any BLP (or even any well-known BLP) into any article for any reason, no matter how important it is. Instead, the standard should be to leave references to mockery out of our articles unless a case can be made in each individual case that inclusion is vitally necessary for understanding. That case can be made with Agnew and Quayle. What's your case here?
 * I have a question for Gamaliel, Loonymonkey and all the other supporters of including mockery in BLP articles: How did the use of the Colbert quote increase understanding of the incident it refers to? I mean, besides giving Wikipedia editors the opportunity to mock. -- Noroton (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you're deferring to Media Matters' description of events here? I suspect that you don't want us to do that all the time.  I just don't see the mockery.  Who is mocked here?  How?  Croctotheface (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Colbert was mocking some remark by John Gibson, but it's really hard to get the gist of it unless you read the actual transcript. "I guess you had to be there."  Problem is, most readers of the page weren't.  Switzpaw (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticizing someone's opinion is not a BLP violation. Mocking "some remark" is not anything like defaming someone.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, I don't believe this is a WP:BLP issue but it is an issue of clarity/relevance/weight as I've stated in the Media Matters talk page. But why aren't you guys comprehending that Colbert's quip was a straw man attack on Gibson's insipid remark. He wasn't even addressing the points made by the National Review. Switzpaw (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec 2X) If I were you, Croctotheface, I wouldn't want to answer the question either. So now you're doubting Media Matters as a reliable source? Actually, over at The Obama Nation the consensus is not to include their reporting of facts because they aren't a reliable source, and their website is where we're getting this from. Do you disagree with Media Matters that Colbert is mocking Limbaugh? In a situation where Limbaugh was under attack (including by members of the United States Senate, I think even on the Senate floor), and where the use of tapes and transcripts of what Limbaugh said is at issue, Colbert laughs it off, saying, essentially, Limbaugh is just mad that he was quoted and caught. Colbert completely sidestepped the entire debate in order to get a laugh. This is the noble "satire" that has Gamaliel and Loonymonkey comparing Colbert to Swift and Twain. Now that I've answered your question, why don't you answer mine? Can you? Noroton (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do disagree with Media Matters' characterization. Colbert is ridiculing an opinion, not any person living or dead.  It may make people who espouse that opinion look silly, but that's true of any criticism of any opinion espoused by any person.  Such material does not violate WP:BLP. Since your question presumes that Colbert is mocking a living person, I can't answer it because I don't accept your premise.  Your other question is a merits question, which I've answered at the article talk page.  This is not the forum to discuss it.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Let's go to the tape: That's right. Hatemongers like Media Matters take innocent statements like mine, Rush Limbaugh's, John Gibson's, and Bill O'Reilly's and make them offensive by posting them on the Internet, allowing the general public to hear words that were meant for people who already agree with us. Hey, Media Matters, you want to end offensive speech? Then stop recording it for people who would be offended. Because the Constitution gives us broadcasters the right to say anything we want but that doesn't mean that just anyone has the right to listen Care to revise your comments? -- Noroton (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "innocent statements." He's mocking statements, not people.  Again, if the people who made those statements now look foolish for having made them, then OK, but if we're not allowed to report on critical opinions of statements of living people, then we're violating WP:NPOV.  Furthermore, even accepting your premise for the sake of argument, I suppose that it's a BLP violation to have an article on Al Franken's book Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot?  That statement is clearly designed to mock Limbaugh, yet it's not a BLP violation.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bull. He's saying the statements of Limbaugh and others amount to "hatemongering" and that's a comment on the person, not just the statement. And you and everybody else who reads those words knows it. And you can't evade my question -- How did the use of the Colbert quote increase understanding of the incident it refers to? -- by saying it's only a content question that's only fit for the article talk page because I'm saying you've got a BLP violation without any possible justification for better understanding the subject, as you might with the article on Quayle (actually, I've never been to that article -- I'll assume for argument's sake that it refers to the mocking of Quayle because I think it would have to). If you had that justification -- for instance, that the mocking was so notable that we couldn't refuse to cover it (as with Al Franken's book) -- you might have a defense, but it looks like you don't. It looks like the quote was put there for reasons that were not encyclopedic. I don't think you're capable of answering the question. -- Noroton (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I think that you could stand to cut out the "bull" and "can you? CAN YOU?" remarks.  They don't help anything here.  Again, content issues ARE for the talk page, and I'm confused about why you want to discuss them here.  Basically nobody else who has weighed in on this has agreed with your BLP argument.  I think that he's satirically calling Media Matters the "hatemongers" there, so maybe you should "go back the video tape" as your edit summary advises.  It enhances the article by including the opinion of one of the country's foremost satirists, who is basically saying, "all this arguing over 'context' and 'incomplete transcripts' is silly because all Media Matters did was post Limbaugh's words for others to see."  His argument is that this is a controversy because Limbaugh wanted his remarks to be heard only by people who already agree with him, and MM opened them up to the general public.  I'd be fine with the article using someone else who espouses a similar opinion, but there has yet to be an edit to the page introducing that opinion, which is certainly relevant to the disagreement.  Again, my contention is that if we are going to decide that Colbert's POV is not worthy of an encyclopedia, then I don't see how the entire criticism of Media Matters can be considered encyclopedic either.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think each criticism recorded on the Media Matters page should be weighted on notability of whomever is challenging the credibility of Media Matters and the impact that the criticism had on the organization. You had a good point -- do we need to include any criticism by any conservative magazine?  That's a separate question.  In this issue, Stephen Colbert was not directly involved in the dispute between National Review and Media Matters.  He just had something to say on the dispute.  Shouldn't that put less weight on the notability of his words?  I mean come on, he makes commentary like that every day.  Switzpaw (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a content discussion that belongs on the article talk page. As I said, I'd be fine with determining that none of these opinions are all that important to the Media Matters article and removing them all.  I'd be fine with using someone besides Colbert if there is someone who espoused a similar opinion.  If not, I think that Colbert's remarks really cut through a lot of the rigamarole and distractions and get to the heart of the issue.  If we're going to have a paragraph about this criticism of Media Matters, then Colbert's point of view in defending them is relevant to include. Croctotheface (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also stop parroting Colbert. "His argument is that this is a controversy because Limbaugh wanted his remarks to be heard only by people who already agree with him, and MM opened them up to the general public."  That was Gibson's remark.  When did Limbaugh say he wanted his remarks only to be heard by people who already agree with him?  And if he said it, was that the position that the National Review was defending?  Switzpaw (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the "reading comprehension" reference in your edit summary was particularly civil. His comments would not be appropriate for an article on Limbaugh. They are relevant to the Media Matters article because they defend Media Matters against a bevy of criticism.   Croctotheface (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) He's only calling Media Matters "hatemongers" because they're repeating what Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Gibson say. And he's saying what they say is "offensive speech". And if Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Gibson were to get mad at what he said about them, they'd be told, "How do you even know he was serious? He's a comic, making jokes." Of course, if he isn't serious and his only purpose is to make fun of someone for laughs, what are we doing quoting him in a Wikipedia article that supposedly has a serious purpose? And if we conclude (I don't) that the satire is unclear about calling these people "hatemongers", then that shows the problems we have in including satire in our supposedly "conservatively written" passages touching on BLP-sensitive matters. It enhances the article by including the opinion of one of the country's foremost satirists [...] -- by itself, that isn't enough justification for mocking a living person. Your description of the worth of Colbert's comment (all this arguing [...] opened them up to the general public) shows just how irrelevant Colbert's comments were to the actual controversy. Colbert added nothing to our understanding of it. Nothing. There is no defense for this. That's why I'm mad about it. That's why I'm using the remarks you don't like, but I'll stop using them for the sake of civility. In return, please think about it more. Noroton (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion about the matter is not an excuse for being uncivil. Clearly, your opinion, which you (of course) believe is unassailable, is not as universally agreed upon as one might think from your comments.  I've been clear about why Colbert's opinion is relevant.  He is not required to accept the terms of the phony "context" controversy.  He rejects them, which I think is the correct analysis of the issue.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Colbert doesn't even give any reasons for evading the nub of the controversy, so it looks like all we've got here is an editor, backed up by consensus on the talk page, essentially giving us the news: Hey, Colbert agrees with MMA and says Limbaugh is a hatemonger who makes offensive statements -- and he does it in this funny way that makes fun of Limbaugh. Not exactly encyclopedic. Exactly a BLP violation though. Noroton (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, "hatemongers" is his overblown hyperbole, directed at Media Matters, not Limbaugh or any other person, and it is used satirically, perhaps to recall some of what Bill O'Reilly has said about MM. I think that interpreting what Colbert said to be calling any of the individuals names is pretty far-fetched, but I see why you would do it, since otherwise it's clear that there is no BLP violation here.  Colbert criticized "comments" by people, not the people themselves, and made fun of the "blame Media Matters" reaction from certain quarters.  It's a valid opinion to include if the criticism itself is valid to include.  Again, we could decide that the whole criticism has little merit, as Wikidemo said above, and remove it entirely.  If opinions criticizing MM in connection with this issue need to go in, then so do opinions that defend them.  To do otherwise would be a violation of NPOV.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Contentious material repeatedly added to Esther Hicks
User Tmtoulouse repeatedly insists upon adding contentious and 'coatrack' material to the biography of living person, Esther Hicks--Ahnalira (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we most definitely need some wider attention to this article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this might be better handled with a request for comment, so FYI to all involved and reading I have initiated that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The supposedly 'contentious' material that I included was entitled 'Abraham-Hicks' Teachings' and was directly copied from the FAQ on her web site. It was reverted without comment by an anonymous IP. So far, I haven't gotten any explanation of why her philosophy, as directly stated by her, shouldn't be in her article. The newbie editors who don't like the information keep referring to being bold about WP:BLP policies. They seem to be under the impression that WP:BLP policy allows for the permanent removal of information with no justification needed even after the fact.
 * I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove offensive information quickly. I think it's unreasonable to refuse to discuss its removal. Bhimaji (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Amy Alkon
- Short bio that seems to be getting targeted for all manner of non-sense. // <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#CC0000">oi  22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I read her column, her WP bio is unsourced. I tagged it as needing references. I wasn't sure if some of the material was potentially negative and needed removing, for instance the claim that she is an activist for atheism. Redddogg (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently she's been targeted for a harrassment campaign. Kelly  hi! 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)
Since Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive46, the problems have continued. Of the editors previously listed: New editors are:
 * - has been warned for an edit made after a block
 * - has been blocked
 * - warned - vandal/SPA that may be and/or
 * - SPA - warned and blocked
 * - SPA - warned
 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - not sure what to make of this long-time editor's single contribution to the talk page, but it is nearly identical to what other editors have written.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.


 * - SPA - warned.
 * blocked.

--Ronz (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - appears to be BrendaBeller - SPA - warned.
 * - appears to be 96.224.47.239 - SPA - warned.
 * - SPA - blocked.
 * - SPA - warned.
 * The latest sockpuppets have been blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've relisted this because of the continued problems with the 96. ip addresses, which appear to be from a blocked editor. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

96.232.229.122 should probably be blocked after the recent edits from this ip. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

James Tramel
Nothing wrong with above in terms of sourcing or blp, but does it really qualify for notability, do we need this article? Just wanted another opinion, thanx.--Bsnowball (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article for deletion; see Articles for deletion/James Tramel. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap"><big style="color:#900">east718 // <font color="#090">talk  // <font color="#4682b4">email  // 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people are voting keep. BLP regulars might want to weigh in and discuss whether or not this subject merits an article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I voted keep since he seemed notable enough, although not a good role-model after all. Redddogg (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Marfan syndrome and Michael Phelps
– addition of assertion to Marfan's article that Michael Phelps has this syndrome, based on journalistic exaggeration or misinterpretion of Phelps’ book. More information at Talk:Marfan_syndrome and Talk:Michael_Phelps. I have reverted twice, additional eyes are requested. // Kablammo (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been removed from the article. Clearly, WP does not have a license to practice medicine.Redddogg (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

abdulkasim salad hassan
Dear sir/ Madam,

As my father Adbulkasim Salad Hassan Biography unfortunately it has been written in a wrong way and it does not consist this person’s living legacy as the editor of that bag has his own agenda to mislead the public. Abdulkasim Salad Hassan contributed towards promoting Peace and Democracy in his Country particular and the Horn of Africa as whole, he is well respected politician among his people and Internationally .He  was rewarded several prize for rolling his country democratically and being one of the few African leaders who left office by the end of his Term .However as we read the comments in your Web page we are concerned about the objectivity of the author and we are requesting that  respectable web page as yours should get the information about this leader right as this may affect his reputation.

Awaiting for your replay,

Kind regards,

Deqa Salad Hassan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevgiesra (talk • contribs) 10:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, is Abdiqasim Salad Hassan the name of the article you are referring to? --CliffC (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * can you suggest some sources? The one we have for the negative material is Amnesty International, which we usually consider reliable. We'll be glad to include other similarly reliable sources if you can point us to them. DGG (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see Abdiqasim Salad Hassan's name in the Amnesty International report. (I search the document on 'Hassan', and found nothing like his name.) As there is not other source cited, I'm tempted to call this completely unsourced. William&#39;s scraper (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo


You may wish to look at the Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo article - a lot of content is not sourced. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Native American Idenity
There seems to be no clear consesus on the use of "Self Indentification" for Native Americans in regards to idenitifying their heritage. For example, Douglas Blue Feather is listed as Native American in his biography, yet he is not an enrolled member of any Federally Recognized Tribe nor does he have any documented proof of Native American heritage. In the case of Douglas Blue Feather and many other self identifying Cherokees, the consesus seems to be to go with the self identification definition. Meaning these people cannot prove nor disprove their heritage. The sources sited are always poor. However, Ward Churchill who also self identifies as Cherokee/Native American is not listed as such. He is listed as only American. It seems that the reason for this is that their was an investigatino done that did not turn up any verifiable Indian Ancestry. The question is, should "Self Indentification" always be used first until this is disproven. It would seem that doing an extensive investigation on someone's heritage such as with Ward Churchill is rarely done. So in theory there may be many "self indentiying" Native Amreicans who are in fact not. Would it not be more accurate to not list someone as Native American until proven rather then the opposite? LightingBug (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why apply a standard to identifying Native Americans that is different from other race/ethnic groups? If reliable sources (other than the subject's own writing/web page/etc.) identify the subject as a member of a race/ethnic group, cite them. If the only source for membership in a race/ethnic group is the subject, use something like "self-identifies as," citing the source. If there are reliable sources covering a challenge of or controversy about that self-identification, cite them. It is not our business to investigate or decide whether or not someone belongs to a particular race/ethnic group. If it is relevant to the subject's article, we can incorporate such information from reliable sources. William&#39;s scraper (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Annie Nightingale
An editor insists on adding her date of birth, which admittedly is sourceable from other websites; however, I had an email exchange with the subject of the article last September in which she asked that this not be shown because it was (a) inaccurate and (b) private. WP:BLP says that we may show only a year of birth, but even that would go against her wishes. Do I need to forward her email to OTRS or can it be dealt with otherwise? Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have several times been asked to remove year of birth from people with a public performing career, such as her, when it is well documented by unquestionable sources and not controverted--both seem to be the case here--, and always refused to do so. I would hope OTRS would also refuse. It's in her official bio in BBC. DGG (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who stumbled into this, inserting a birth date which I assumed was accidentally missing - until I saw the talk page. As I have pointed out to User:Rodhullandemu, a pre-existing external link at the foot of the article directs the reader to her page at the official British Radio Academy Hall of Fame, where her full birth date (year, month and day) is prominently displayed.  You'll find the birthdate at other obvious sources like imdb.com, and she has discussed her age in a national newspaper earlier this year.  However she feels about it, the information is prominently in the public domain.  All relevant cites are in the Talk Page discussion about this.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * In addition to the links I provided at the article's talk page, her full birth date is displayed at her page on her home-town's web-site (to which the main article also links), at the Biography Research Guide, at Nationmaster, and at countless other sites (google "annie nightngale 1942"). I think the best response to any complaint from her would be to point this out.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Well, we really cannot treat sites that use older versions of our own articles as reliable sources, because that's self-referential. Discounting those, I suppose there may be enough information out there, but it's difficult to tell which of them have sourced this DOB reliably. Fansites and gossip sites are right out. I suppose I'll just have to deal with the flak when it hits my inbox. Thanks for that. -- Rodhull andemu  16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but the Radio Academy Hall of Fame, y'know? You'd think she'd have corrected that if it was wrong - and it's the same birthdate everywhere.  I am familiar with reliable sources, which gives zero assistance on how to source articles about living non-academic celebrities.  But that's anothe story.


 * Just to be clear, I provided the multiplicity of links not to support verifiability (the Radio Academy cite is sufficient for that), but to show the extent that the information is in the public domain.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * So which is it: inaccurate or private? If it's inaccurate, then it's not her birthdate at all, so nothing for her to claim privacy over.  At any rate, the inaccuracy of WP:RS isn't really our concern.  If the trusted sources have it wrong, who are we to contest them? Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of Infant Child
A BLP AfD about a prominent politician and allegations of marital infidelity was recently closed, but without addressing the issue of an infant child alleged to be the child of the politician. The politician has denied paternity; the child's mother has denied that the politician is the father of the child; another individual has claimed paternity of the child. So other than media speculation we have no reason to believe the politician is the father of this child. Hence I cannot see how the name of the child could be needed for the article. The BLP policy urges conservatism with regard to persons who are family members of article subjects; surely this standard must be observed with respect to individuals who are merely alleged to be family members of subjects. Personally, I believe that the article (which is, if I understand the discussion correctly, about the media coverage of a scandal, rather than about the scandal itself) strays towards becoming a coatrack in the section describing the chld's birth certificate. However, even if that section remains, I firmly believe the child's name should be omitted. The information is well sourced, but the fact that a piece of information is published elsewhere does not mean that it must be included in a WP article. It should be included in a WP article only if it contributes to the point of the article, and then only if it does not open a third party, utterly unnotable in his/her own right, to a horrific breach of privacy. Beats4NL (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm sympathetic to this in general, I think your last sentence is a gross exaggeration. The horrific breach of privacy (if that is the case) has already happened.  We can decide that we're not going to participate in it, but it would be very inaccurate to suggest that Wikipedia's mentioning the name will cause any new breach of privacy, since that privacy is already long-since destroyed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. WP has its own standards, which are ethically higher than the "main-stream media" to say nothing of the tabloids. Redddogg (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The name is mentioned is numerous reliable sources and is encyclopedic. Kelly  hi! 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is the name of a baby "encyclopedic"? In what way does anyone benefit from knowing it? Redddogg (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You could say that about any other stand-alone fact in the encyclopedia, but it's encyclopedic because this is the name of the child alleged to have been fathered by John Edwards with Rielle Hunter. The source that claims this has already been borne out on every detail of their story that has been checked by the mainstream press so far. I'm not sure what kind of harm to the child is being imagined here - the name has been published by every mainstream source under the sun, including the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC. Whatever marginal amount of "harm" theoretically being caused by publication in Wikipedia is insignificant or nonexistent. Kelly  hi! 13:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, encyclopedias are generally not the place to put every random bit of information. Mentioning the name of an innocent child when that information has no bearing on the public importance of the events covered in the article (I think) does harm the image and reputation of WP, even if it does not directly harm any individual. Redddogg (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a "random bit of information". How exactly is Wikipedia's image and reputation harmed by the inclusion? Pretty much every major network and newspaper in the world has published this without fear for their "image and reputation". Are you saying that Wikipedia has a more stellar reputation than the New York Times or the BBC? Don't take this the wrong way, but I think the BLP worries are a little bit overblown here. Kelly  hi! 17:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you asked, I do think that WP should strive for a higher standard than the "media" including the NYT and the BBC. Redddogg (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is sharing less information a "higher" standard? Whenever there is a decision on showing information versus sparing people from embarressment is it always better to opt for not showing the information?TCO (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A pre-existing breach of privacy is irrelevant. It is strictly a Wikipedia policy matter. Looking at WP:BLP, it seems pretty clear:  "The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability [emphasis mine] is correspondingly stronger." The child is not notable on her own, therefore her name should be kept private until she does something notable. Being born is not notable.  Then again, Wikipedia lists the names of all of Tom Cruise's children...

(undent) A major point in the article, as in all media stories about the affair, is the information on the birth certificate. The information on the birth certificate is very unusual, and one might say, potentially deceptive on three points: The mother presents a pseudonym instead of her own current legal name, listing herself as Rielle Jaya James Druck; the child is given no father's name; and the child is given a diffent surname than the mother's -- Frances Quinn Hunter. That is why virtually all media reports have named the mother (Rielle Hunter) and the child (Frances Quinn Hunter); both names must be explicitly stated in order to show that the surnames are connected, in order to remove any potential for confusion. This is pretty basic to the story, and therefore the child's name should be retained in the Wikipedia entry, i believe. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You do have a point. Maybe the fact that the child was given the last name "Hunter" could be mentioned without her first and middle names. Then, on the other hand, she will probably have a totally different name when she's old enough to be aware of all this. So maybe there is no problem after all here. But in general I still think that we shouldn't give the names of innocent people involved in some kind of scandal if we can avoid it. Redddogg (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke. I didn't mean that in publishing the child's name Wikipedia opens the child to a breach of privacy. Matthew Brown correctly states that the child has already been the victim of a breach of privacy. What I meant is, Wikipedia shouldn't include the type of information, the publication of which opens an innocent third party up to a breach of privacy (allowing for rare possible exceptions when the information is crucial for understanding the article). I think the name of an infant child is that kind of information, and yes, I think this is a horrific breach. Even though some might think the breach of privacy is a done deal I still believe we shouldn't publish that type of information. Unfortunately people often believe, consciously or otherwise, that "where there's smoke, there's fire." If this child's name is indeed noteworthy (if not, it shouldn't be in here in the first place), then we need to assume people will actually take note of it. That means when this child gets older &mdash; assuming that she's been given her name for life; I think Wikipedia shouldn't make ANY decisions about policy or standards based on whether "she might not even have that name" later on &mdash; any time she enrolls for something, joins, something, or even introduces herself, she will be recognized as the child who was allegedly the child of two different men before she was even born. That's part of HER story, to reveal or not to reveal to whomever SHE chooses.

The argument has been put forth that the child's name proves something. What on earth does it prove? There is no dispute whatsoever as to whether the woman was pregnant; no dispute as to whether her child was born live; and it is perfectly common for an unmarried woman to give her child her own surname, which is precisely what happened here. "Proving" that this particular child has the same last name as her mother gets no closer to establishing the paternity of the child &mdash; which is the only way the child herself is relevant to the story.

Even if it did "prove" something, I fail to see why this is important in a Wikipedia article at all. I fail to see how proving that the child shares her mother's name is relevant to whether or not the politician had an affair, whether or not the politician is the father of the child, or to what extent that allegation was covered in the media. What information is or is not included in newspapers is one of the guides to what MAY be included in a Wikipedia article, but is by no means whatsoever a guide as to what SHOULD be included. A lot of information is included in newspapers simply to flesh out a story (particular details which flesh out the human interest side, in order to get more readers to read and keep them reading further into an article). A lot of information included in newspapers is of the "proof" variety, as investigative journalists make their case for their interpretations of thee facts. But as is stated repeatedly in Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia shouldn't be fleshing out stories with information which merely makes the article more interesting to read without contributing to the historical import of the information and/or the sense-integrity of the article. If it's needed for the article to make sense, include it. Otherwise, leave it out.In this case, even if Wikipedia should be in the business of "proving" that the woman indeed had a baby &mdash; and I'm still not remotely convinced that it should be &mdash; the sense of the article is fully fleshed out by stating that the birth certificate lists a mother named Druck but a baby named Hunter, with no father's name given at all. That's all that's needed to explain how the investigative reporters established that they had, indeed, the birth certificate of the right baby, and that is (in my opinion) the absolute most which should be included.

Yes, the child's full name has been published elsewhere, although you can't say that "pretty much every major network and newspaper in the world" has done so (unless someone has physically verified this). For example, in the Netherlands (the country where I currently live), news agencies don't give full names in stories, not even the names of principals such as crime victims or suspects, for precisely the reasons being debated here. Partial names are enough to enable readers/viewers to follow the story and to demonstrate credibility.

But the point is that even if ALL the networks and newspapers of the world had published it, that still doesn't mean that Wikipedia should do so. Since Wikipedia and news organizations have different missions, Wikipedia editors need to remind ourselves constantly that the information given in other places isn't always necessary, or even necessarily appropriate, to include here. Simply put, "widely mentioned" is not the same thing as "encyclopedic."

As for integrity, and yes, "image," I do believe that Wikipedia needs to measure itself by its own standards, not those of the news media. Watching what others do is helpful for understanding the possibilities and the issues, but no more than that. In the end we need to decide for ourselves. Scores of newspaper articles appear in newspapers, including the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, which would violate WP:N. Journalists win Pulitzer prizes for stories which would clearly violate WP:NOR. The newspaper The Independent is highly valued for articles which are factually objective but often display (and are expected to display) a clear authoring and/or editorial bias, clearly out of line with WP:NPOV. CNN's entire reason for being is to publish information as it is happening while still being clear about whether the information has yet been verified, a standard hugely different from WP:V. The list goes on. Wikipedia has its OWN rules, fitting both what it is (and is not), AND fitting what its audience expects of it and what its editors decide to expect of ourselves.

We don't have to publish the child's full name if we don't want to. And I say, we shouldn't want to.Beats4NL (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC


 * I agree with Beatss and Reddd here - there is no reason to include the child's full name - as I said on one of the articles' talk pages:
 * Seems to me that we could use cat's wording which is making a valid point, but just change it to simply say The mother was listed as Rielle Jaya James Druck, but the child was given the surname "Hunter", different from the mother's, and no father's name was listed. without spelling out her full name. What is the need for it? I think the baby is entitled to basic privacy (as if there's any chance in the world, but we don't have to add to the tabloid noise about a baby) and we are not news as Redddogg says. This rewording would, I think, accomplish was cat was trying to do but also acknowledge Redddogg's legitimate concern. Tvoz/talk 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we come to agreement on this? Cat and Kelly seem to think the fact that the baby is listed as "Hunter" has significance - I don;t, as it is her mother's adopted name, but I have no problem with stating it in the article. But her full name is not needed.  Just because her privacy has been compromised by some thoughtless outlets who didn't care about basic human decency doesn't mean we should do it too.  Tvoz / talk 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your remarks. I hope that we editors will consider the issues you have brought up as we work on WP. Redddogg (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also mentioned on one of the articles' talk pages that most of the people calling for including this person's name, since WP is supposed to include all possible information, do not mention their own names on their user pages. ;-) Redddogg (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the child's name should go. I don't even think the child needs to be named partially. Matthew Brown points out, as others have, that the name is already out there, but Wikipedia can shine a much brighter spotlight for a much longer time on a name. Wikipedia can make a big difference in whether someone runs across a name by chance or needs to do only a short search rather than put more work into a longer search, so the fact that a name is "out there" isn't conclusive. A child shouldn't have to be teased years from now, and the child's mother, who's changed her own name, shouldn't have to change the child's just because Wikipedia's tree-like straw has been loaded on the camel's back of publicity. There should be a very, very strong case for including the name, and I can't find one. The article seems to inform readers just as well without that name. Twice I've argued elsewhere (and had consensus with a small number of editors involved) that a college students who do something potentially very regrettable don't need to have their names in Wikipedia articles when the article isn't harmed (or barely scratched) by removal, and I think this is an even stronger case (see Talk:Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon and Talk:Controversies about the word "niggardly"). What is the overriding need to use this name? -- Noroton (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite my attempt at compromise above by including just the child's surname, which I could unhappily live with, my true feeling and position are actually pretty much identical to Noroton's, who  presents it quite cogently here and on Talk: John Edwards extramarital affair. No compelling reason has been given by others for including the baby's name at all, and privacy and decency ought to take precedence. Tvoz / talk 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote for inclusion:

- I mean if we have to, Kelly can go out and tally a bunch of respected periodicals using the name...just as she did when we had the debate about having the page at all. But at this point, I think the burden of proof should be on the self-censors. And I'm not even hearing any depth of thought from them. Let them google around and read ethics articles and such and bring more meat to the table of discussion. --TCO (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is a fact within and connected to a larger story.
 * The privacy has already been breached.
 * Respected periodicals are using the name (it passes their policies).
 * The proponents for self-censorship have not put forth sophisticated arguments of legal issues, periodical policies, etc. for their stance of self-censorship (and the burden of proof should be on excluders rather than includers).
 * We should let the chips fall (as a general policy). I mean we leave the porn star birth names in!  And who CARES about porn star details.  Whereas this is something in all the major respected media.
 * For instance, do we want to "protect" Elizabeth Edwards from embarressment by not having the story at all? Surely eliminating the story overall would in some sense protect her, but also in some sense diminish the value of this repository of knowledge.  (I realize this is not something people are saying...but the point is one of kind with different extents.)
 * Here are some of the respected content providers that have decided to show the information on the babies name (have voted against "protection", for "showing information" in this exact case): http://news.google.com/news?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&oe=UTF-8&startPage=1&um=1&tab=wn&resnum=0&cd=4&scoring=n&hl=en&q=Frances+quinn+hunter&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&start=0

(within here: Fox News, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Washington Post, Washington Times, Telegraph, etc. etc.)  It boggles my mind that we are going to take a MORE SELF-CENSORING, LESS REVEALING attitude than so many legitimate news sources. Surely if we are going to do so, we need to have the burden of proof on the self-censors. Have not heard a lengthy sophisticated argument from them yet. Just a couple guys agreeing with each other and stating same point over and over again. TCO (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We could also change the name of Wikipedia to "Info Dump" and call ourselves "trash collectors" rather than "editors." While I'm at it I might as well mention that TCO self-censors his own user page by not telling us his name, address, birthdate, etc. Redddogg (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't try using User:TCO's user page as a straw man argument. User:TCO is not a public figure. The baby is, which is why the baby's name should be included in the article. —Lowellian (reply) 19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't give my own personal information on my user page either. But still by doing so I am undermining WP's ambition to be the sum total of all human knowledge. Redddogg (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this issue was being discussed here as well as on Talk:Rielle Hunter, so I'll just repeat what I wrote over there:
 * The baby's name should NOT be removed from the article. The baby's name has already appeared in thousands of news reports. There is no privacy concern when the baby's name is already widely public. And to hide the information is a type of censorship that is against Wikipedia policy, which is to report what other independent, verifiable sources (which they are in this case) report.

—Lowellian (reply) 19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hink we are repeating ourselves at this point. I could take time to restate my opinion that the child's name is important to the story, because without the child's surname (Hunter) and the mother's first name (Rielle), the media (and therefore Wikipedia) cannot establish that the spcific Ms. Rielle Druck who gave birth to a child named Frances Hunter is, in fact, Rielle Hunter, formerly Lisa Druck. The names of both mother and child as given on the birth certificate are also intimately tied into the mother's propensity for shifting her own name multiple times, which in turn is essential to Wikipdia's identification of her in the article's first paragraph. But to mention all that would be repeating myself, so i won't. I am willing to compromise (unhappily) with Tvoz, just as he is willing to compromise (unhappily) with me, but i am not willing to have the child's name entirely eliminated. :-) catherine yronwode (my REAL NAME) a.k.a. "64" when i am not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "She", cat. And thanks for the unhappy compromise - now, will it fly? Tvoz / talk 01:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that giving the child's last name would be okay. Redddogg (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph C. Wilson
An editor continues to insert material from blogs and other self published sources into Joseph C. Wilson (ignore the removal of the References, as its an unitended casuality), even after being asked to stop. This is not the firs time the this editor has been warned that he is violating policy. CENSEI (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those blogs are not good sources for a BLP. For that matter, neither is WorldNetDaily, really. MastCell Talk 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least WND has deep enough pockets to be worthwhile to sue for libel, though. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know if WND is or is not a RS. CENSEI (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gene Upshaw
- Rumors of death began about 5 hours ago, added initially by single-edit IPs. Confirmed only by one report from ClearChannel, and repeated by MSNBC quoting ClearChannel. Ball's in your court guys, I am done with it! BillCJ (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well http://www.nfl.com has it as breaking news on their site also.  So I don't see a problem with it being placed in the article Jons63 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. NFL.com posted that about the time I posted here! Oh well, better to be safe than sorry on BLP issues. - BillCJ (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Carlo Petrini article
In the article talking about "Carlo Petrini", there is the following statement "In order to strengthen his campaign against intensive food production, he refers to the Pope's call for the protection of local agriculture, despite the renowned papal support for unsustainable population growth." Basic common sense would dictate that the phrase "despite the renowned papal support for unsustainable population growth." is a controversial and inflammatory statement. First, we must question the use of the world "reknowned" as their are no serious sources cited and secondly, there is no doubt that some percentage of the world's billion Catholics would question that the Pope supports "unsustainable population growth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.25.233 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur and have removed the sentence. It would have been fine (indeed, encouraged) for you to be bold and remove it yourself. CIreland (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Debito Arudou is complaining about his Wikipedia entry
Debito Arudou put a post on his site complaining about his Wikipedia entry http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=1878 - You may need to look at it and see if what he is saying is valid or invalid based on WP:COI and WP:BLP - Also check to ensure that editing does not go out of hand. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticism section does seem to be quoting 'critics' out of context. It also seems to be giving undue weight to criticism. The names of his children are sourced from his blogs, but I think it would be best to not repeat them in Wikipedia. I think I would have to spend a lot more time in research to be in a position to judge his other complaints. I'm not ready to take on the article tonight, maybe tomorrow. -- William&#39;s scraper (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Debito Arudou
The subject has raised BLP concerns on the talk page, and made extensive comments on his blog also blog entry. I bring this to the attention of the noticeboard, because the comments I see on the talk page are rather worrisome. For example, Arudou mentions that his daughters are concerned that their names are in the article and he wants the names removed. The people on the talk page seem unconcerned, saying he mentions it on his webpage and book. Nonetheless, my reading of the BLP policy is that even for information obtainable elsewhere, if it is not widely known (and I doubt many of the people who have heard of this guy can recall his daughter's names), we should not include information on indirectly involved family members.

The substance of Arudou's criticism seems to be that material from a website heavily critical from him is used often as a source, but editors do not permit inclusion of support for him from his website. I believe this should be looked into, especially by someone who has not been involved in editing this article. --C S (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a newspaper article that mentions the names of Debito's daughters, so to help out with BLP stuff. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section does seem to be quoting 'critics' out of context. It also seems to be giving undue weight to criticism. The names of his children are sourced from his blogs, but I think it would be best to not repeat them in Wikipedia. I think I would have to spend a lot more time in research to be in a position to judge his other complaints. I'm not ready to take on the article tonight, maybe tomorrow. -- William&#39;s scraper (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist)
- The article claims this person is dead, but there is no source from reliable sources given for this information, and it seems reasonable to assume that they are still alive for the purposes of BLP. I've read a number of revisions from the article, and they all seem to have major BLP problems, including the addition of insertions about insanity and the Illuminati. See this diff for the sort of thing I'm talking about. -- The Anome (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: see Articles for deletion/John Todd (occultist). -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob Wise

 * - I deleted unsourced derogatory information about this living former politician. I explained my edit both in my edit summarry and on the talk page.  It's a clear BLP violation.  The only pretense of a reference to a reliable source is a bare statement that, in a particular year, a particular newspaper reported the story.  No date, no link, no story title(s).  Please review. David in DC (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, there. It looks like another editor reverted part of your edits to the article; I sourced the core statement and removed the extraneous unsourced statements.  I believe you are correct about the "managed to avoid" statement needing to be removed, and it looks like that was not reverted.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added numerous sources regarding the affair, and to his background. I'll try to add more tomorrow if I have the chance. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of you have done a great job rescuing this article. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag added by subject of this Wikpedia entry August 2008.
This is Arudou Debito, the subject of a Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debito_Arudou. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.

As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search.

Controversial figures such as myself may naturally invite criticism, a couple of “guardian editors” have taken advantage of the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia (which, according to their interpretation of the rules, means the entry gives priority towards towards third-party opinions, whoever they are, over quoting the primary source). I feel it has the aim of distorting the record, and must be pointed out and corrected. Otherwise it is harder to take Wikipedia seriously as a general source.

I go into more specifics at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:

items
1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.

3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.

4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.

5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.

6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

outside links/refs
In sum, why are (positive) quotes about my work not included from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie ( <a href="http://www.debito.org/?p=1638"> here </a> and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> here </a> ), <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> Ivan Hall </a>, <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> Chalmers Johnson </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582"> John Lie </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582"> Jeff Kingston </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> Robert Whiting </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> Mark Schreiber </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> Eric Johnston </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582"> Terrie Lloyd </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/mulveyonhonjoreview.html"> Bern Mulvey </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS"> Lee Soo Im </a> , and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#japanese"> Kamata Satoshi </a> ? More <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS">citations from academic sources here</a>.

For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry. I hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself, so please let me put this notification here. Thanks very much for any and all assistance. Arudoudebito (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should be much more neutral. If you were a non-white person exposing racism in the United States you would have a much more positive article. Some of the criticisms made against you will seem very familiar to Americans who remember the Civil Rights movement. Redddogg (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Kimmitt
Mark Kimmitt is a retired U.S. Army General who was the subject of an investigation into alleged abuse of his subordinates, prompted by an anoynymous letter during his confirmation hearings. He was later cleared and confirmed, but the redacted report, which contains unflattering assessments of his management style, was published. I became involved in the dispute of how much of these negative findings should be involved in the article as a third opinion, but I believe that others with more nuanced experience handling BLP concerns would be helpful. The inspector general's report is public and presumably reliable, but the more difficult questions of how much of it should be included remain active areas of disagreement. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * since the details are in he public record, it seems going into them here in the detail we do is excessive, especially the last section which has never been specified or proven--nor is it given an exact reference here. DGG (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. We have cut down the length and trimmed some of the gory details.  However, there is still an editorial dispute, and we could really use some third party eyes on this to help sort out whether the current version is biased, and if so what to do about it.  Thanks!  Gregorywill (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina


While the article on Carly Fiorina could certainly use some improvement, I am actually writing concerning the talk page of that article. I recently archived the older discussions from the talk page, and in doing so, I noticed a number of potentially libelous and, in some cases, very crude comments. It seems that the talk page for that article became a venting board for those who disliked her or her management of hp. Some comments, such as this one, I believe clearly and blatantly violate the non-article space section of the BLP policy. A number of others allege, without any sourcing, that she, in one way or another, breached her fiduciary duties to the company, which I believe could be libelous and also violates that policy. I have removed from the archive page the especially troublesome commentary which was not related to improving the article. I don't know what the requirements are for such an action, but I think completely deleting User:Tangurena's revision from the history of the talk page would perhaps be a good idea. Take care,  user:j    (aka justen)   19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that you're sanitizing her bio just prior to the US elections, as Fiorina is McCain's financial advisor. I happened to work for HP when she was the CEO that ruined the place. The section was titled "Anything positive to be said?" To which the answer is a resounding NO. I have never met a person who worked for HP during her tenure who had anything positive to say about her. Tangurena (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * None of that matters without a reference showing these claims. Generally speaking, personal anecdotes should be avoided, especially about LPs Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are asking for is "Oversight". The conditions for applying oversight are given at Requests for oversight. I don't those conditions are met here. However, you can ask an admin to delete the material, after which it will be visible only to admins. -- William&#39;s scraper (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Oversight, just not familiar with the requirements (if any) for deletion of revisions that fall short of that. I believe what I was asking for here was for an admin to take a look at that particular revision and delete it.  Is this noticeboard not normally patrolled by administrators?    user:j    (aka justen)   00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While admins may look in here, you could also ask at Administrators' noticeboard. William&#39;s scraper (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)