Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive51

blp
I would like to point out repeated blp infraction on The Shock Doctrine article.  Furthermore, the user also removes reputable sources to be replaced by a blog entry of some unknown journalist on the Anders Åslund article. Troopedagain (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have again asked this user to discuss the changes. If he/she continues to edit without making any attempt to discuss the changes, I suggest you ask for a block on WP:ANI Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Monique Fuentes

 * - All the sources are blogs or advertisements. Should this be a speedy delete?  A PROD? An AfD?  I seek wisdom.  But I'll settle less :) David in DC (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * She appears to be a porn star. I can't say whether or not she's notable enough for inclusion. Qaddosh| contribstalk 01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is that there are no reliable sources in this biography of a living person. I've decide to try speedy delete.  An article like this really shouldn't be up at all.  It speculates on her name, the number of her children and a number of other sensitive matters.  If speedy is denied, I'll try an AfD.  But looking it over, I think speedy is the way to go.  This is bereft of any of the characteristics of a responsible biography of a living person David in DC (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article meets the criteria for a speedy deletion, but it also does not meet the notability criteria for a porn star and should be sent to AfD. However, I will not place the AfD template on it while the speedy notice remains. In the meantime, I'm tempted to pare out the unsourced material. The Luke Ford interview is at best marginal. The Galilea Montijo flap is a real problem, and the whole section should probably come out. -- William&#39;s scraper (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As you said, the interview is marginal, but is a valid source. If we have better sources for information, then we should use them, but to discount it merely because it occurs on a blog I think is a disservice. Tabercil (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's now at AFD David in DC (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Andrews
Source provided in article doesn't seem that good, and only news hits show arrest but not conviction, should this article be deleted? -Hunting dog (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * judging by red link, answer is deletion - thanks, issue resolved -Hunting dog (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Libellous statement
The Wikipedia entry for Robert M. Carter contains the following statement:

"A March 2007 article by Sydney Morning Herald environmental reporter Wendy Frew said that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2]"

The statement is both untrue and libellous. It has previously been removed on the complaint of a reader, but is now restored.

The statement should be removed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.15.3 (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement seems to be gone now. Redddogg (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement is true. Wendy Frew did write that. If the statement is actionable as libel, I'd assume the action would be taken against Frew and the SMH and not Wikipedia. A  ni  Mate  19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is now nominated for deletion. I should add that most of the article seems to have been written by Dr. Carter himself, or else copied from his website. The fact that the only published criticism that critics could come up with is a trivial statement by a newspaper reporter goes to show how non-notable Dr. Carter is. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry Wordsworth
The majority of this article about the British conductor is devoted to a single controversy, which gives it undue weight and may raise BLP concerns as well. An outside view is requested. (A request has been posted at WikiProject_Music/Noticeboard as well.)  Kablammo (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas H. Lee
Over the last few days an unregistered user has repeatedly introduced an objectionable mention about an alleged rape that in all sources was a charge that was withdrawn and never substantiated. The vandalism has been removed however the user seems to be fairly persistent.

The edits have come from IP Addresses:
 * 84.110.86.180
 * 84.110.116.72

|► ϋrban яenewaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 13:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Abramovich
The Roman Abramovich article has been subject to a lot of dispute. Much of the material focuses on his alleged misdoings, which may or may not be appropriate. Unsourced statements have been removed as a first step toward improving the article. Assistance in making this balanced would be appreciated. Ground Zero | t 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He Kexin
He Kexin is an olympic medal winning gymnast who's age is disputed. While the article seems fine for now (after a change by me ), more eyes are appreciated since I don't think this is going away any time soon and there is a fair amount of amateur sleuthing work going on. Currently all the amateur sleuthing is supported by secondary sources but there's a risk something new may come up which may not be. Also the section is already rather long and risks getting out of hand/violating undue if things go on for much longer. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Holly Ann Collins

 * - there's a lot of single-purpose account edit warring here. The last edit summary is a bit troubling. The majority of the article content comes from three SPAs:
 * with on the other side. I'm a bit over my head here (first visit to the BLP board), but I thought this was worth closer attention than just slapping full protection on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * with on the other side. I'm a bit over my head here (first visit to the BLP board), but I thought this was worth closer attention than just slapping full protection on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * with on the other side. I'm a bit over my head here (first visit to the BLP board), but I thought this was worth closer attention than just slapping full protection on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * with on the other side. I'm a bit over my head here (first visit to the BLP board), but I thought this was worth closer attention than just slapping full protection on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blackground Records
Wow. Just wow. This is, without a doubt the worst article I have ever seen on WP in terms of BLP and Coatrack violations. What's worse is that it's been substantially like this since *2005*. I have thus reverted to the last good version. A few more pairs of eyes on this would be hugely appreciated... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Bocelli
I noticed today that someone had (likely maliciously) reported that Andrea Bocelli had died last night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.131.157 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hedy Epstein, again
This individual fled Nazi Germany in 1939. A great many reliable sources refer to her as a "Holocaust survivor." Her personal website refers to her as a "Holocaust survivor." To my knowledge, no reliable sources question this description. However, an article by a self-taught "investigative journalist," a man who has been called profoundly unethical in his tactics, and who is also an extremist political activist on the opposite side of an issue from Epstein, has published an editorial attacking this description in Israel National News and FrontPageMag. It is thus being argued that Epstein should not be described as a "refugee from Nazi Germany" or as a "Holocaust survivor" but as a "self-proclaimed Holocaust survivor," possibly with the critical editorial cited as a source. As far as I can tell this is an extremely clear case of WP:BLP violation. Perhaps some outside input is needed to examine my judgment here. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In my book it certainly is. The burden is on those who want to put the self-proclaimed label on her to source this reliably.  I also doubt the self-proclaimed assertion can be sourced in any way that doesn't violate WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE.  The Irish Times, Baylor University, Cornell College and the editorial staff at the Stanford Daily, have no problem with simply calling her a "holocaust survivor"--and that was just a couple of minutes of googling.PelleSmith (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If she fled to England in 1939 (as Hedy Epstein states), then she got out before the holocaust properly stated (although there had been plenty of persecution), so calling her a "survivor" is pushing it.  It's like referring to somebody who missed the boat as a "Titanic survivor", isn't it?  Wouldn't "holocaust refugee" perhaps be better? Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. The term "Holocaust survivor," in general, is remarkably contentious, and it has no agreed-upon definition. Obviously those who survived death camps and slave camps are survivors, but beyond that nobody can say. That's why I chose the term "refugee from Nazi Germany," even though there are a gazillion sources calling Epstein a "Holocaust survivor." No need to use an imprecise term. However, a group of extremely tendentious editors (or maybe just one sock-puppeteer) are now insisting that Epstein's labelling as a "Holocaust survivor" is a very controversial claim, and claiming that I'm the one ignoring the sources. It's getting to the point where I feel I should just revert them repeatedly per WP:BLP, because they don't listen to reason. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the discussion. In any case, if the other editors (although I really only see one, Whyzeee), revert back, inform him/her that this in violation of BLP and a block is likely if they continue. Interestingly enough Whyzeee has made only a handful of edits until now, shortly after Elan26 was exposed as a sockpuppeteer. I'd look into possible meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry here. --C S (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop
I am the subject of the above article. There are two clear antagonists on the page, User:ColonelBuendia99 and User:Pontyboy, with there being a protagonist User:Politicool and two bit players User:FruitMonkey and User:Bellagio99. The first two appear have been through the article and accompanying talk page confining their entire edit histories to attempting to discredit me or 'out' aspects of my private life and bolster that of my opponents. I do not believe the two antagonists are acting in good faith and appear to have become too involved in the article and discussions around me, thus I believe the neutrality of their edits should be questioned. I believe I am being harassed within the definition of WP:OUTING, and wondered if there is anything that can be done? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since your notability appears to be somewhat marginal, one option might be to delete the article. Would you favor that?  Other options appear to require a better understanding of what is happening here. Do you think it is likely that some of the IP edits are being done by socks? Looie496 (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I urge anyone to review my edits on the page and tell me which have been made in bad faith. I am also unsure which aspects of your private life I have 'outted.' I do not know you or indeed anything about your private life beyond this Wikipedia page. When certain accusations were made on the talk page, I made it clear that I did not know anything about this issue. All I want to do is try and tidy up and article which I feel has many problems, problems which I am not alone in noting. Cheers, the Colonel. (ColonelBuendia99 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Glenn Carter
- The subject is an actor who is/was also the president of the UK raelism movement. This latter info has been inserted on various occasions by various editors and has been removed a number of times by someone with a likely COI. The removing editor (with various IPs) has also deleted innocuous threads from the talk page several times. I felt that the page should indeed mention the raelism info as other wiki pages on raelism reference Carter and also include him in the external links. Linking to an article that then doesn't mention the subject's involvement seems strange to me.

In order to attempt to fix the problem I inserted what I saw as a very npov statement on the matter. I also wrote it in a non-time specific way to account for the fact the subject may not longer be involved in the movement (I have no idea if they are or not). That version of the article is here. I sourced it with what I believe are reliable sources including the official homepage of the uk raelian movement and a news article from the bbc in which Carter speaks in an official capacity (this page even links to a video of him speaking on their behalf). I also put a friendly message on the talk page that links to wp:blp etc and requests sourced info not be removed.

The information has since been deleted from the article (and parts of the talk page again blanked) with the editor stating the information is controversial, defamatory and of no relevance to the article. If someone has gone on public record about an issue (google "glenn carter" cloning to see coverage of the matter in uk newspapers with direct quotes from Carter), how can the issue be defamatory? It is not unlikely a person will wiki this person in relation to raelism so why would it be irrelevent? It is surely not a wp:blp privacy matter if the person has spoken on record about their involvement and as their spokesman.

The editor has requested that the information not be in the article. As I do not see how it breaches wp:blp when it is reliably sourced, then I consider the request to leave it out an attempt at censorship from a COI perspective.

I don't want to get involved in an edit war so I would like to pass this on to someone more experienced with the nuances of wp:blp decisions. I'd be really grateful if someone could take a look and decide whether to revert, leave as is, etc. Thanks! Sassf (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Provided it can be reliably sourced, I don't see much of a problem with this; Glenn Carter appears to have stepped forward on his own volition to talk about these beliefs. Anyone else? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourced from a reliable newspaper, The Daily Telegraph. Although it's inappropriate as a source, note that there is a web-page about Rael on Mr Carter's own web-site; which makes the claim of privacy puzzling.  Finally, an user calling him/herself Glecart(!) is editing the article to remove references to the topic (possibly unaware that the history of the article/discussion page remain available to anyone interested).KD Tries Again (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * To me that has the look of a hacked webpage. Looie496 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, after further checking, I retract that suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Update Many thanks to those that have got involved in this article. There seems to be a major COI/censorship issue developing, as the article is being purged of all 'controversial' information everytime it is reinserted. Currently this is by a registered user, User talk:Glecart. The most recent deletion edit summary stated ''Yes, we KNOW he's a Raelian - but we started this site to promote his PROFESSIONAL experience, not his PERSONAL one. Please add his Raelian stuff under the Raelian Wikipedia site. Thank you.'' I think that makes it clear what the problem is here. I've pointed out the relevant policies on the talk and user page, but am not sure that will be enough. Sassf (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo has for weeks been inserting the claim, without a source, that the author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book. I consider this to be a WP:BLP violation, and have warned him several times, but he refuses to come to Talk:. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just compromise on a word that indicates a change in perspective that isn't as contentious as "recanted"? It seems clear from the entry that the quote Mamalujo wants to use to claim he has recanted his position does betray a change in position.  Simply saying that he has stated this changed perspective is deceptive.PelleSmith (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine,if you can find a reliable source that says that's what the quotemeans. Otherwise, just give the quote without any editorialising interpretation whatsoever.--Troikoalogo (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I looked into the Economist piece used to reference the quote, which is itself from a more recent book.  The Economist doesn't claim anything about "recanting" the original thesis, which seems to be an over the top piece of Wikipedian editorializing.  However, the Economist's writer does describe the quote in question as a admission by Cornwell of now understanding that he was not "fair-minded" in writing Hitler's Pope or at the very least that it "lacked balance".  Here is the text:
 * Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, "Hitler's Pope" (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. "I would now argue," he says, "in the light of the debates and evidence following 'Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans."
 * This is from a source that was already referenced in this section. I agree that Mamalujo is clearly taking it too far in claiming recantation of the original thesis, but Jayjg does not seem to have made any attempt either to look at the sources and accurately describe them.  This is POV pushing on both sides during a slow edit war.  I still say this can be resolved by a compromise that accurately reflects sourcing.PelleSmith (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Taner Akçam
Akçam is a Turkish historian who acknowledges that the Armenian genocide happened, and genocide deniers try to paint him as a terrorist. With regards to his Wikipedia article, how acceptable is it to use non-English sources, especially ones from a country with limited press freedom, to link him with terrorism? Andjam (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any such problem. The article looks very well sourced to me; mostly in English, too, though this is not necessary. The Turkish sources are mostly interviews; Akcam's own admissions. The Turkish press is not so stifled that they'd blunder a simple interview. I think you might have a misconception of Akcam's history. I say this because you keep moving the goal posts of what you are disputing. Which sentence are we disputing now? --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Guysancheze
✅


 * - User page User:Guysanchez disparages a person as mass murder and asserts that the person is living. // Suntag (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ Nelson
Hi. I'm having a bit of trouble with a wikipedia editor, Damiens.rf, who continues to remove cited material from my bio page. He asked for a citation, I supplied one, two, and three, but he claims that all three citations are unreliable. It's arguable. I've asked him to use the talk page to argue about it, but he continues to remove the material, and I continue to undo his change. Can someone else ask him to use the talk page, because he refuses to listen to me, and I refuse to allow one (1) wikipedia editor to remove cited material from my bio without discussion. RussNelson (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A previous related forum shopping may be found at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. --Damiens .rf 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Russ, you're out of line. You shouldn't really be editing an article about yourself at all, and you certainly shouldn't be edit-warring to add material to it.  If there is something in it that violates wp:bio, this is the place to complain, but for the issues you are raising here, the most you should do is raise the question on the talk page of the article, and leave others to deal with it. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Carol Adams
This feminist author has in the past been targeted by Operation Rescue for harassment at her home. She is an author whose work focuses on feminism, vegetarianism and animal rights -- not on abortion. Yet, her Wikipedia entry makes unsourced references to her as a proponent of abortion and gives personal information, such as the name of her husband and their church. (I took out inaccurate information about their children.) I don't know enough to figure out what's going on but I suspect that somebody may be targeting her for harassment. Rentstrike (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have boldly removed the inappropriate material. Since it has been there since January, there is probably no call for more agressive measures.  Her own web-page makes her anti-abortion role clear, so I left that part intact; clearly she doesn't want to hide it. Looie496 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Cleveland
I'd like help monitoring this article. Someone (or more than one) keep trying to add that he's deceased -- which is entirely possible since apparently he's 82 -- but I can't verify it anywhere. There's a couple of forums, where one person says he heard it on a radio station, but I can't find anything close a reliable source on this.  howcheng  {chat} 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've placed an explanation of how this needs to be handled on the talk page of the article. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin, US VP candidate, and 3rd party membership
Can we get some people to watchlist and look here? Please respond on the Palin talk page. Some people are claiming that to say Palin was "claimed" to have affiliated with the 3rd largest political party in the state of Alaska is a BLP violation. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Content of a speech given by guest speaker when Palin was in attendance
I am not a Palin supporter, but it seems to me that trying to smear her by including some controversial content of a speech given by someone else while Palin was in attendance violates the spirit of BLP guidelines. If the speaker had a long-term relationship with Palin, it's possible a case could be made, but this was a guest speaker! The editor keeps re-adding the inappropriate sentence. -Exucmember (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Steven N. Samuelian
I was invited over to this article by a anonymous user on my talk page. The article had fair to moderate BLP issues at the time, but it seems that my edit attempts are holding for the time being. I'm listing it here just so others can keep an eye on it. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Vallejo

 * - Editorial company probably promoting her biography and book // 205.181.102.108 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've brought this up on the NPOV noticeboard, where it more properly belongs. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian_Slater

 * - That second paragraph needs sourcing or removal.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rachida Dati

 * She is pregnant, and gossips are regularly posted about the identity of the father of her child. I would suggest semi-protection. The French version of the article is already semi protected. 193.56.37.1 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Provenzano
Seems problematic. Primary editor shares same initials as Provenzano's practice; photo is from his practice's website; most of article appears to be pulled from his personal CV. BillpSea (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Khalid Yasin
This article, about a controversial figure in British Islam, has multiple problems. It gives far too much weight to a set of inflammatory statements attributed to the subject on the basis of weak sources. I am going to remove the cruft, but since the article is currently being edit-warred over, I expect my changes to be reverted very quickly. Looie496 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup: as I expected, my changes have been reverted. Since I don't want to get into a revert war, I must leave it for others to take a hand here. Looie496 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:DCSIS
There may be some issues with the names listed there, but this is not an area I know much about. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 21:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how listing them on a template can really be an issue, a few of them might suffer from Notability issues, I'll try to look into it a bit deeper - but they're all moles who went public and sold their stories to the newspapers, and the Directors and such. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

People probably shouldn't be listed as 'agents' or 'informants' without citation. If that's provided in the individual's article that might be okay, but then the template and individual's article can diverge - the supporting reference gets removed from the article while the man's name remains in the template. Maybe in general we ought to avoid putting in a template anything that requires citation, unless that citation can somehow go along with the template. Tom Harrison Talk 12:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't really put a citation in a template, muchless 50 of them. All of the articles are referenced and have citations; and I assume if anybody actually "did" come up with magical proof that Mubin Shaikh had been lying and wasn't really a government informant, then they would remove him from the template. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 19:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A reasonable solution would be to collect the references on the template's documentation page, or, since it doesn't currently appear to have one, inside a &lt;noinclude&gt; section on the template page itself. That won't help article readers, of course, but presumably they can verify the information by following the links; it would, however, help editors check that all the names listed on the template really belong there.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think it's neccessary, but since it can't hurt - that does sound like a workable solution. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sherurci, that's fine with me. In the long term we might want to think about templates and blp. Tom Harrison Talk 12:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Joel Goodling
Could someone take a look at ? These three edits by appear to contain made-up/fallacious additions. It appears to be a WP:BLP violation. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only Transmodia's edits, but the anon before him, include BLP violations and no real. Considering this, I've reverted all of their changes. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Howshua Amariel
Howshua Amariel needs some attention for a controversy concerning recent edits by Saverx and myself. — Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet
I've removed a quotation under provisions of WP:BLP. If necessary to ensure compliance with our policy on biographies of living people I will protect the page or, reluctantly, temporarily suspend individuals' editing privileges if necessary. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Khalid Yasin, 2nd try
I brought up the BLP violations in this article a few days ago, but didn't get any response, so let me try again, being more specific. Here is a quote from the article: Others have also expressed outrage that while Yasin has taken home as much as a hundred thousands dollars in an evening, thanks to his usual 50/50 split of all funds raised at an event, his wife and child live on public welfare in their home in Sheffield, England.  And here is the source for that pleasant assertion. Do I need to add more examples? Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

David Brickner

 * Deleters are simply writing “coatrack” with no further explanation, and deleting neutral content about the subject of the article.
 * They are doing this
 * 1 with no further comment or discussion other than “coatrack”, not even stating a.) what it is a coatrack for, or b.) why they think this,
 * 2 ignoring all reasons on “reason for edit” in edit summary on David Brickner history page,
 * 3 ignoring the discussion page for the article completely, and
 * 4 ignoring all discussion on CLEAR “KEEP” CONSENSUS on Articles for deletion/David Brickner page.


 * If something, (A), is a coatrack, then (A) must be a coatrack FOR something else, (B). Simply writing “coatrack” and nothing else is an ABUSE of the No Coatrack policy.
 * Whenever there is a deletion of work of other editors claiming “coatrack”, saying A is a coatrack for B, work deleted from the article on A MUST be put into the article for B. Otherwise all that is happening is censorship.
 * Deleters cant go to article A and cry coatrack, then go to B and cry coatrack, and keep neutral well sourced information off of Wikipedia altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricDiesel (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * User EricDiesel has been busily and repeatedly against consensus trying to make the David Brickner article be about Sarah Palin as well as creating other Coatrack articles, many of which have been deleted. Edward321 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop
Please note my comments at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. This is getting out of hand. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo
Could some uninvolved editor look at this page and help with application of policy. Apparently information sourced to Marty Lederman cannot be used because it violates BLP. Personally I do not understand BLP and would welcom outside input into how to interpret and apply this policy. Specifically the use of BLP as "trick" to remove information one disagrees with seems an inappropriate use of this policy. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 07:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Still interested to hear outside opinion as one editor merely invokes BLP yet refuses to explain on talkpage. Is Balkinization considered RS? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All weblogs ans sefl published sites are prohibited for use on BLP's. CENSEI (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can a non-involved editor clarify if BLP even applies for the statements Marty Lederman, as well-known legal commentator, makes. Or is BLP invoked as catch-all phrase in a frivolous manner to avoid normal dispute resolution? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 00:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is a BLP mess. The article has made comparisons between Yoo and the nazis, cited websites that are 9/11 truthers, and cited people linked to the Stormfront endorsed candidate Ron Paul. With regards to Nomen Nescio, Nescio has used the minor edit button when reverting back in two contentious paragraphs, and made unsupported allegations about me. But getting back to Nomen's question - if you disagree with information, then remove it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions (outside of wikipedia), but not their own facts. Andjam (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I had been planning to dig into this article as it looks like an essay from a 200 level sociology class ... full of WP:SYNTH and all. All I removed were the most blatant examples of sourcing violations. CENSEI (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this response by an editor with personal grievances towards me is helpful. Especially since nobod has even identified what exactly the problem is. Since when are renowned legal scholars unacceptable as RS.? Also this highly similar complaint seems to indicate somebody is out looking for a fight. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, as has been staed many times, is that the source is a weblog, and is not considered a reliable source for a BLP. Confuse this all you want with a diversionary and baseless civility complaint, but it does not get around the fact that you are attempting to use a weblog as a critical source in a BLP. CENSEI (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at this I see weak sourcing but no BLP issue. These are citations (redundant to other citations) to stand for legal arguments that have been made about the fourth amendment versus presidential powers as commander in chief.  They are uncontroversial in that they seem to be constitutional law arguments, cited to stand for the fact that those arguments have been made.  The arguments cited are the main ones being advanced by both sides, which are debatable but not fringe, so I see no weight problem in pointing to those arguments.  The best sources are either the most reliable journalistic commentators on the law (a cite to a meta-article that outlines the arguments would be better than cites to the arguments themselves, because that gives perspective), or even better, a peer-reviewed law journal article.  Overall these sources are pretty weak anyway, e.g. the Electronic Frontier Foundation one.  Although that is an important organization in its own right, if I wanted a balanced view of what legal commentators have to say about the constitution I would turn to constitutional scholars rather than advocacy organizations and news blogs.  If I'm missing something, and the sources are about John Yoo's own actions and position then I would agree there is a BLP issue.  Yoo is a law professor and prolific writer, so if there's a need to explain what he thinks there are better sources than blogs to do it.Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for expanding on a point not yet touched on. The citations that are being used for legal arguments that have been made about the fourth amendment versus presidential powers as commander in chief belong on the articles about fourth amendment versus presidential powers, not on a biographical article about John Yu. At best its WP:COATRACK and at worst it WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Thanks for reinforcing this for me. The John Yu article is about John Yu, its not a forum to discuss unitary executive theory in general. CENSEI (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. It's reasonable to say that John Yoo writes about the subject (and his work for the White House on setting anti-terrorist policy touches on these issues) - but a bio article is not the place to repeat a bigger debate about the role of torture in fighting terrorism or the meaning of the constitution.  That can become a coatrack issue, which has no place in a bio. Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Acroterion
I made this edit which changed the line "former Russian car mechanic" to "Russian criminal, who distributed illegal pornography."

Admin Acroterion reverted my edit, claiming it be non-constructive. This I find is ridiculous, so I changed it back and slightly reworded it to "Russian criminal, who produced and distributed illegal pornography." Admin Acroterion reverted my edit again, this time claiming I am adding defamatory content to the article. First my edit is non-constructive, and now it is considered to be slanderous!

At the Charles Manson article, it read "an American criminal" along with the other "defamatory" remarks such as being a murderer. Now what is the difference? I'm thinking this is admin-abuse, but that is why I am requesting an explanation into how my edits are defamatory to a living person. When such remarks are both true, and informative, in addition to being neutral. 220.253.111.53 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Manson was convicted, Kuznetzov wasn't, so you can't call him a criminal - arrested for suspected distribution of child pornography and subsequently released in the amnesty of .... would seem ok though. Doug Weller (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not true, he was convicted and sent to prison! It is even says on this report from the US customs goverment website, who helped in taking down his operation that he was released from prison on amnesty. What does amnesty mean? Given a pardon for a convicted offense! You got to be joking! 220.253.111.53 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see how this guy is even notable. We don't do random crime reports. Have nominated for deletion. Comment at Articles for deletion/Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov.--Troikoalogo (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not notable? He was the head of a major child pornography production and distribution network that got shut down with the assistance of multiple governments. Yeah, I'm sure the hundreds of children that were abused, and died is just some random crime report. Yet an article for someone such as Chihiro Hasegawa is completely notable, and has been allowed to remain! 220.253.111.53 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the provided link says he was convicted of anything.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This really shouldn't be in the project; there's nothing to indicate that he was convicted; while if he were, I'd probably lean towards keeping it, it would still be marginal and a lot of people wouldn't want to have it. Celarnor Talk to me  22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense! "Blue Orchid is the third child pornography distribution network to be taken down by U.S. Customs and Moscow City Police, including the Internet operation run by a Russian, Dmitry KUZNETSOV, who distributed child pornography videos via e-mail solicitation. As a result of an undercover purchase by U.S. Customs in Oxnard, California, in November 1999 the Moscow City Police were able to identify KUZNETSOV and arrested him in February 2000. As part of a Russian amnesty program, KUZNETSOV was released from prison in September 2000."

He was arrested, and placed in prison, and later received AMNESTY! Thus, he was convicted! This is fucking bullshit! I bet you lot just wanted to buy his movies! 220.253.144.199 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not allowed, WP:AGF. justinfr (talk/contribs) 03:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet making false claims, and distorting reliable references, and thus trying to remove this information is allowed! 220.253.144.199 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It says he was released from prison, it doesn't say he was convicted of anything, the release could have been prior to a trial. The link doesn't say.  And please remain civil.   Corvus cornix  talk  06:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Remain civil with such questionable responses? It clearly states "The investigation into the importing of violent Russian child porn which led to the identification and subsequent imprisonment of Kuznetsov started about 15 months ago after Customs seized material coming into the country." "Though two men arrested with Kuznetsov have also been imprisoned by Moscow authorities, only one of the three remains behind bars. Dmitri Ivanov was sentenced to 11 years for actually participating in the abuse that was being filmed. The others were released under an amnesty aimed at clearing Russia's overcrowded prisons." 220.253.144.199 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is there a mention of a trial?  Corvus cornix  talk  20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have added additional sources to this, including a source for his admission of guilt. I believe that using both US and UK pulished sources shows sufficient notability and reliability of the claims in the article.  Jim Miller  See me 07:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimintheatl adding contencious and poorly sourced information to [| Criticsm of Bill O'Reilly]
User Jimintheatl has added multiple times information which appears to be in violation of BLP rules, adding contencious information that states that Bill O'Reilly "Ambushed" someone. The source for this information is a Blog on the Huffington Post, a Blog on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Jon Stewart from the daily show, including a YouTube video. I realize that Blogs can be used in some circumstances, but do not believe they can or should be used to direct criticism against a living person within wikipedia.

This material] has been added several times, the most recent with an additional source which talks remotely about the general topic, but doesn't mention Bill O'Reilly.

I notified this person on their talk page that this kind of information needs some reliable sources, but there response was less than cordial. I have also noticed a disturbing trend where comments from Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert are being used as reliable sources for criticism within articles Arzel (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Arzel has made specious arguments about BLP and sources. No one on the Talk page has agreed with him (he hadn't even bothered to post there before reverting numerous times). He seems not to understand BLP guidelines or sourcing.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Arzel seems to believe that because newspapers(AJC) and news sites(Huffington Post) also host blogs that the entire entity becomes a blog. This is almost comical.  I have no idea what Youtube cite he is referring to....no one added a Youtube cite to my knowledge.  Most importantly, Arzel has not posted a sibgle comment on the Talk page, where all editors who have commented have supported the edit.  Arzel has simply deleted the entire section numerous times.Jimintheatl (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jim's view (in defense of Jim). Arzel might be referring to my Youtube cite on conflict with Moyers, but that is valid, as it is a link to where one can view a copy of the video that is relevant to the article (not to mention the video is in the Countdown citation, so I only added it to make it more concise/so people can view it without the commentary). User:Arzel also has a history of removing sections based on my personal experience despite valid information/citations/other. I am adding on that the article in question is a criticism article, and that as such, it should state criticism. In addition, I was the one who added the ambush part, and it is neutral to my opinion (see discussion here). It is a single line that says: according to critics, the intent and conduct of Porter barry was to ambush Moyers (or some wording like that, see here).
 * In addition, Arzel seems to have ignored the talk page section on the section in question :::here and has ignored :::previous discussion on Huffington Post :::here
 * &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding in: According to WP:NOTCENSORED, Wikipedia may contain material that people find offensive. According to censorship, that includes political. As the article in question is criticism of Bill O'reilly (actual name of article), I would find it perfectly acceptable for there to be mentions of criticism, as it is relevant to the article, if presented objectively. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Noian, just because it is Criticism of BOR, doesn't mean that every single person that has a beef with BOR should be included, there is a little something called WP:UNDUE and the general aspect that the page already looks like an attack page. Arzel (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying every person. We are talking about prominent people and/or prominent disputes said person that the article is about had with. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Poorly sourced heresay material was readded by Jim here along with a warning on my talk I cannot revert for fear of 3RR, but this section. In response to Tucker's criticism, O'Reilly sent a producer to "ambush" her outside her home, where she defended her criticism, calling O'Reilly a "hypocrite."  is based off a blog using heresay to describe the situation. link  Arzel (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what is wrong with rewording it? I have told you plenty of times (you could say warn) on the talk page on other sections that you should EDIT sections instead of deleting it (mind the selective editing). It can be simply reworded as: O'reilly sent a producer to film/question her outside her home. According to critics, he did so by ambushing her, and in the interview, she defended her criticism, calling O'reilly a hypocrite. PLEASE look at WP:NOTCENSORED &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is you don't have any reliable source that report on the incident, only a blog report of he said/she said using heresay from one side. How do you know what happened?  These kinds of allegations need some backing or WP would be littered with them.  Arzel (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just adding in one last thing today: The washington post considers AJC reputable. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bill+O'Reilly?tid=informline &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That like adds nothing. Arzel (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This user added another contentious blog source. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any admins even looking at this page? Arzel (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: there have been some updates by other users on the article in question's talk page which alleviates some of the accusations directed at User:Jimintheat1. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Popes and Saints - Special Treatment for Hagiographies?
I sought information about Pope Pius IX and read the WP article. I found it lacked balance, contained unsourced and difficult to verify information and read like a promotional piece from the Roman Catholic church. I made a number of edits seeking to improve neutrality but have seen these edits reverted or written over to maintain the old style of the article. Changes were made to my edits that amounted to reversions, with little or no explanation.

The offending editor is primarily using sources written by church scholars in the 19th century. Accounts of Pius IX written by reverential contemporaries are, in my opinion, of lesser value than independent historians of modern times. These old volumes are unlikely to be available in standard libraries but I found that complete text of at least two had been placed online. I linked the article to those texts, assuming a serious reader would prefer to look at the original words rather than someone's interpretation of them. Those online links were removed, restoring the original text citations.

WP guidelines seem to be silent on old and ancient sources. Is a book published in 1868 likely to be a reliable source in today's world? Anyone have similar experiences? I can imagine that many articles have vigilant defenders standing by ready to prevent edits that take the article away from favored positions. True, or not? --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No comment on the rest, but sources can be both reliable and biased. --NE2 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at the actual edits and reversions, it seems that what is going on is that Interactbiz wants to add a mention of some of the material from Edgardo Mortara to Pope Pius IX; that is, material relating to Pius's treatment of Jews. In my judgement, such an addition would be appropriate:  the issue has been widely discussed by scholarly sources.  There are, however, much better sources available than the one that Interactbiz was relying on (an NYT article). Looie496 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saints are by definition not living people (I think, please don't correct me if I'm wrong), and only one pope at a time is living. I'm copying this discussion to the Catholicism wikiproject, hoping to find knowledgeable editors there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the moment I read this I went wtf since I was pretty sure Pius IX wasn't the current Pope and hadn't been for a while. Looking at the article it says he died in 1878 so a further wtf. There may very well be issues here, but they're obviously not even close to being BLP ones Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Corbin Bleu's Filmography
He did not play the little boy Nathan in the film Soldier with Kurt Russell. The role of Nathan was played by twin boys Jared and Taylor Thorne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.129.74 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Why is this a biography of living persons "violation"?   Corvus cornix  talk  20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth missing category
In order to try a gain a wider consensus I invited the members of the Biography project to add their thoughts to the discussion of whether this category should be hidden or not here Category_talk:Year_of_birth_missing_(living_people). If you can think of any other project whose members should comment on these please feel free to add this message to their talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

love child allegations

 * User:Kelly/sandbox 2 There is a sandbox that has an external link to a BLP violation version of an old article.
 * User talk:Kelly I asked the editor to remove the link to the BLP violation but was unsuccesssful.
 * The sandbox was used in the past to update and improve the article. However, now the sandbox is being misused with a link to love child allegations and there is a hidden article about love child allegation in the edit history of the sandbox. At the very least, the external link to the love child allegations should be removed.  Q ua ck Gu ru   22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no problems in those links. Stop harassing Kelly and do something productive.Verklempt (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The sandbox version, and the webcitation link, are identical to this revision of a current article. It's a copy of my first draft that I posted to mainspace. I only keep it so I can go back and refind references in case they somehow get lost sometime down the road. The original title was crappy (even I admit that) but not a BLP violation. Kelly  hi! 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that user pages are indexed by Google and available to the world, so if there's a BLP issue either the issue or the page should be removed. --CliffC (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sandbox page is blanked, except for a brief message, and contains no BLP violations in any event. Kelly  hi! 04:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sandbox is not blanked. It contains a link to a nasty love child allegations article. The inappropriate BLP violation link should be removed off of Wikipedia.  Q ua ck Gu ru   04:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quack, the link is to a copy of the article. What exactly, again, are you alleging as a BLP vio, specifically? I'm sorry, but between this and my talk page, you are becoming tiresome. Kelly  hi! 05:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is not a copy of the current article. I already explained the BLP violation on Kelly's talk page. It's time for the BLP violation/allegations link to be removed.  Q ua ck Gu ru   05:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't explain it, but in any case could you please restate it? Kelly  hi! 05:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the article so can't judge whether it's a BLP violation. However linking to a BLP violation, even from a user talk page sub page is still likely to be construed a BLP v violation so if the linked article is a BLP violation then you really shouldn't be linking to it. Also, I really don't think it's a good idea for editors to be keeping controversial personal notes on wiki. There must be a million other services you can use to do so, including your computer Favourites/Bookmark function if you only use one computer. Remember user pages are primarily intended for communication between users about matters concerning wikipedia and fostering the community spirit not so much for a personal webspace, even for issues concerning wikipedia. We allow stuff like essays and people's thoughts on wikipedia, this is after all a form of communication to other users, but it's not clear to me what useful purpose this serves to other editos Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, can you explain the need for a page that seems not to help wikipedia, but to stoke needless drama. I'm not sure that it is a BLP issue, but it may still not be helpful. Or can't you at least keep a note of the link off wiki? I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, I'm just wondering if you are doing something unnecessary.--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: QuackGuru has been blocked for 9RR edit warring. --mboverload @ 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I removed the link to the BLP violation.  Q ua ck Gu ru   17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I have got QuackGuru edit-warring in my sandbox to remove a link to a Wikipedia mirror, citing this conversation. Exactly what the hell is the BLP violation specifically supposed to be? It's a copy of a Wikipedia article, for Christ's sake! Kelly  hi! 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, the title is offensive and a BLP violation. It is not a mirror of the current article. I am at 0RR. The 3RR is exempt when removing BLP violations.  Q ua ck Gu ru   20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I'm not defending Quackguru for an instant, but can I repeat my question. Why do you need to keep this link on a wikipage at all? Maybe it isn't against BLP, but how is it helping?--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The link is to an early version of an article that was highly contentious, and subject to edit warring for a long time. It still attracts both blanking and basic BLP violations (often both at once), but is now mostly stable.  The AFD for the article is here.  At the time the article was webcited, the title was undesirable but reasonable given the sources then existing.  The AFD effort to delete died when the most prominent person the allegations were about admitted that the allegations were at least partially true, but it doesn't look to my eyes like there was anything approaching agreement that the early versions were a BLP violation.  QuackGuru holds that position, but reviewers should not start from the assumption that BLP is a real issue here.  However, unless Kelly travels and regularly edits from different computers, I'd think her purposes could be satisfied by keeping a copy of the link on both home and work computers.  But this is not urgent; nor is a matter of contention involving anyone other than QG.  This is a disruptive fight that QG choose to start without a leg to stand on.  GRBerry 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that last sentence sums up my view as well. MastCell Talk 23:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble seeing an issue with this. Also, given how much far worse stuff claims about Edwards and this issue are floating around the net a link to an old draft that is not perfectly NPOV but has no severe BLP problems seems not that problematic. (Although I don't understand why people store anything contentious in userspace. So much easier to just email to yourself or something similar). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

John DiFronzo
I have temporarily deleted this BLP, it is negative, and according to our current standards, it is grossly under-unsourced for the strengths of the allegations it appears to contain.

Can someone review, and ensure it only contains verifiable material and claims, or is clear who cites them and on what authority, before restoring?

FT2 (Talk 10:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, Mr. DiFronzo is quite elderly but still alive (at least as of June 2007), so BLP does apply. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, he's "reputed to be a respected elder of the Chicago Outfit."
 * A Google Books search reveals numerous sources, but it's going to take some real work to write a solid article with detailed inline citations. In the meantime, I'll try to put together a sourced stub when I get a chance. — Satori Son 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deal W. Hudson
This was originally created an attack page. Editors removed the offending material, but the attack page keeps getting reverted back in. Hudson is a prominent political figure who did and said controversial things. A substantive NPOV article can be written, but the current article is a battleground with Hudson's attackers and supporters. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythomania and John McCain
Someone added sourced material on John McCain to the article Mythomania. Mythomaia is itself uncited. I removed a section on pathological liar, since it had no references. However, the implication of the article is that John McCain has mythomania. I do not want to get into an edit war with another edit. However, there is no agreed upon definition of mythomaia and no evidence that John McCain engages in mythomania. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the unsourced sentence and the unreliably sourced sentence. I believe that makes it clearer that none of the remainder belongs in that article, and should be excised under WP:BLP.  Who will do the honors?  GRBerry 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking further, Merriam-Webster does include the word, so it isn't a neologism, and does have a ordinary English definition. I see a smattering of Google Scholar hits and enough Google Book hits that I wouldn't want to delete the article.  But is there any reason to let the article have any example/trivia section?  The talk page indicates that use of the page to take potshots at various people has been a problem for a long while.  GRBerry 21:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled. Are there no admins watching this discussion, or watching Mythomania? Maybe there is some grand plan afoot to take care of the problem, but how can such statements as Sen. John McCain has been caught in a series of lies that clearly indicated that he is a pathological liar be allowed to sit and fester for more than a minute?  What are all our WP:BLP, etc, rules for, if they are not enforced?  --CliffC (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That information was original research and synth, and I've removed it as such. I don't know why you let it set there for this long, you could have removed it yourself. Celarnor Talk to me 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the article itself, someone can take it to AfD if they want; there really isn't much to say about it. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although, as a side note, the French version seems to be quite good; I'm not sure how to mark it for translation, but it looks like it could benefit. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Celarnor. I was reluctant to remove that paragraph because I saw parts of it still under discussion above.  --CliffC (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry for causing that misinterpretation, I wanted the material gone, but I also wanted more widespread participation. I've been too active in cleaning up garbage related to American politics lately, and feel more neutral editors need to get involved.  The only thing I meant to disagree with Mattisse on was whether or not the article itself was viable.  And even there I am not certain myself.  GRBerry 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no feelings about the article itself. It can exist as far as I am concerned and I never meant to imply otherwise. I just do not want to see it misused. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

John C. Dvorak
continues to make the following edits to :  I, and  have reverted the edit, and have both been met with accusations of vandalism and griefing by.

It seems to the only purpose of this is to deride Devorak. It's irrelevant to the section, a one off non-notable event, and the source (a twitter page) doesn't pass WP:RS. refuses to discuss these concerns on either his talk page, or on the article's and instead continues to revert and spam vandalism warning templates. So, in an effort to avoid reverting this page for the rest of my life, I thought I should bring it up here. --Falcorian (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it took me a while to figure out what this complaint is about, let me explain in a way that might be a little more helpful to others. Refridgerator is absolutely determined that the John C. Dvorak article must include the sentence, "He reminds people to stay off his lawn".  That's the gist of it.  Isn't Wikipedia great? Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the links were clear, but thanks for making it more so. ;) --Falcorian (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is borderline idiotic. There's no BLP issue. It is just irrelevant. There's no reason that detail should be in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... But it's hard to make the other side see that. I suppose I should take it to 3R or ANB. --Falcorian (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Momo Scylla
Defamatory remarks are included in this footballer's profile, regarding the "Comet" shop incident and especially the libel regarding Scylla and Sandy Clark. They should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejink (talk • contribs) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot find which article this is referring to. Could you please give us a link? — Satori Son 15:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Momo Sylla. I've fixed the trouble (you could have done so yourself, Lejink), and I'll keep an eye on the article, which seems to be corrupted frequently. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin
Comment request

I'm on the fence about whether this post on the talk page is a BLP violation. Specifically, I'm concerned about the last sentence presupposing that evidence does exist. I'm confident that the post will be removed shortly (because I have faith in Wikipedians to act with class). I want to get an outside opinion before gently cautioning the editor about BLP. --Elliskev 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see it as a blp violation, just undue weight and poor choice of words. Though her public career is fair game, it still has to be reported fairly & I am not aware of any actual source that would justify "Rapegate" in the heading. DGG (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Walter Sedlmayr murder
As some people here probably know, the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required has now been going on for almost a month. The reason why I still keep it going is, that I am just shocked by the profound confusion about wp:blp. I cannot possible ask someone to read all of that discussion, but PLEASE, could someone with some experience about Biographies of living persons look at the last section and tell me whether I am right or wrong when I say that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist". Zara1709 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it is irrelevant entirely whether or not it is sensationalist. One thing that is relevant is that enWikipedia is not censored, and is fortunately able to ignore German censorship legislation. Whether or not it is legal to publish this material in German after a person has served the sentence is no concern of ours. There's a good deal of content in Wikipedia that we couldnt publish in one or another country. All we care about with respect to German press regulation is copyvio. DGG (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Labeling political prisoners "criminals"
User:Russavia labels living Russian scientists Valentin Danilov and Igor Sutyagin and activist Mikhail Trepashkin as "criminals":, , , and so on. All these people have been described as political prisoners by international human rights organizations that was mentioned here, for example. I tried to convince this user but could not. I think this is serious, especially in light of recent ArbComm ruling. What do you think? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is relevant. There is a current discussion to remove the entire Category:Political prisoners - see here initiated by the same user. Yes, this is probably a WP:POINT on his part. He tries to experimentally prove that the category of political prisoners is "intrinsically POV" see this comment.Biophys (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you on my talk page, if Russian courts convicted them of criminal offences, then they are criminals. Just because a human rights organisation claims they are political prisoners, this does not change the fact that they were convicted on criminal charges in Russian courts, thereby making them criminals. You can't have one POV without the other I am afraid. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And I suggest that you read the definition of a criminal. The political prisoner moniker may fit your anti-Russian POV, but you have clearly forgotten that we are WP:NPOV, this means he may be regarded as a political prisoner by one side of the equation, the other side says he is a criminal. What you are doing is WP:NOTADVOCATE, and that's a no-no. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In cases like this a more neutral wording can be found, a Russian .... who has been convicted of  ... .  for example. We use common sense. DGG (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These two Russian scientists (and criminal investigator Trepashkin too) were falsely accused and convicted of high treason although none of them had any access to state secrets and did not sign any forms that would oblige them to keep state secrets.Biophys (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Category:People convicted of treason ?Biophys (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. I guess this solves the problem. We need new and more specific category, something like "Russian scientists convicted of treason". That would be a very large category that also includes such people as Alexander Chayanov, Sergei Chetverikov, Pavel Florensky, Lev Gumilev, Sergey Korolyov, Sergei Kovalev and many many others.Biophys (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin 2
My understanding of BLP policy is that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." Nevertheless a couple editors keep re-including a section in the article devoted exclusively to "Religious perspective on public and private life". The section has been discussed exhaustively at the talk page, and the vast majority of editors have expressed opposition to this section, for various reasons that are not pertinent (e.g. redundancy, NPOV, summary style, et cetera). I provided diffs to the advocates for inclusion, showing that many many more editors are against inclusion, but they still insist that the section be included. The main talk page discussion is here. What to do?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another question: if there's a new section of an article about a living person, do we need consensus to remove it, or consensus to keep it included? I thought the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess this fuss has died down for the time being. It may come back again, though, in which case "I'll be back."  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Naomi (porn star)
This purports to be a biography of an (unidentified) person and if this were clearly the case I would have unilaterally deleted it already as poorly sourced (porn stars are not reliable sources for statements about themselves). In fact, it is in large part a description of a fictional character (complete with all the usual pornography industry cliches about a religious upbringing, love of anal sex etc.). The distinction, however, is blurred by the possible appending of some details of the actress' life.

So, what to do? Delete, turn into a fictional character article or something else?

CIreland (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Naomi is a real porn star who verifiably passes WP:PORNBIO. Adult Video News is considered a reputable publication in the porn trade. What an active porn actress says about her sex life should be taken with a grain of salt, but what Naomi said in the AVN interview is hardy contentious. The other stuff should be sourced better, but I don't see a serious BLP problem. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to put in caveats: "According to Naomi, in her interview with ..."   Corvus cornix  talk  21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Satar Jabar
The use of the statement "It should be noted that dozens of other individuals were physically tortured, some to death. The treatment Jabar claims to have received was common practice at Abu Ghraib." is a perversion of what is referenced in the Newsweek Article. . The article notes that, "The U.S. military is reviewing the deaths of 32 Iraqis in detention, many of them at Abu Ghraib."

This article is not presented from a NPOV. - Myles58


 * There are problems with neutral presentation, and with sourcing. Certainly there are problems with the writing ("It should be noted that..."). But it doesn't specifically say Dick Cheney tortured him, so probably there isn't a problem with blp. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bryant G. Wood
Greetings from user Chronic2, a new editor, with my first edit having been on August 19 of this year (eight days ago).

This is a complaint about editor PiCo. In short, my complaint is the following: in an article devoted to a living scientist, he consistently makes entries that have no proper citation, and then deletes as "irrelevant" and "tendentious" the entries of those who provide proper citations, but which might threaten his opinions. He also uses semantically loaded generalizations (again without citations or any proper documentation) in stating his views (opinions). He misuses the editing process by his numerous deletions of other editor's entries that conflict with his views, rather than presenting any factual information or citations to present his case.

What follows is a history of how this has been done on the site for archaeologist Bryant G. Wood.

In his first edit of this article, 13:47, 7 September 2007, in the passage "Dr. Wood received international attention for his research on ancient Jericho, which argued for the historicity of the Biblical account . . . ". PiCo inserted the word "unsuccessfully" after "argued." No citation was given for this sweeping generalization. This modification begs the question; the Wikipedia page is a place to present evidence for or against Dr. Wood's research, not to cast it all out with an unsubstantiated statement.

In this same first edit, he introduced a new section, "Jericho." That a new section should be introduced here was appropriate, since Dr. Wood's research at Jericho is recognized internationally. However, the content of his entry was not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. It offered no citations to support its claims, other than supplying the URLs of two websites at the end (more on this shortly). One of these websites is no longer in existence. Both websites were from the same general website (same author). I saw that a good portion of PiCo's entry was just copy-and-pasted from that site. This pasting included a quote from the journal/magazine Biblical Archaeology Review which stated that "He [Wood] presented four arguments to support his view. None of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny."

Nothing is said here to indicate which issue of BAR, this statement was in, or who said it. Furthermore, no explanation follows of why Wood is wrong in whatever four arguments he produced. The original fault for this lies with the person who created the website that PiCo copied and pasted from, because that is the way it is in the Website. This is unacceptable in an editor. As you will know, it is against the Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons, which states, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced our poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

The source from which PiCo copied-and-pasted is the web page of a person who writes on chronological and historical matters, but who does not publish in the journals that are devoted to this subject (I am cognizant of these journals). He has views that no published scholar that I know of accepts. His date for the Exodus, for example, is 2400 BC, which he gets by placing a missing 1000 years into the history of the world. It is from this far-out site that PiCo made his first entry into the discussion of the scholarship of Dr. Bryant Wood.

PiCo was, however, entirely correct in adding a new section to the article, as he did, that deals with stratigraphic and radiocarbon (C-14) dating at Jericho, because this question has direct relevance to the ideas of Dr. Wood. A discussion of Wood's ideas should be presented to the reader so that an opinion can be formed on whether his research has any credibility. So there is no objection to PiCo's creating of this section, even though his entry was in violation of Wikipedia's policies about citations, unsubstantiated statements about a living person, and making sweeping generalizations that are not backed up by any facts.

PiCo's next edit was on the same day, 13:51, 27 Sep 2007, in which he eliminated a Web link which had an article to Dr. Wood's research, providing as a comment, deleting a link which is full of info which is simply wrong. This is a double standard; PiCo's two links to the Web site that supported his opinions were left in, despite the many strange ideas that are contained in that Web site (Exodus in 2400 BC being only one of them). Two minutes later, at 13:53, he deleted another Web site that someone had put in as reviewing favorably Dr. Wood's ideas, supplying the comment "deleting another unreliable link - christiananswers is not very good at facts." As with all PiCo's activities, he uses his authority as an editor to make judgments about what is acceptable, instead of supplying any citations to relevant scholarship. Meanwhile links critical of Dr. Wood remained in the article.

At 14:10, 7 September 2007, PiCo modified a statement about John Garstang, an archaeologist who also excavated at Jericho and whose dates agree with those given by Wood. The point of the modification was to state that Garstang derived his date from the Bible, an obvious attempt to discredit Garstang as a reputable archaeologist. As in all PiCo's edits, no citation was given for this change, and, as I demonstrated in an entry on 09:18, 25 August 28, the statement as modified by PiCo was factually incorrect. (PiCo then tried to get rid of my citation that showed the statement or opinion he had entered was not true.) If it had been true, it would have been relevant, because it would show that Garstang, and presumably Wood, were not basing their ideas on true scientific research, but on a prejudice in favor of the Bible. PiCo knew that his comment would discredit both Garstang and Wood. But the comment was not true, and the bias it introduced needed to be addressed, as I did some months after it had been entered.

PiCo's next edit was at 14:05, 7 September 2007, in which he added one sentence to the lead paragraph of the article. Purpose of the sentence was to discredit Wood's scholarship. The sentence contains the statement that Wood's proposal for dating the fall of Jericho City IV was "unsustainable," a generalization for which no verification or citation was supplied here or anywhere else in the article. PiCo's opinions were now not just confined to his new "Jericho" section later in the article, but were put in place where they would immediately be seen by any reader opening the page.

At 09:24, 8 September 2008, PiCo added a notability tag. I could surmise what the purpose of this was, but what is more important is that it seems to me inappropriate; Dr. Wood is an internationally recognized scholar with many publications to his credit, and an expert in the field of pottery types in the 2nd millennium BC. Why infer that he is not notable?

In June 2008 there was a controversy with Harryjohnstanley, in which the latter removed the undocumented statements that PiCo had pasted in with his initial entry. Harryjohnstanley, however, was apparently not very skillful in explaining his reasons for deleting the unsubstantiated scholarship, and PiCo was able to convince a Wikipedia editor that Harryjohnstanley was biased. As I look at the edits, I see that Harryjohnstanleywas not good at presenting his case, and PiCo definitely knew how to use his Wikipedia skills to advantage, no matter how defective his scholarship was.

At 18:33, 25 June 2008, user MyOlmec added some new information at the end of the "Jericho" section that PiCo had introduced in September 2007. This new information had proper citations, unlike PiCo's entries, and presented new information from scientific journals that supported Dr. Wood's research. It was therefore a needed counterbalance to the one-sided presentation in this section that PiCo had originally introduced to discredit Dr. Wood. MyOlmec's entry at 18:54 on the same day undid some of PiCo's sweeping, and always unsubstantiated, generalizations. MyOlmec's statements lack PiCo's sweeping generalizations; according to his user page, he is an academic whose training qualifies him to speak on the issues under discussion. He does not derive his ideas from a far-out Web page.

This was too much for PiCo. On 1:43, 26 June 2008 he discarded MyOlmec's changes and put back in his semantically loaded generalizations. As always with PiCo, no proper citations were given for his opinions. But as we see, PiCo is very aggressive at editing anything that does not agree with those opinions. He deletes entries that follow Wikipedia guidelines in favor of his own statements that have repeatedly violated those guidelines.

MyOlmec had some spunk. As an academician, he knew that what PiCo was doing was not good scholarship, and at 14:50, June 26 2008 he undid PiCo's revision of his (MyOlmec's) entries, commenting ''Undid PiCo's revision. . . more information is a good thing.''

At this point I realize the discussion has gotten long. I myself have gotten the same treatment from PiCo that MyOlmec and other participants have gotten, and if any information is desired on this more recent abuse of PiCo's misuse of the Wikipedia methods, they can be seen on the Discussion page of my userid, Chronic2. It is frustrating to try to enter information that is relevant to Dr. Wood's work, only to have anything and everything that is not antagonistic to that work labeled by PiCo as "irrelevant" or "tendentious", and deleted by him. Please read what I said in that discussion page about PiCo saying that anyone who updated his section on Jericho with newer information was introducing irrelevant material, whereas he himself was the one who introduced arguments based on stratigraphy and C-14 dating in an effort to discredit Dr. Wood; then when someone gives proper citations (never done by PiCo) and newer information (which he seems completely ignorant of and doesn't want to hear about), he uses his skills as an editor to challenge, intimidate, and delete.

I hope that whoever reads this will evaluate our problems, not based on whether they think Bryant Wood's research is valid or not, but on a behavior pattern that is a great hindrance to the kind of free and unbiased entry of information that Wikipedia was designed to promote.

This controversy is very current, with the latest exchanges being made today, 28 August. See the Bryant Wood discussion page for more details.

Thanks for your time. I realize it has taken some time to explain the difficulties we have been having on this site. It has been very frustrating for me, as new to Wikipedia editing, to see this sort of intimidation going on.

Chronic2 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, but you are complaining in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for issues that involve material that is either potentially scandalous or not suitable for public knowledge. It looks like your dispute is about the validity of Wood's research.  If your opponent is behaving improperly, the place to complain about it is either Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Administrators' Noticeboard. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, NPOV board is the place. But in the meantime I have removed one sentence of blatantly egregious OR, in which the article states without a source which of two disputed views is preferred. I deliberately did not look to see who added it--regardless of other matters, such a sentence cannot stand. I also removed what seemed a totally unwarranted notability tag on the article, again without looking who placed it. He and his viws are clearly notable. DGG (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick skim shows this as a footnote "This is of course the point that Bietak makes and which is succintly expressed in the Science article cited above. The argument is just as germane to Jericho and Levantine sites as it is to the sites that Bietak has investigated in Egypt. Bietak, of course, is not willing to make such and adjustment.". Clear OR -- by the complainant here, who admits they are new. And the talk page is just a collection of complaints so I think I'll archive it, not sure what is best to do but it is pretty unreadable. Doug Weller (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Johnalexwood
- appears to be a wider issue here with adding unsourced info to WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material (birthdate, alleged name of individual's daughter) in a WP:BLP - without providing any cites to back up this info. Doesn't seem to be getting the hint from me so I would prefer it if someone else looked into this please. Might also be an issue with prior edits to other WP:BLP articles as well by this user. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article claims personal information about the individual, but all of the biographical information appears to be unsourced. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, the image used in the article is a blatant copyvio. I tagged it as such. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

- Addition of categories that are not backed up by any sources anywhere in this article. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - This talk page explanation is also quite troubling - I added the cat British Scientologist because it says he has lived in the UK since the 70s, just like Doug E Fresh, who has both the cats Barbadian and American Scientologist. - What? It says nothing of any sources or any way to back up this information, simply makes a circular reference to another Wikipedia article. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

- Inserting categories not backed up by the article, which itself is wholly unsourced. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

, - Inserting categories not backed up by the article or sources in the article. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, he appears to be using the same Scientology sites in the referencing. Not reliable sources.  He's been warned before, so I'm away to block for a short time to stop this abuse.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User adding speedy delete tags
User 74.215.134.17 has placed CSD A7 tags on several established biography pages. ‎ here is a cut and paste of the contrib log with a list of the affected articles.

20:12, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Lisa Love 20:11, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Stephen Colletti ‎ 20:11, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Brody Jenner ‎ 20:10, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Lo Bosworth ‎ 20:09, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Heidi Montag ‎ 20:08, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Whitney Port 20:08, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Audrina Patridge ‎ 20:07, August 28, 2008 (hist) (diff) Lauren Conrad ‎

All of the tags have been removed from the articles, however, this was most likely done as an act of pure vandalism. -Brougham96 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard
Can someone experienced in BLP enforcement take a look at the talk page of Rosalind Picard? She is a noted scientist whose article on her is being used as a coat rack to smear her name - or not. Someone needs to look at it from an unbiased point of view. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - I made a similar type of request here, about OR, which fixing one would solve the other. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

David Michael Jacobs


Dr. Jacobs is a leading UFO researcher who has published four books. He is well known within the UFO community. His page was put up without his knowledge, but the information contained within most of it is well documented and referenced. A problem developed when an editor added information that was biased against Dr. Jacobs. The information is on a website put up by a disgruntled former client of Dr. Jacobs and is nothing more than a vendetta against him. There are no other sources for this information and this person feels she can write anything against anyone without consequence. It's my believe that Angie186 is this woman herself. I have removed the information several times now, citing why it should be removed. Another editor agreed with my decision. However, this person keeps putting the information back up and now is saying I haven't given her any reasons (the reasons are still publically viewable on the talk page of the article). Is there any way to stop this person from putting the same unverifiable and libelous information back on the page? -- Fiona2211814 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The page of information about Dr. Jacobs on Wikipedia is a valuable source of information about his work. For this reason, I made what I consider to be a relevant contribution to this page. It was also properly referenced. I referred to an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs himself speaking about the information that I provided. The information is therefore factual, verifiable, and not libelous. * In regard to Fiona's derogatory statements about the owner of the website which published the audio clip, I do not consider that she has grounds for making such statements. However, the important point is that it is totally irrelevant. The issue at question is whether the source that I provided was reliable, and as it was an audio clip of Dr. Jacobs himself speaking about the information, it clearly is reliable * I do not think that it is appropriate for Fiona to make statements about who she thinks I am or am not, particularly in regard to the derogatory statements that she has made about the person who she thinks I am. I do not believe that it is appropriate behavior towards another editor. I have been consistently courteous to her throughout our exchanges over this issue, and I would appreciate the same courtesy shown to me as an editor in return. * I must also point out that I provided commentary on the discussion page in regard to all my changes to Fiona's edits. Fiona did not provide any commentary when she initially deleted my contribution. Another editor did this instead later. After having removed my contribution a second time, I suggested to Fiona on the discussion page that she raise the issue with Disputes Resolution before removing it a third time. However, she went ahead and removed it again. After that I left another message for her saying that I would not reinstate my contribution a third time, as I did not want to become engaged in an "edit war" with her, but that I would raise it with Disputes Resolution myself. It appears that she has now raised the matter here, so I will respond here instead. * Judging by Fiona's comments here, it appears that she may have some emotional investment in this issue. However, I must point out that although Dr. Jacobs is a well known UFO researcher, this does not mean that all information provided about his work has to be supportive of it. It is the nature of public research in this area to engender debate, and opposing positions. Anyone involved in this area of research is aware of this, and has to expect it. At times, people will put up information about a person of interest to another reader, and they will not agree with it. However, in a democratic forum such as Wikipedia, all people have a right to provide information. As long as that information is relevant to the topic, and has a reliable source, which my information does, then they should be allowed to do so. People should not try to suppress relevant information simply because they do not want it to be publicly known about. * If Fiona has an issue with this information, I suggest that she finds reliable sources that prove that the information that I provided is not accurate. If she can do that, then I will, of course, look at that. However, as I believe that the source that I have provided is very reliable, for the reasons stated above, I would like my contribution to the article concerned to be reinstated. -- Angie186 (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The audio tape in question up on the site referenced is full of edits that one can hear quite clearly. It's obvious that the person behind it wanted the public only to hear words said out of context and not the entire conversation. No effort on the site has been made to be fair and provide differing points of view. No effort has been made to fill in any part of the site except the derogatory remarks about Dr. Jacobs. Most of the other links on the site are not even active and have not been for over a year. The person who made the site quite obviously has an agenda against Dr. Jacobs, which any reader can see. I too have asked Angie to provide another source for the information besides this one site. The fact is, this site is not a reliable source at all. I can create a site right now that says I am really a talking frog. That doesn't make it true or reliable. The allegations made at this site should have verification other than one person's opinion. Opinion is fine, but it is not something that should be included in a site dedicated to referenced and reliable information. -- Fiona2211814 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fiona2211814, post a request at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a consensus determine whether www.ufoalienabductee.com is a reliable source. Once there is a determination at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, this should resolve your dispute and each of you may act according to that resolution. Suntag (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The two reliable source websites used in the article I recognize are pbs.org and salon.com. Much of the information is sourced to aliensecrets.com, bibliotecapleyades.net, bio.net, cassiopaea.org, crystalinks.com, csicop.org, esolibris.com, exopolitics.org, geocities.com, mail-archive.com, millennium-ark.net, mystae.com, qsl.net, rapimentialieni.org, rawilsonfans.com, scifi.com, theironskeptic.com, thetriangle.org, ufoabduction.com, ufocasebook.com, ufocongress.com, virtuallystrange.net, weirdload.com. Although I haven't looked into it further, the rest of the sources may fall into self published sources and questionable sources and generally the disfavored use of websites. Enforcement information is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources. A biography is not a presentation of the thoughts and writing of David Michael Jacobs as presented by David Michael Jacobs. A biography is a chronological account of the series of events making up a person's life as sourced to the reliable source writings of others who are not Dr. Jacobs. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually means print newspaper articles and print book, not websites. Suntag (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the biographical article should contain a chronological series of the events in Dr. Jacobs’ life, and I believe that the contribution that I made to this article fits that category. Dr. Jacobs’ thinks that he has been contacted by alien-human hybrids on instant messenger. That is an event in his life (it is not a theory that he has speculated on but is something that he believes is a factual event that happened to him), and it is also relevant to his work as a UFO researcher. It is entirely appropriate to have this information in his biography. His former research subject, Emma Woods, is in the process of publishing a transcript of a telephone conversation that she had with Dr. Jacobs in June 2007, in which he himself referred to the instant messaging conversations concerned as “these extremely important matters in my life” * The audio clip in question has been edited to remove Dr. Jacobs’ former research subject’s voice in order to protect her identity.  There has been no attempt to hide the edits, and a transcript has been provided with the audio clip which shows where each edit is. There is no evidence of any attempt to distort the meaning of what Dr. Jacobs said or to present it out of context. On the contrary, his former research subject has provided substantial background and supporting information in relation to the audio clip, to assist in putting it in context. * Fiona says “No effort on the site has been made to be fair and provide differing points of view.” While I do not agree with this, it is nevertheless not applicable to the audio clip concerned. The audio clip is simply of Dr. Jacobs speaking about what he believes happened to him. It is not a point of view, on which there can be differing opinions. It is simply Dr. Jacobs saying what he believes happened to him * Dr. Jacobs’ former research subject has also provided a link to Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster’s website, on which Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster provides additional confirmation that Dr. Jacobs believes that he has been contacted by alien-human hybrids on instant messenger.  * The instant messaging communications from the alien-human hybrids originated from Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster’s computer, and his former research subject stated her opinion that his webmaster probably wrote the hybrid communications herself as a hoax.  This is not a “vendetta”.  It is simply a sensible opinion that most people would agree with. (Dr. Jacobs’ webmaster has a statement at the top of her website in which she accuses his former research subject of libel.  His former research subject has written a rebuttal to that statement. ) * Dr. Jacobs’ former research subject’s website is being constructed over time, and there is a notice on most of the pages explaining this. I have followed the website since it was put up, and there has been a substantial amount of other information published on it that does not relate to Dr. Jacobs. If Fiona has been following the website, which her comment suggests that she has, she will also know this, contrary to what she has said here. Recently the other information was removed along with some of the information relating to Dr. Jacobs, as the owner of the site has redesigned it. She has been putting the pages back up as they are converted to the new format. There is no evidence whatsoever that this maintenance work on her website means that his former research subject has an agenda against Dr. Jacobs. * His former research subject is publishing an account of her work with Dr. Jacobs, which obviously was not a good experience for her.  However, she is simply stating what happened to her, backed by supporting documentation, and that is her right to do. The fact that Fiona appears to have an issue with this is not relevant to whether the audio clip of Dr. Jacobs speaking about the events is a reliable source. * I am not aware of any books or newspapers which have referred to this event in Dr. Jacobs’ life. It is a fairly recent event and it is not widely known about.  However, this does not mean that it is not relevant to his biography. The Wikipedia guidelines say that "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." In the context of the situation, the audio clip is a reliable source because Dr. Jacobs talks himself about this event in his life. This is regardless of which website it is on.  He himself says that this happened to him, and that is relevant to his biography as a UFO researcher. Angie186 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Suntag, I will take it to the reliable sources board. Thank you. I also have not had the time to look into the other sources yet, but you are most likely right. They are questionable at best as well.

Angie, you say the audio tape was edited to remove someone else speaking. First, how do I, as a listener know that? How do you? If you don't know this person, how can you trust that she only removed those parts? Second, what she said in that conversation could have a direct bearing on his responses. It's called context. How can I (or you) know how to interpret his words within the context of the conversation when there is no longer a conversation? I don't honestly believe this, but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that she was prompting him to say some of these things. That is an extreme example of course, but I present it only to help you see why the context of the entire conversation - including what this woman says - is needed to form any opinions about the audio tape.

As for the site only recently being empty of most content, that is a lie and you know it. This woman has been promising all of her experiences for over a year now and never filled in one. She has promised all kinds of scientific data, and only put in one tiny, small section. In fact, when looking at the site, one is hard pressed to know what she experienced at all, other than an ongoing argument with Dr. Jacobs.

Fiona2211814 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fiona, I do not appreciate you calling me a liar. I have found your attitude in our exchanges on this issue to be unnecessarily aggressive and offensive. Please observe the appropriate respect for other editors, even if you do not agree with them. * I am sorry but you are wrong about the other information on the website concerned. Dr. Jacobs' former research subject published many pages of material about the anomalous experiences of her relatives, about unexplained markings that she has had on her body, and presenting video clips of anomalies that she recorded. If you have been following her website, then you must have seen these pages yourself. Dr. Jacobs also published a substantial amount of material relating to her experiences on his own website in 2006. * However, I do not think that these issues are relevant. The fact is that Dr. Jacobs believes that he has been in communication with alien-human hybrids on instant messenger, he talks about this himself on the audio clip, and that is an event in his life that is appropriate to include in his biography as a UFO researcher. Angie186 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Angie, we'll have to agree to disagree about the site. The fact is, she has page after page of links that are not hooked up and never have been. But, beyond that, I am still curious to hear your response on the edited audio tape and how you get around the context problem? Perhaps if you explain to me how editing out half a conversation helps to clarify it, I could understand better. Thanks! Fiona2211814 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiona, I was just about to include a comment about this. Dr. Jacobs was reading sections of the transcript of the instant messaging conversation that he had with who he believes was an alien hybrid. It is not the full transcript of the instant messaging conversation, but just sections of it. It is not necessary to hear him read the entire transcript, or to hear the entire conversation that he had with his former research subject about it, to understand that he believes that a hybrid was communicating with him. No one was prompting him to make up false statements. He was reading from a transcript and it is clear that is what he was doing. Dr. Jacobs believes that hybrids have communicated with him on instant messaging. This is a life event of his that is appropriate to include in his biography. The audio clip is a reliable source, as it consists of Dr. Jacobs himself reading sections of the instant messaging transcript concerned. Angie186 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Angie, I understand your point that it is his voice. However, you state that, "No one was prompting him to make false statements." May I ask how you know this? This is my entire point - the source is not reliable. You, I, and any other reader can't possibly know this without the full context of the conversation - completely unedited. I'm not saying that should be put in public either as there is probably personal information in there because it was a phone conversation. But, as a source for an encyclopedia, it falls short. Furthermore, as Suntag pointed out, an encyclopedia is not Dr. Jacobs in his own words. That would be an autobiography. So, the mere fact that it IS his own words makes it a poor choice of a source as well. We're not debating whether it is true information or not - that's a completely different conversation. We're debating whether it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Can you see my point? Fiona2211814 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is resolved. According to user:Protonk on the page, the reference to the audio recording is not a reliable source, and the site itself should not be used. Fiona2211814 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, according to user:Protonk, if the audio clip is hosted on a personal website, such as the one it is on now, it is not a reliable source, but that “if National Public Radio, CNN or the New York times hosted that clip. It would be a lot harder to explicitly exclude it as a source in that case.”  I have accepted this. As the audio clip is currently hosted on a personal website I will not refer to it as a source. However, should the audio clip be hosted by a source considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, as in the examples given by Protonk, I will refer to it. Angie186 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gus Bilirakis article
The author is slandering Congressman Bilirakis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.225.198 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just the usual sort of political vandalism, which nobody caught. I've fixed it, and verified the basic facts from Bilirakis's web page.  I'll keep an eye on this article for a while to be sure it doesn't happen again. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mug shots
I hope I'm posting in the right place and that this subject has not been discussed before, but I have a general complaint about the use of mug shots in the biographies of living people. I started a similar discussion at Talk:Lindsay_Lohan, but this really applies to all BLP articles. To sum up my point, I believe it is a violation of basic human dignity to have mug shots in a BLP, with the exception that some individuals may only be known for criminal activity. An even in the case of criminals, a mug shot does not - in any way - give the reader a better understanding of the actual crime that was committed. Mug shots are taken after-the-fact and serve little purpose in an encyclopedia. Irregardless of public domain, I believe there should be an addition to BLP policy to abstain from the use of mug shots unless there is a very specific rational for doing so. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  02:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree, although I think my reasons are somewhat different. I think that the mug shot places undue weight upon something that could well be a minor event if taken into context of the person's entire life and career, and the crime, no matter how much publicity it attracts, is not the person's reason for notability.   I think BLP doesn't quite accommodate this situation because if the crime is documented, and sourced and the image is free to use, the use of the image doesn't break any rules.   On the other hand,  I haven't seen a celebrity mugshot that hasn't made the article into which it is inserted, somewhat tawdry and sensationalised.    I think that modern culture is evolving into something that doesn't care for such things as privacy or human dignity, but Wikipedia can reflect that change in attitude and provide commentary without being part of problem.   Using questionable images without restraint simply because 'we can' would be contributing to the problem, in my opinion, and I would hope that we can maintain a higher standard than that.   If a strong case can be made for the use of a particular image, and it can be proven to facilitate greater understanding, I'd be interested to hear the case.   Criminals notable solely for their criminal actions are another story, and I think their mugshots are absolutely ok to use. Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree; with the same exception Rossrs reports. While some report of (minor) misbehaviour maybe useful on biography pages, an image taken just after an arrest (for e.g. drunk driving - most people don't look their best when drunk) will convey a very strong image that is placing undue weight on such an issue. Mug shots of well known criminals maybe useful (see e.g. Al Capone). So yes, I would support a ban on mugshots with the exception for persons well known for being a criminal. Arnoutf (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A ban goes too far. We could have a celebrity for whom we have many glamorous shots taken at premiers - these too are unrepresentative as they are taken at their best. Celebrity gets arrested for drink driving - what's the harm in a small mug-shot amidst several higher profile glamour images on the article. It is a question of balance.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think that a complete ban goes too far, but there are probably very few instances where the use of a mugshot image is essential.  Take a look at Mel Gibson - the lead image is a mugshot that says nothing about his work as a film actor or a director, and it's being used for two reasons - it's free and it's more recent than another of his red carpet photos. It's opportunistic because there are so few free images of him, but it doesn't represent his notability, and as an identifying image it's poor.  A small mug-shot is never used in a minor or small way, in fact it seems always to make a point and to dominate the section in which it appears.  "The harm" is that it doesn't create balance, but does the exact opposite by giving undue weight to an image that represents perhaps one day out of the life of the celebrity.     They're notable as performers and in the rest of their lives project a particular image, which is maybe represented by one photograph here.  At a premier "at their best" is exactly how they should be depicted.   That's how they're notable.   We're so used to seeing paparazzi images of celebrities going about their daily lives that we forget that is not what they're notable for and that is not what we should be reporting.   They're notable as actors, singers, models, musicians, dancers etc.  They're not notable as "woman going shopping without make-up" or "celebrity caught shirtless on a beach" or "immature actress with a driving violation".   These are part of their lives, but not part of their notability and the mugshots are the same.  So:  1 glamour image that represents 99.9% of their public life and 1 mugshot that represents 0.1% of their life is not a balance.  (and of course I'm making up percentages to show the lack of balance).   Also the way the images are used is usually not for education or information, but for sport and spectacle.  Lindsay Lohan's mugshot gets splashed about everywhere not because we need to know what she looked like on the day of her arrest, but because we take a voyeuristic pleasure in her distress.  Using it here isn't much different.   Wikipedia's policies condone it because it's free, it's accurate and it's sourced, but it's not necessary.  I'd be interested to see another high quality encyclopedia resorting to the use of mug-shots as part of their normal biographical reporting.  Rossrs (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think requiring a specific rationale is reasonable, and an outright ban unreasonable. I have a hard time with all of the celebrity articles, because we tend to document their celebrity as opposed to the person. Lohan's article has approached gossip tabloid status at times, and still needs a major purge. That said, I think it's reasonable to include a mugshot when the legal scrape is significant, and sometimes that image actually does convey understanding. I question whether Lohan's legal scrape was significant, just as I question whether the details of her parade of boyfriends and girlfriends is significant.Kww (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kww - outright ban is too strict - but the voyeurism should be reigned in. Perhaps a Guideline is better then a policy.... Something like "A mugshot in a biography should only be used if the mugshot significantly contributes to notability of that person. A rationale why this mugshot contributes to the article should be given and achieve consensus before a mugshot is to placed." Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good approach. Rossrs (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely think a more general consensus about mugshots would be great. Right now it seems rather haphazard which BLPs include them and which don't. A specific rationale sounds like a good idea, related to the subject's level of criminal activity, and maybe the level of coverage it has received from notable reliable sources, as well as how much coverage is in the wikipedia article itself (ie, it would very likely be undue weight to include a mugshot if there's just a line or two about one drunk driving incident.) Inclusion might also depend on which other images are already in the article (ie: it makes a difference between if there are several flattering images already in the article to balanda a mugshot and the mugshot is the only image in the article.) I also think it makes a big difference if the mugshot is already widely published in the general media vs if it's something wikipedians have dug out of primary sources. Siawase (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Arnoutfs idea. Is anyone willing to give a shot at writing a full guideline? The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in order to avoid edit waring, I think mug shot images -again, regardless of public domain- should have similar guidelines to NONFREE. Specifically, that a mug shot will be deleted if a rational is not provided. That way, we don't have editors uploading mug shots on a regular basis and we can get rid of a number of mug shots already on wikipedia that place undue weight on the individual's criminal activity. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  20:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good idea. When they are free images, whether used or not, we shouldn't be deleting them. Move the PD pictures to commons to avoid deleting them. For using them in articles, they should be treated like any other item in an article that has WP:UNDUE concerns - balance it to the rest of the article. If the arrest has no good place in the article because of WP:UNDUE concerns, then neither does the mug shot. I don't see any reason we need to add new policies/guidelines when the existing ones could do the job.  Jim Miller  See me 23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because as of right now current policies such as undue weight aren't doing the job. Editors want to fill article with pictures and are willing to ignore notability. Whether or not the images are appropriate has become irrelevant because they are free and the fact that there are no policies against public domain images is adding fuel to that fire. If there is a specific guideline addressing use of mug shots and other public domain images, it helps keeps notability in check and would be supported by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but its a lot more difficult to deal with this situation using existing guidelines alone - otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability does not limit article content, only the existence of the article itself. Whether or not the arrest or the mug shot was notable by itself is completely irrelevent in an article about a notable subject. WP:V and WP:UNDUE are the relevant policies for removing material from articles regarding subjects that pass WP:NOTE. If the subject is still alive, WP:BLP also applies. Creating another rule seems to place the interests of the article subject above the interests of the readers, appears to be a WP:CREEP problem, and serves to stifle discussion about potentially encyclopedic information. I could see adding specific language to WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP precluding the use of a mug shot in an infobox, or as the primary photo in an article, but not as its own guideline. And certainly not an outright ban. These pictures serve the interest of the encyclopedia and the readers in presenting complete coverage of the subjects of our articles.  Jim Miller  See me 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not add a new guideline. I think mentioning the use of mugshots in UNDUE or BLP would serve the goal just fine. Arnoutf (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to help me adjust current guidelines? Or where would I go to ask? The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

P._W._Bill_Bailey_III's page is essentially an advertisement for his consulting business
Most of the information on that page cannot be verified. The references listed to support his alleged involvement with various products, but are merely description of said products. The bio was written by an editor involved in other non-NPOV articles. I would not be surprised if this is a paid job. See: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only reference to him by name is in a MS Press release, where he is given as contact info for TypeHaus, which is listed as a company involved with TrueType fonts at large. But that does not support he claim made that he designed some the first fonts for the web! VasileGaburici (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've prodded it. Let's see if anyone objects to deletion.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Flipping an image
Hi, is it okay to create a mirror image of a picture of a living person, for use in a Wikipedia biography as the lead photo? See here. Thanks in advance for some guidance.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's all settled.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Biography of Adeli
There was been constant vandalism on Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli webpage over the last few days. Is there any way of semi-protecting this page? Several IP's which probably hasthe same origin are inserting POV and making the page blank. Theunusualguest (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that there has been a problem, and have semi-protected for a week.--Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ramsey Kanaan
Can someone please watch this page for defamation? There is a lot of unverified info and talkpage accusations thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.23.21 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Obvious crap removed. Although the whole article is basically unverified.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk: John Michell (writer)
In regard to Talk: John Michell (writer), 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. I am not sure if this is the proper place to ask for help; another editor suggested the link to this page. Thanks for your time. SageMab (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk: John Michell (writer) - where to draw the line and how to remove infringing material
There is some concern that some of the recent comments about the relationship of this author with the fascist Julius Evola, and comments about his property owning (with mentions of Rachmann) and a bit about Manson and the hippy culture. The most recent section, shows these comments. Elsewhere another editor has commented that "WIki policy on BLP is very clear that poorly supported material such as the anonymous IP users allegations about Hitler, Julius Evola, Radical Traditionalism, Manson and so on should be immediately removed." and asked what the best way is to go about it. I honestly don't know where the line should be drawn. This diff has an editor saying that it is "clear that he is a fascist". Should just that sentence be removed, the whole edit, nothing? Where does legitimate discussion about Michell's being a landlord and his relationship with Julius Evola start becoming a violation of BLP policy? Where do we start worrying about not-so-good sources on the discussion page? How do you excise something without almost vandalizing the discussion and making replies look odd? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP:"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Remove whatever shouldn't be there. That is more important than preserving sense in a discussion. It's a violation if it says something about someone that isn't substantiated. Even seemingly innocuous things can have repercussions that we might not be aware of.  Ty  11:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that mechanically and rigidly applying this policy as Ty suggests would effectively stifle useful debate. There is a fine line between legitimate debate and problem editing. If we deleted any discussion that might be considered "negative, positive, or just questionable" then there would be no discussion, since virtually anything can be considered either "negative" or "positive". For example, an editor on the talk page in question asserted that Michell had published a book entitled The Hip Pocket Hitler, a compendium of quotations from Adolf. He suggested that this should be included. This suggestion was repeatedly removed from the talk page on grounds of BLP. Research by other editors later demonstrated that reliable sources confirm that Michell did indeed publish this book. There was then much discussion about whether or not this fact should be included. If proposals are simply deleted because a new editor does not actually footnote them on the talk page this will seriously damage the normal process of improving the article. The editor did not know how to find information about this publication. Other editors helped out by doing so. If the initially unsourced comment had simply been strangled in its cradle by shouting "BLP", then this information would, in effect, have been suppressed. The issue here is how much leeway should legitimately be allowed in order to ensure that BLP policy is not used as a POV pushing tool. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add that Ty's view seems to be so extreme that it would not only stifle debate it would turn even talk pages into nothing more than quotations from sources "Even seemingly innocuous things can have repercussions that we might not be aware of." If Ty really means this then all discussion that is not word-for-word sourced should always be deleted. This question has repercussions for the application of policy overall if Ty's interpretation is to be construed as legitimate and adopted more widely. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about misrepresentation. I have made no comment about the book you mention. I have made a comment about living people being labelled as "fascist" and "scumbags". Actually, to that you can add being compared with a murderer and linked to Rachman, the exploitive slum landlord. In that circumstance, the seemingly innocuous remark that someone is a landlord, can have other implications. There's rather a lot of opinion on that talk page and not much to back it up, though of course I'm not saying that applies to everything there.  Ty  02:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no misrepresentation, since no one said that you removed the material about the Hitler book. I was, as a matter of fact, trying to address the central issue and its consequences for application of policy. You seem less interested in that than in dragging up specifics and using emotive language which can't be usefully discussed here without going into tedious detail. However, I would point out that statements like "being compared to a murderer" are almost meaningless. People can be "compared" in many ways. In this case the subject of the article co-wrote a book supporting the murderer. Also "fascist" is not just some meaningless insult. There are people whose political views can be legitimately described as such, so again it can be quite appropriate to discuss the use of the term. It depends on the circumstances. As for "scumbag", the only individual was labelled with this term was the said murderer, who has been dead for thirty years (he hacked a woman almost to death, then buried her alive, among other similar achievements). The word was then used with reference to a type of person, not to an individual. So it seems that I am not the one misrepresenting the facts. It is certainly the case that one anonymous editor has been far too uninhibited in his statements, and Dougweller has tried to fairly describe the issues above. However, I honestly think your contributions are inflammatory, and do little to help to address either the specific issues of this article or the more general issue of application of policy. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It should perhaps be made clear that this issue is mainly confined to the talk page. A number of editors have been working on John Michell recently and, while SageMab is a minority of one in many ways, he is in the majority about this aspect.  Unless much better support is found, no material suggesting that Michell has fascist sympathies is going to make its way into the article.  (One possible exception: "radical traditionalism".  Since Michell recently pulished a collection of short pieces called "Confessions of a radical traditionalist", it would indeed be appropriate to discuss what that means.  I don't myself understand it very well at this point.) Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Though talk pages are subject to BLP, the standard must necessarily be a little looser than on the article, because otherwise how are we to discuss whether or not something is in fact a violation of the BLP policy? DGG (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Diaper Baby
- IP editor keeps adding insufficiently sourced, WP:ORish information about Barack Obama to this article. I've got it watchlisted, but when I'm not online I don't think the article gets enough traffic for the issue to be caught. This was up for almost seven hours. I'm not sure if this technically belongs on this noticeboard, but it is about a living person. // Movingboxes (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Information was just readded.  Movingboxes (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Report the offending user for making repeated edits/reverts. VasileGaburici (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't just Obama that keeps being added - I've cleaned off six other unsourced names. I'm pretty sure the IPs involved are US based so sometimes stuff can be up for hours before I wipe it off. I've requested semi protection but can someone on western US time add it to their watchlist? Also this raises issues such as guilt by association and information not just on the person named but others as well; since naming someone on this involves naming one or more of their parents as communists, and they may also be alive.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist -- I'm in California. This isn't such a high-profile article that a few hours delay in reverting is a major disaster, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta Looie, it's been semi protected, but only for 5 days ;(  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Danny Weidler

 * - seems to need a huge clean up, and adding to a few watchlists... Privatemusings (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:COATRACK in the making
Can someone take a look at, and. Especially the talk pages. There is an editor who seems to have some conflict regarding this and seems to want to soapbox about the person involved in a fatal accident (which led to a conviction). In the former article they are suggesting they will be trying to cover more about that person, which would appear to be a WP:COATRACK. I've tried to suggest that they seem too passionate about the issue and therefore possibly conflicted from an WP:NPOV point of view, but this hasn't be received. It may turn into a non-issue but it'd be useful to have a few more eyes. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncited material: Jan Hendrik Schön
There is a lot of harmful uncited material in Jan Hendrik Schön. It may all be true - it is similar to other, cited, material. (Not that I personally have checked the quality of any the cites.) But under the circumstances, I think it should be trimmed back to the cited material only. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just put a few hours into this, and in the process discovered that the article had a more important problem: as written, it was a massive copyvio of Dan Agin's book Junk Science.  I've tried to improve the situation, but it still needs work. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good spot. Is it worth burning it back to a stub?  Ben Aveling 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

British olympic cyclists
A number of articles have been under attack by a group of people adding uncited claims about members of the British cycling team using drugs to improve their performance. I have: A number of other articles are being dragged into the periphery of this storm, including 2012 Summer Olympics and David Millar. Kbthompson (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Warned for discussing the allegation on the talk page without a citation
 * 2) Blocked for edit warring over the matter.
 * 3) Protected the article Chris Hoy.

Alexandra Nice

 * - She clearly qualifies under WP:PORNBIO, or at least she would if anything beyond the AVN credentials were sourced to a reliable source. Nothing is.  Every single assertion is sourced only by looking at the subject's IMDB entry or at the external link to one of Luke Ford's blogs. Neither is a reliable source for a BLP.  I've made some edits. What next? David in DC (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the blog entry at Luke's site is an interview he did with the article's subject, so I assume it's safe to use him for that. Otherwise, I'd guess what we'd need to do is to beat the bushes for more sources. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many interviewees have accused Luke of editing his interviews (by publishing only excerpts) in a such a way to make his subjects look bad without the proper context. If we can't verify specific content against a better source, we probably shouldn't have it at all. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Booth


This article has attracted quite a bit of negative attention since her trip to Gaza. I have made an effort to keep the article as npov as possible, however will break the 3rr if I continue. Can anyone else help in keeping the article from becomming an attack page? Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no 3RR violation when you're reverting vandalism and BLP violations. Corvus cornix  talk  21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The changes that Dead-or-Red is reverting are not vandalism or BLP violations. They are merely a pov-push. Looie496 (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I reject this accusation totally. Whatever happened to good faith? Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the quality of sources be improved? I don't like to see "Harry's Place", a deliberately provocative blog, quoted, and "Ynet news" is hardly better. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ynet news is the best of a bad bunch of sources that quote that particular statement. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, I find her nonnotable. This article should be proposed for deletion. Hurmata (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
An editor made this revert arguing at the talk page that he was removing a BLP violation. I disagree, and would appreciate some outside feedback if someone can spare the time. The article involves Governor Palin's firing of Police Chief Monegan, allegedly for not dealing properly with Palin's ex-brother-in-law (who was a policeman). The removed material was as follows:

"'The San Francisco Chronicle has asked Monegan whether his own past domestic troubles 'might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law amid his messy divorce,' and Monegan said 'no.'[36]'"

I do not see even a hint of a BLP violation here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ferrylodge writes, "The article involves Governor Palin's firing of Police Chief Monegan, allegedly for not dealing properly with Palin's ex-brother-in-law (who was a policeman)." To the contrary, I don't know anyone who alleges that.  Palin alleges that her dismissal of Monegan had absolutely nothing to do with the case of her ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooten.  Palin's critics allege that she sacked Monegan for not dealing improperly with the case, i.e., for not acceding to her demand that he fire Wooten for alleged infractions that had been resolved before either Palin or Monegan took office.


 * Monegan himself is not particularly notable. Walt Monegan redirects to the article about his dismissal.  Therefore, on the talk page I cited this excerpt from the policy:
 * "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. (from Biographies of living persons)"


 * There is no reliable source stating as a fact, or prominent spokesperson stating as an opinion, that Monegan's contested divorce in 1993 played any role in his refusal to re-open the Wooten case, or that Monegan's divorce played any role in Palin's decision to fire him. Therefore, it's not relevant to his notability.  Speculation by Wikipedians as to a possible connection violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.  (It also doesn't belong because it adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article, but that's a separate issue.) JamesMLane t c 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * James, I'll respond briefly. First of all, Palin's critics allege that she fired Monegan because she felt he did not deal properly with Palin's ex-brother-in-law.  That's just a plain, simple fact, so let's not argue about it.  Second of all, the San Francisco Chronicle has questioned whether Monegan's contested divorce in 1993 played a role in the present controversy, and the San Francisco Chronicle is a very reliable source.  And that's really all there is to it, in my view.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As to Palin's motivations, my disagreement was with your word "properly". If Palin thought that Monegan hadn't dealt properly with the case, then her sacking him on that basis would be no big deal, even if some critics disagreed with her.  What makes it an issue is the critics' contention that she wasn't assessing the appropriateness of Monegan's conduct; she was pursuing a family vendetta against Wooten.  As for the source, the reporter asked a question.  That's all.  Monegan gives one answer.  There is no reliable source stating or alleging or opining or even suggesting that the other answer -- the one showing a connection to Monegan's notability -- is correct.  There is only your personal speculation on the talk page. JamesMLane t c 02:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The first matter (the word "properly") is unrelated to whether there is a BLP violation here, and so I'm not going to say anything more about it. Regarding the second matter, the material that you call a BLP violation contains no speculation by me at all.  It is an undisputed fact that the San Francisco Chronicle suspected that Monegan's past domestic troubles might have clouded his judgment in dealing with Palin's ex-brother-in-law amid his messy divorce.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree that it probably should not be included, per wp:blp. If some source is asserting that he has some sort of past, that's one thing.  That appears not to have been the case: the source asked him if he had a history, he said no, that was it, and therefore it's not notable.  Given the subject matter, perpetuating on Wikipedia that there might be some ununcovered, scantily sourced scandal isn't benefitting our readers, and, importantly, it could be doing damage to the living subject of the content.  Should be removed as such.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute that Monegan had past domestic troubles (including being accused of making a death threat). Monegan does not deny that.  What he denies is that it clouded his judgment in this recent Palin-Wooten case.  The Chronicle suspected it did.  I'll drop this matter if people think that the Chronicle's suspicion is not worth mentioning.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If that question is the only evidence that they're suspicious, then you should drop it. II  | (t - c) 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the only evidence. The news article titled "Official fired by Palin bears no grudge" goes on at great length about Monegan's domestic troubles and the accusation that he made a death threat.  It seems very very odd that our Wikipedia article cannot even mention this article from the San Francisco Chronicle in a footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Monegan's ex-wife lives in the Bay Area. The San Francisco Chronicle is pursuing a local-interest sidebar to a national story.  For the reporter to inquire about the possibility of broader ramifications doesn't establish suspicion, just thoroughness.  It would be reasonable for the reporter to ask that question even if the reporter had no evidence whatsoever.  If some reporter asks Palin if she had an adulterous affair (a rumor that can be found online), will that question qualify the rumor for inclusion in Palin's bio?  I'd say no. JamesMLane t c 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we had an article Sarah Palin's love life (which we happily do not have yet), then that hypothetical question and answer would appropriately be included in the article. However, we do have an article Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, and the question in the San Francisco Chronicle is directly related.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a gesture of kindness, I'll let this matter drop now. No need to take up everyone's time with it.  I still think I'm right about it, but there's no need to make a big fuss.  So let's consider the matter closed now.  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm going to be a nuisance. I don't believe in gestures of kindness when content issues are at hand. Ferrylodge is absolutely correct. Moreover, we have nothing but speculation that that Chronicle is engaging in this purely out of "local interest" and even if it does that's not at all an argument to not include the details. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugene Ingram
Eugene Ingram, undergoing deletion review - discussion here. Article is about a WP:BLP and related to controversial subject matter so I thought it pertinent to place a notice here. Cirt (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Manu Sharma (2nd nomination)
There are some rather strange opinions on this AfD about what the BLP policy means in practice. The eyes of a few people experienced with BLP cases would be appreciated. If this constitutes canvassing, please feel free to remove this notice. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin


Sarah Palin became the presumptive nominee for vice president on the Republican ticket on Friday. Since then, it's logged thousands of edits, a good chunk of which have been reverted for various reasons. Unfortunately, most recently, it's become one big WP:BLP violation target due to a Daily Kos "diary" of completely unsourced (and thus far, unsourceable) allegations regarding her youngest child. The talk page has also become highly susceptible to becoming a forum for said fodder. Would appreciate additional eyes on the article and the talk page, and if the situation worsens, protection may need to be extended. user:j   (aka justen)   17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a real BLP issue. This article will have hundreds of eyes on it, vandalism will be reverted very quickly. It should not be protected for long periods, that violates being a wiki. She is too high profile for this to end up with unchecked vandalism or unsourced allegations remaining for more than seconds. Not really a concern for this noticeboard.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention."  I have been watching the talk page and the article every few minutes, having to revert WP:BLP violations.  Many are editing the article, seemingly not as many are closely watching it with any eye to WP:BLP.  I'm not sure how this is "not a real BLP issue," but thanks for the help...   user:j    (aka justen)   21:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Countless BLP violations happened previously on the talk page, the semi-protection should be reinstated. Hobartimus (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We do not generally protect talk pages. That is where improvements to the article are discussed. Inappropriate talk page edits may be removed. As for the rumor in question, it has now been explicitly stated by numerous. The pregnancy refutes the rumor. BLP is satisfied. Edison2 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, the Washington Post has taken up the story. However, they're reporting the rumors about Trig as just that: rumors. That part of the story does not belong in Palin's bio at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If most major newspapers and TV news channels are reporting the rumor as a notable rumor which led to the announcement of the daughter's being 5 months pregnant to debunk the rumor, then the rumor should be included. It would be polishing or spin-doctoring to leave it out. As a  notable but de-bunked rumor, it discredits Palin's critics but in no way reflects ill on her. Edison2 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As of Sept 2, the situation has not improved, numerous editors, including Edison2, appear to be advancing ridiculous rationalizations that in the aggregate add up to a sliming of a fairly unknown candidate at precisely the time when many users are coming to WP to find out more about this individual. Invariably these arguments rationalize the inclusion of unfavourable information while excluding far more relevant information. (Her husbands DUI at the age of 22 or her daughter's boyfriend's ticket for fishing illegally is somehow relevant,  but his professional snowmobile champion status is not). [Compare this with how WP editors handled the John Edwards Bio weeks after the National Enquirer had produced pictures and Fox News produced witnesses that another salacious rumor was actually true.]  IMO, this article's editing is making a mockery of WP ideals and exposing WP to actionable libel.

Other Examples: 1. removal of a reference to her veto of a bill that would have blocked rights for same sex couples because it "whitewashes" (the editor's own word choice) her stance on gay marriage (How does the fact that she vetoed a law deserve to be excluded merely because the editor questions whether her motives might be other than to protect same sex couples?)

2.  An idiotic discussion as to whether flying back while 7mo's pregnant (after consulting with a doctor) is somehow related to her youngest child's DS. (One editor goes so far as to claim that it is relevant because calling your doctor is not sufficiently cautious.  (I guess they should have flown their Dr. in for a physical exam))  Why is this detail important enough to include, but not actual political stances?

3. An ongoing attempt to interject details (and the campaign's announcement) of a non-public, 17 yr old minor's pregnancy with another non-public individual in order to "refute" a clearly libellous (and chronologically impossible) claim made by left wing partisans. Of course this is then used as the rationale for restating the rumor because it is somehow newsworthy.

How about just sticking to the facts of Sarah Palin's career, family, and accomplishments without getting into the totally irrelevant, Jerry Springer details of whose pregnant with whose baby? How about simple repeating verifiable facts rather than gloating with glee every time some ridiculous claim gets repeated (not as news, but as a rumor) by a supposedly RS.

4. The removal of language which is "biased" which is in fact accurate. (Palin has directly confronted several powerful members of her own party, resulting in indictments, resignations, and fines, but these achievements go unmentioned while editors simultaneously argue that phrases like "challenging her own party" smack of propaganda.  (fine, but at least mention the incidents which at least appear to justify the phrase.)

5. The uncritical parroting of claims made by Palin's critics without any mention of the possibility that several of these sources just may have an axe to grind. (Several of her own party's members, Troopergate?)--98.221.28.244 (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we include her family's "accomplishments" (husband won snowmobiling championships) without including less flattering info  the article becomes a puff piece like a Christmas letter or a campaign ad and lacks balance. Edison2 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This paragraph is being replaced within minutes after removal.
 * "According to a New York Times article, for which reporters interviewed 60 local officials and legislators, Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance.
 * An article in USA Today states that Palin teamed with Democrats in the Legislature to raise taxes on the oil industry and to pursue a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules, while taking few steps to advance culturally conservative causes.

"
 * I've tried to delete this paragraph as POV and WP:UNDUE.  The expounders mentioning the new york times and usa today don't soften the tone and add undue weight to this statement. This paragraph just serves as an extention of those two publications and strains the definition of WP:SUBSTANTIATE in order to tar the subject. The new york times and usa today are not experts on the subject matter, niether are the 60 local officials, etc.  I think this statement needs to go Mytwocents (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness
Recently stepped down to semi-protection after being fully protected for a long period of time - would be helpful if someone wanted to clean up the article with regard to WP:RS/WP:V and monitor for possible addition of unsourced content. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bernadine Dohrn
The issue is at Bernadine Dohrn - the last paragraph Bernardine Dohrn |here detailing an allegation by a police informant that she murdered a police officer, although she has never been arrested or tried for it. Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
More spillover from the Barack Obama/William Ayers/Bernadine Dohrn/Terrorism thing. A couple editors have been revert warring (5RR several hours ago between them)[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernardine_Dohrn&diff=prev&oldid=238751660]   to add a swath of material to the bio article for Bernadine Dohrn, the Chicago law professor who along with her husband is repeatedly being promoted by IP vandals and registered editors alike as a "terrorist friend" of Barack Obama.    The new material repeats an allegation made by an FBI informant that when Dohrn was a radical leader in 1970 she planted a nail bomb that killed a police officer. The claim is sourced to the informant via statements made to police, and testimony he gave before a grand jury and congress, filtered through anonymous reports, and then repeated in books and local news stories. She was never arrested or charged. The material reads in relevant part:
 * "Dohrn has been suspected of involvement .... bombing ... which killed a police officer ... Dohrn was said to be living with a Weatherman cell .... An FBI informant ... testified ... that [Dohrn's future housband] Bill Ayers...said Dohrn constructed and planted the bomb....[the informant concluded]...Ayers either was present at some point ... or had heard about it from someone who was ... [and] escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct...

For good measure the new edits include variants of the word "terrorist" 13 times (the word had appeared once, in the name of a source). Don't we have a general preference against repeating opinions of unreliable sources that a living person committed a notorious murder? The argument for inclusion is that we're not saying she did it, only saying someone accused her. I concede that the informant probably did say that, but that his opinion is not reliable and the sources only go to show he actually said it, not that it is a widely held opinion. There's serious doubt that she did it, and no arrest or charge, much less a trial.

We have an RfC open about all this here and it appears to me that !votes are running 10 out of 14 against including this in the Dohrn article. It stays in despite BLP objections only because those proposing it edit war to keep it in. At a minimum I am thinking that controversial murder accusations about living people should not be included unless there is a consensus to do so.

Any help here or at the RfC would be most welcome. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have offered comments on this issue on the article's talk page and RfC. I support Wikidemon's position, and think s/he has done a fine job in advocating for a fair article about an unpleasant woman. I think the representation of Dohrn as a murderer is a violation of BLP (such a label can only be determined by a court of law, not Wikipedia), and the construction of the argument in the article in such a way as portrays Dohrn as guilty is effectively OR -- another unacceptability. I have argued that the article is being treated as a kind of kangaroo court to try and "convict" Dohrn. Whatever her transgressions, Wikipedia is not the place. I won't go into editing styles but think that the facts speak for themselves. Arjuna (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Section break

 * Wow, thats some pretty creative editing on the quote from the article Wikidemon. But anyhoo .... lets look at the meat of this fivolous posting (yet again) by Wikidemon.


 * All material in the passage creatively replciated and edited by Wikidemon are cited to reliables sources and the material is sourced to said sources. An example from one of the "unreliable sources":
 * "And now, sources tell us, those investigators have identified potential suspects: former members of two militant groups in the '60s and '70s -- the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army, people who've been out of the spotlight for decades. The most prominent among them is Bernadine Dohrn, a former leader of the Weather Underground and now a law professor at Northwestern University in Illinois."
 * CENSEI (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't let the above incivility distract you from the BLP problem. It's from one of the two editors revert warring to push the murder accusations into the article.  It is far from frivolous.  Dozens of accounts have been blocked and banned trying to insert junk like this into BLP and Obama-related articles.  RfC and BLP are among the very last stops on the process of resolving this part of a months long content and behavior dispute.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dozens of accounts have been banned for adding well sourced material into articles? That doesn’t say much good about Wikipedia does it, or did you pull this rabbit out of you “made it up” hat? Funny, I dont see Obama's name anywhere in the Dohrn article, or did I miss it? CENSEI (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It says our election-related articles are full of trolls, vandals, sockpuppets, and edit warriors. You must have missed the part about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.  Other than that I won't respond to the baiting here.Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * CENSEI quotes a five year old report to the effect that there's an investigation. No charges, just an investigation. CENSEI, we are not dumbasses. Hurmata (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevant information:

1. Bernardine Dohrn was on the governing committee of Weatherman.
 * For one of numerous sources on this, see 2(a) below.

2. The governing committee of Weatherman approved bombings.
 * (a) "California's Underground", article, TIME magazine, October 6, 1975, After the Weatherpeople went underground in February to escape police surveillance, they adopted a pyramidal organization. At the top was the Weather Bureau, a leadership council that included Dohrn, [...] Through members acting as couriers, the leaders kept in touch with a nationwide network of four- or five-member cells [...] [they [the cells] each operated independently, recruiting new members and carrying out bombings and other terrorist acts that had been cleared in advance by the Weather Bureau."
 * (b)Jacobs, Ron, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, Verso, 1997 ISBN 1859841678, 9781859841679 p 95: "Each cell was committed to armed action and was instructed by the Weatherbureau to come up with a list of potential targets. The list was relayed verbally to the Weatherbureau which would discuss the merits and disadvantages of each target."

3. The bomb planted at the Golden Gate Park Police Station in San Francisco has been attributed to Weatherman group.
 * 1976 FBI report from the Chicago field office on Weather Underground activity, page 176 of the document (but page 62 of the PDF), the February 16 bombing of the park police station is included as an item in a list titled "WUO Bombings and Attempted Bombings": "February 16, 1970: A bomb detonated at the Golden Gate Park Branch of the San Francisco Police Department killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen. No organization claimed credit for either of these February police bombings."
 * KRON-TV: "30-Y.O. Unsolved SF Murders Reopen", November 10, 2003: "law enforcement sources tell KRON 4 News they believe Dohrn and members of the Weather Underground may have been responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station in San Francisco"

'''4. The bomb planted at the Golden Gate Park Police Station in San Francisco was packed with staples. (You only do that if you mean to maim and kill.)'''
 * ''Threats to the Peaceful Observance of the Bicentennial: Hearing Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, Second Session, June 18, 1976, p 33: "Among the most spectacular terrorist acts committed by the Weather Underground have been the bombing of the San Francisco Park Police Station on February 16, 1970 with a dynamite bomb loaded with staples."

5. In light of these reliably sourced facts, is it so extraordinary that Dohrn, herself, would be suspected of planting a bomb that killed someone? This last step is not as large as the previous four. It is reliably sourced. Larry Grathwohl has been cited as a source for facts in numerous books. The following is copied from my statement at AN/I (since Wikidemon is forum shopping, I might as well add it here and add it to the RFC discussion): Before I added the material to the BLP of the former terrorist, I checked out Grathwohl as well as I could. One of the tests for the reliability of a source that isn't unreliable on its face (like, say, a blog) is how other reliable sources on the subject treat that source -- do they use information from it and cite the source, for instance? (See WP:RS.) Grathwohl and his book have been cited in various books that are sympathetic toward the Weatherman organization, including:
 * Cathy Wilkerson, former Weatherman member (sympathetic but quite critical of the organization, in her memoir, Flying Close to the Sun (Grathwohl's book is listed in the bibliography, page 407)
 * Harold Jacobs, Weatherman (1970) mentions Grathwohl quite a bit (as an alleged FBI informer), but I saw nothing in the book impugning his credibility
 * Jeremy Varon, Bringing the War Home (2004) cites Grathwohl's book in footnotes and lists it in the "Select Bibliography" (page 366)
 * Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (1997), Bibliography (page 189) and many notes
 * Jon Wiener, Gimme Some Truth (2000), snarky/disparaging (page 317), but not impugning Grathwohl's credibility
 * Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (very sympathetic book toward the Weatherman), page 147
 * I have never found a source that attacks the credibility of either Grathwohl or his book (they may exist). Oh, wait, I just found one: Ward Churchill. (Mention of Churchill's criticism: ; Link to Churchill's book itself: ). Somehow, I think Larry Grathwohl's credibility is not impugned much when the criticism comes from Ward Churchill. Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers have had 32 years to rebut Grathwohl's statements about them. I can't find any sources showing they ever have. Discussion is ongoing at the RFC. -- Noroton (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've laid out a nice case of murder. But Wikipedia does not exist as a court to try cases against living people.  It should be more than obvious that we can't go around labeling people murderers without some authoritative source - a trial, a conviction, strong consensus among neutral third parties.  A member of a radical youth movement working in 1970 as a mole for the FBI, who concludes on hearsay and circumstantial evidence that a group leader is a murderer, is far from a reliable source.  His first person recollection, published years later in a book, is no more credible than his original account - no more fact checking, editorial control, etc.  It's just a repeat of what he told the FBI.  I was hoping to get some feedback from people fresh to the matter who are not simply arguing their content position.  As it stands quite a few people who have taken a position that the content should be excluded say it is a BLP matter.  You do not, obviously.  But if a serious BLP concern is raised we have to be extra careful on sourcing, POV, causing harm, etc.  Saying about a law professor that she killed a cop is certainly doing harm.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've laid out a nice case of murder. From Civility:
 * These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:
 * [...]
 * ''Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
 * ''Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
 * ''Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
 * Wikidemon, stop your continued incivility. I've laid out the case that reliable sources have made public statements that are relevant to whether it is appropriate to discuss the Park Police Station bombing in an article about the head of the terrorist organization credited with that bombing. The situation is one for readers to look at for themselves. I haven't called her a murderer anywhere, and if you ever again say I did, I will ask that you be blocked.


 * As to Dohrn being a respectable law professor who can't possibly be involved in nefarious behavior (because, after all, how could a university hire someone to be a law professor in that case?), let's look at the record, as we ourselves describe it in a stable section of Bernardine Dohrn:


 * From 1984 to 1988, Dohrn was employed by the prestigious Chicago law firm Sidley Austin. She was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time and someone who knew Thomas G. Ayers, the father of Dohrn's husband. "We often hire friends," Trienens told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. However, Dohrn's criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar, according to The New York Times. "Dohrn didn't get a [law] license because she's stubborn," Trienens told the Chicago Tribune reporter in 2008. "She wouldn't say she's sorry."


 * In 1991, she was hired by Northwestern University in Chicago as an adjunct professor of law, with the title "Clinical Associate Professor of Law". Trienens said he did not get her that job, although he sat on the board of trustees of Northwestern, as did Dohrn's father-in-law, who was chairman of the board until 1986, when Trienens succeeded him in that position. Robert Bennett, dean of the law school, had hired Dohrn, according to Trienens. Because Dohrn was hired as an "adjunct", her appointment did not need to be approved by the faculty, and no vote on it was ever taken. When law school officials were asked whether or not the dean hired Dohrn or the board of trustees approved the hiring, the school issued a statement in response stating "While many would take issue with views Ms. Dohrn espoused during the 1960s, her career at the law school is an example of a person's ability to make a difference in the legal system."


 * Dohrn is not just some law professor. She is the former head of the terrorist Weather Underground, a terrorist herself (as so many sources have said -- see Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC), who was part of the governing committee that had to approve Weatherman bombings. One bombing attributed to Weather Underground by the FBI was the Park Police Station bombing we're talking about here. Another was the planned bombing of an officer's dance at Fort Dix army base in New Jersey. Both bombs contained shrapnel, which is used not to hurt objects but to maim and kill people. I've provided sourcing for all of this on the RFC page. Wikidemon ignores the fact that reliable sources have stated all this, the fact that WP:BLP allows negative information from reliable sources on WP:WELLKNOWN people, and that the passage in question does not itself accuse anyone of anything -- it just states what reliable sources have said on a topic very relevant to the subject of the article. He and his small band have forum shopped from AN/I to the RFC back to AN/I and now here pushing a POV to whitewash Dohrn as a way of protecting her, Bill Ayers and their acquaintance, Barack Obama and to accuse anyone who opposes them of POV pushing. And yet the specific language from policies and guidelines along with specific sources have been cited by me and editors who agree with me, not by these opponents. -- Noroton (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise
Assuming for the sake of argument that calling Dohrn a murderess is a WP:BLP vio, here's my question. Would saying that Dohrn was recently reported in the news as still under suspicion with regard to the Park station bombing likewise be a violation (since a reader might click a footnoted external link that reveals that a policeman died there)? $\sim$ Justmeherenow     14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Who's called her a murderer? -- Noroton (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrick M. McCarthy
I came across this article on vandal patrol and soon came to read it. The article has essentially no material relating to the subject, but appears to be about a specific Guantanamo incident. I have placed a template on it, but the article is anything but a biography: it serves only to tangentially talk about a specific incident, and, frankly, make the man look poor.

Please tell me if I should be posting this to another board. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the BLP violation?  Corvus cornix  talk  23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the right place for BLP-coatrack issues? The guidelines make it seem that it is.  wp:blp lists wp:coatrack as a "relevant essay", and wp:coatrack states, "Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned." Note however that the article is currently at AfD, and it is something of forum-shopping to bring it here. Looie496 (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem - It's not a biography. It's a page that states the man's job, then slams the subject through quotes from news stories to allow the editor to place forth his position regarding the War on Terror. That's the problem.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any slamming.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In find this to be a coatrack article whose aim is to criticize the administration of justice at Guantanamo. The article should be deleted and relevant content inserted into an article on the true topic (such an article probably already exists). Hurmata (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The coatrack essay does not recommend deletion as the solution to a perception of a coatrack problem. Nomination for deletion is a last resort, to be used when attempts at discussion fail.


 * Please, if you think you have meaningful concern(s) with an article I encourage you to go to the article's talk page and describe your concern(s) in a civil, specific manner.


 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's no biography, it's a coat-rack. You may like the coat, and think it should be more prominently displayed, but it doesn't belong here. Per WP:ONEEVENT, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." Tom Harrison Talk 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom: Would you recommend, then, that the subject's quotes and the links on the subject page should be redirected and/or merged with the events noted?  Each of them already has a separate page that covers the subheadings listed.  See:, , and .  Thanks for your direction on this matter.Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks reasonable. Separately, readers might find helpful a navigation template for our articles about Guantanamo Bay. Tom Harrison Talk 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tom: Thank you for your direction and comments.  I would propose someone else renominate this article under these guidelines and suggestions for merge under Afd in order to reach a consenses.  I will stay out of further Afd discussions on this issue, and allow others to work towards a consenses, though my position is certainly well known, and conforms to what you have proposed. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind. The issue is now moot.  Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this article. Please see Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log. CIreland (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)