Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive54

Barbara West (TV news anchor)
Okay, this article is on someone who's in the news a lot lately over the 2008 US presidential election. It's badly unbalanced towards criticism, which is a BLP issue, but I was going to let that slide... unfortunately it's descending into rampant edit warring, and now the subject's husband has (supposedly) shown up to address errors. This is possibly spiraling into something serious, and it's beyond my expertise to deal with it. Can anyone help out? --Rividian (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken our the worst stuff stuff and left a comment on the husband's talk page. Article still needs work though. Trebor (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it has assertion that if a person is a Republican married th a Republican donor (parties of those whose campaigns he has worked on are not given) that therefore one can suggest bias. Tempted to add Carville-Matlin marriage, of course. Problem is that some reporters are married to Dem donors and that it is not noted in their bios for sure.  Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been some other WP articles focusing on journalists who seem to favor McCain over Obama. Wonder if that's a trend. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Obama enemies list" gives you 399,000 Google hits. :-)I will nominate Ms West's article for deletion, only notable for one incident. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad. The 3 words give you that. The whole expression in quotes gives you 184. Might be enough for a WP article, but I don't plan to start it. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am now searching WP with "Obama journalist" and AfDing enemies' list articles as I find them. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ms West's article and the AfD are now part of a big edit war. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Current UK sex scandal
This may be news to anyone outside this sceptred isle, but for the last couple of days our tabloid front pages have now all switched to a scandal involving Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, and lewd answerphone messages they made on air to Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter Georgina Baillie. Her Burlesque group Satanic sluts and topless photos of her from when she was 20 are all adding fuel to the fire, experienced and awake eyes would be appreciated (the topless photo we are linking to is on Murdoch newspaper The Sun - but she is the not very notable victim in this). Experienced neutral eyes appreciated. Goodnight.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes and got rid of the link to the Sun photos. Articles don't look too bad at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is now at Articles for deletion/Georgina Baillie, where if there's any sense we will see it deleted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lunchtime here, storm in teacup still close to Hurricane strength, thanks to everyone who helped keep Wikipedia standards overnight (and for the last few days). I haven't seen the viewing figures for these articles but I suspect they are currently the most viewed ones from here. AFD decision was a redirect to Russell Brand prank calls row and current discussion is whether to merge to The Russell Brand Show (radio show).  Lots of constructive edits have been coming from IPs so I wouldn't suggest semi protecting these articles, but there's been some inappropriate editing as well so neutral eyes still welcome, especially in the US evening/Ozzie morning which overlaps with UK pub closing times.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still dominating UK newscoverage, interesting debate on Talk:Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row as to whether wp:blp stops us reporting publicly admitted details of a non notable persons sex life.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting personal attacks for insisting we don't include details of the victim's sex life, even though tabloid newspaper may. Any third opinions would be helpful. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich
I'd appreciate someone with more BLP experience and knowledge (and time!) to lend a hand here. The SPA editor has been blanking large sections of the Rod Blagojevich article. Initially, no explanation was given, so I reverted the removals. Some of the sections removed were poorly cited and definitely needed work in order to remain, but most of the blanks were well-cited sections, although critical of Blagojevich. The editor then posted an amalgam of press releases (which had been removed several weeks ago by another editor) with a non-AGF edit summary. Now, the editor is blanking large amounts of material again, stating that the sections were uncited or that the links were dead.

I never deal with BLPs (I have this article on my watchlist because I reverted some vandalism a few weeks ago), and I have absolutely no interest or opinion on the topic of Rod Blagojevich, so I'd like to turn this over to someone more experienced with BLP policies who could help sort this out and determine whether these citations are valid, or if the sections should indeed be removed. Thanks for any input. Sheep NotGoats  (Talk) 00:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that was the original person who posted all of the Press Releases on Wikipedia.  For the record, I am by no means an expert Wikipedian.  I originally removed the section because the tone of it was very much of an political advertisement.  After doing a Google search of the specific sections that I thought were suspicious, I discovered that they were essentially copyvio.  Upon reading the Plagiarism page, I determined that they should be removed.  It then appears that  re-added the plagiarized pieces and made no changes.  Please note, that I too have no specific interest in Rod Blagojevich and that  has made some more non-AGF removals from the page.  I too would like an expert to lend a hand for guidance.  Thanks!  --thequackdaddy (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Magibon
The situation is described at Articles for deletion/Magibon (3rd nomination). In short, the actual person who is the subject of the article, which has been subject to some vandalism sporadically, is asking that her personal information be removed from the Wikipedia article. I recommended that the article be speedied per G10 (on the grounds of WP:BLP) unless the diffs containing all the personal information can either be rolled back or oversighted. I'm more interested in protecting the person rather than keeping the article, and I'm wondering if that is a rational thing to ask for in this case. MuZemike ( talk ) 21:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi MuZemike, the actual person never make any request in the discussion. IF the article is deleted (removing all old revision), is it possible Recreate with a Protected reliable version of the article? I think we need to discuss how to save article, at the same time to protect the personal information. Also I think user DAJF doing a great job and improvement for the article. Harmonic gear (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into the details, but presuming there is a case for oversight I suggest you make a request following the procedures at Requests for oversight. It would be helpful if you can find out precisely what needs to be oversighted but if you don't have the time or it too complicated, someone on the oversight team should be able to do it, it will just take longer Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, I have been fairly heavily involved recently in cleaning up this article to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, and I believe that all of the biographical information (e.g. date of birth, place of birth, present location, employment) currently included in the article is now reliably sourced from non-trivial publications. A number of editors have casually implied in the AfD discussion that the subject of the article wishes for her personal information to be removed, but there has been no positive confirmation of this. I personally am skeptical, as Magibon herself has mentioned many of the personal details the editors were complaining about (at least birthdate and where she lives) in her own blog, as well as allowing them to be published in Japanese magazines. I might add that she has even divulged her vital statistics (height/bust/waist/hip) size in published magazine interviews, although I do not see any need to incorporate these in her article.
 * The only real problem I see here is that her purported full name (which although unsourced, I think we must assume is her real name) was added at various times earlier in the history of the article. While we don't know the true wishes of Magibon, I imagine she is not keen about revealing her true identity, since it does not appear to have been published anywhere (I've done a lot of searching and can't find any reliable sources). I therefore suggest it might be a good idea to request oversight and have just the past edits that introduced her full name removed permanently from the edit history. Would this be a satisfactory course of action? If so, I am happy to go ahead and request oversight to have the controversial edits removed. --DAJF (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the AFD nominator, who claims to have received this message from the article's subject is an SPA created less than an hour before the nomination, whose only edits prior to making the nomination were to vandalize the article, and to revert that vandalism using an edit summary naming another user. I strongly suspect that this nomination was made in bad faith, and that if any administrative action is justified, it would be to ban the user and any sockpuppets for their disruption of Wikipedia. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Helen Jones-Kelley
This appears to be a violation of WP:BLP1E, but I'd like to get some other opinions before I pull the trigger on this one. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an article on the controversy, not on the person, and as such, should probably become an article on the agency and not on the individual.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the reference to WP:BLP1E, 1)this person is a public figure and is notable for being the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, which has 4,000 employees and a 17 billion dollar budget. 2)in the position of Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Jones-Kelly has further added to her notability by her approval of searches for information on Joe Wurzelbacher. These are Two notable events. This is more than one, I do not believe that WP:BLP1E applies at all. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The topic of her contraversial actions as Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services should be contextualized into the article about her. As the article is underconstruction, it appears that this contextualization is evolving. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services in need of an encyclopedia article outside of the context of Joe the Plumber? Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jones-Kelley recieved media attention before she approved the search for information on Joe Wurzelbacher. Also, please see point #1 above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding point one - is that sufficient? Does HJK meet the guidelines of WP:BIO? Do we as a practice generally have articles on directors of state agencies? Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that we could debate this point by point forever. I have clearly stated my positions above, and I stand by them. Now, I need to return to working on constructing this page (and others). I appreciate your questions and remain open to your criticisms. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't, as you know, an answer, and without answers to those questions I really don't see any option besides deletion under BLP1E, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As it now stands, this violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP1E.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It purports to be a biography but patently is not. (The ugly word here is coatrack). It should be deleted, renamed or merged; whichever, it obviously unacceptable to use the name of real person for an article that is essentially about something else. CIreland (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am working on expanding the article. The point in this expansion is to include "pre-Wurzelbacher" information. Even without the Wurzelbacher info, she is notable. Please allow time for this. I will begin by decreasing he size of the amount of info related to Wurzelbacher. I would appreciate at least some time. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are putting a lot of work into the article, but if you can't answer the simple question of why should we have an article on the Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, then maybe your energies are better directed elsewhere. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest then that we userfy the article and come back in a week? CIreland (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To address your question, as Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, she has a notable position and recieves media attention. The media rely on her for the status of Ohio's employment situation - that alone is important. There are multiple examples from reliable sources that show this. Also, per her being Director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, she has 4,000 employees and a budget bigger than dozens of nations. From these activities alone, she is notable. As I have stated before, all of this information can be contextualized as the article evolves. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that the article continues to be edited, expanded and balanced - in good faith. The article has changed drastically in the past hour alone, and edits will continue to address present and future issues. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Other Ohio Cabinet officials have wikipedia pages. Some do; some don't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_cabinet_secretaries_of_Ohio


 * In fact, there's an entire category for cabinet secretaries from each of the states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:State_cabinet_secretaries_of_the_United_States


 * Surely this is sufficient to demonstrate notability.

Kelly would likely be notable enough to have an article even without this event. She's clearly not BLP1E. The fact that we didn't have an article on her until a single event brought her to wider attention does not make her BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has drastically improved. I don't think there should be articles for every head of every agency in every state, but that's a matter for AfD, not here. There are still coatrack concerns, however, so that particular section should be watched so it doesn't overwhelm the article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tammy Bruce
I also posted a request at the page requesting protection, but considering the potential for this to get out of hand, I thought it important to post here. I am an assistant of the subject. As a political commentator on the Fox News Channel, she appeared on television a few days ago and an edit war continues at the page involving attempts to to insert POV/debate to cast the subject as a racist and violate several of the BLP standards. The editor at issue has been warned and blocked before for similar activity on the pages of other individuals from Fox with which he disagrees politically. This activity seeks to malign the subject personally. It's apparent at reading the editor's Talk page that he spends quite a bit of time harassing the pages of Fox News contributors and hosts. The subject's on-air profile will increase exponentially through the month of November as a result of the presidential election. I'm asking for at the very least a semi-protect of the page or the blocking of the editor at issue. Considering the ongoing attempt to cast the subject in at the very least a False Light, anything you could do would be appreciated. Thank you.Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an assistant of the subject, Obsessivelibrarian, your editing the article goes against our conflict of interest policy. I suggest you make recommendations on the talk page of the article (Talk:Tammy Bruce).  Furthermore, I ask you stop describing good faith efforts to improve the article - whether you agree with them or not - as vandalism; there is a difference between edits you disagree with and vandalism.  I appreciate you are fairly new to editing Wikipedia, so perhaps you may not have been aware of these issues.


 * I have semi-protected the article due to edit-warring from various logged-out or anonymous editors, and have added the article to my watchlist. Continued edit-warring and repeated reverting without efforts to use the talk page to discuss and come to a compromise will not be looked on well. I will be keeping a close eye on things from now on. fish &amp;karate  16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Sailer
There is disagreement over how criticism of the subject should be handled. I'd like to avoid an edit-war by soliciting outside input. Thanks, the skomorokh  19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jon Blake (broadcaster)
The subject of this article, which was poorly sourced and BLP violating, repeatedly blanked it and demanded deletion. He was called a vandal and eventually blocked. There followed a long debate on AN.

The article is now at Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster) and those with a BLP interest may with to comment.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric Dezenhall
- As the subject of the article, I am requesting an admin or other Wiki-editor familiar with WP:BLP to review and correct the Eric Dezenhall entry. The article violates Wikipedia BLP policy in several areas, including WP:ASF,WP:VERIFY, WP: UNDUE, WP: RS, False light and WP: NPOV requirements. NPOV issues that I raised a year ago have not been fully resolved and since then additional false and strong POV information has been added. Additionally, it is my policy and my firm’s policy to never disclose who our clients are. The list of clients included in the article about me is inaccurate speculation, presumably by individuals who want Wikipedia readers to believe these are clients of my firm. The sources currently cited in the article are either reprints of or refer back to a single article published by Business Week that relied on an anonymous source, who later apologized for providing false information to the journalist. I would like to see any passages involving speculated clients of mine or my firm’s removed and the entire article to be better sourced. Would an editor please weigh in on these issues and leave any feedback on my talk page. Edezenhall (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added an initial disclaimer to the client list, but most of the clients are sourced per WP:RS. Although not useful in the article, CFSA lists a Dezenhall email on its media |contact page and numerous edits to Payday loan and related articles have been made by Special:Contributions/209.183.197.163, which resolves to Dezenhall Resources. Flowanda | Talk 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango (was Obama's aunt)
The meat of the article is speculation, nevertheless it's well sourced speculation. Worth keeping an eye on. VG &#x260E; 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look at it and agree with your assessment. I've removed much of the speculation but coatracking issues abound. We should monitor for neutrality as the story develops. the skomorokh  20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been merged (per talk page consensus) to Family_of_Barack_Obama. VG &#x260E; 02:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and User:Hobartimus just recreate the WP:CFORK at Zeituni Onyango. VG &#x260E; 14:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales et al.
There is antagonism afoot at the Jimmy Wales articles, which is spinning off into related articles such as Rogers Cadenhead. Accusations of trolling, bad faith, pov-pushing etc. Level-headed editors are requested to ensure compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. Thanks, the skomorokh  18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Louis Walsh
Can we get a block on IP edits on Louis Walsh please. A number of IP editors (which may be same person) have repeatedly added a "Personal Life" section that hints at personal information unpublished due to legal concerns and refers to internet rumours. Nothing cited. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong forum to ask for page protection. You'll probably have more luck at WP:RFPP. VG &#x260E; 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reporting a WP:BLP issue with a tendentious editor that requires outside intervention. Page protection is just a possible solution. I'm open to suggestions.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I sprotected for a week, hopefully they'll get bored. Trebor (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Erwin Schrott dispute
Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography There is a disagreement in the article about the admissability of a two-sentence paragraph which mentions the singer's dispute with a concert promoter. The section was by SeamusSweeney on 26-Apr-2008, and then twice (3-May-2008 & 7-May-2008) removed and re-added by Artistsrepnyc and Katharineamy: ,, , . On Voceditenore then edited that paragraph with the edit summary: "… putting "breach of contract" into perspective. It was given undue weight in an article this short [article]." On Voceditenore added one sentence about that dispute's resolution; edit summary: "update on Rosenblatt Recital Series cancellation + ref".

On 24-Oct-2008 Ivy_Moon went through a series of eight edits —some of them self-reverts— without any edit summary. I found these edits confusing and their aim unclear, so I restored to a version before those eight edits, making some minor fixes at the same time:. On 25-Oct-2008 Ivy Moon conducted marked as "revert" (of an intervening grammatical correction by Voceditenore), but removed also the disputed paragraph plus a fairly large amount of unrelated references, as well as introducing Wiki syntax errors. Voceditenore with the edit summary "Do not remove referenced content".

Ivy Moon Voceditenore's edit with the edit summary (that editor's 1st): "These changes have been made upon request of a direct interested party. Remember this is the bio of a living person." After mulling over the situatuation for a few days and consulting WP:BL, I and restored the two sentences with the edit summary: "Restore verifiable sourced episode in accordance with WP:BLP, see especially 'contentious material about living persons that is unsourced'".

On 3-Nov-2008 the IP address 200.115.248.66 then that most recent edit (undoing other useful parts of that last edit, like an added source and a tag) with the edit summary: "As I said before, changes made upon request of a DIRECT INTERESTED PARTY; please, do not change, keeping in mind this is a living person's bio..)".

After all this, Voceditenore now provided his point of view on Talk:Erwin_Schrott. I agree with those points, except that I feel there is no need to drop those two sentences and their sources.

What's to be done? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Guujaaw re User:Guujaaw
This has alredy been placed on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard but there are BLP issues here also, as a lot of material has ben added/changed without proper citation. Article issues template already placed could maybe include a BLP switch....Skookum1 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Troy Southgate
Controversial figure, article contains a lot of unverified information. the skomorokh 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Simon Morris
Could someone experienced with BLP issues please take a look at the situation around the Simon Morris article? I tried to point this person to this noticeboard (see talk), but they are clearly having trouble understanding how Wikipedia works. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That article is an absolute mess. I've started cleaning up references, but it needs a LOT of work.  Celarnor Talk to me  03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've stubbed this BLP nightmare. The controversy can be built back into the article, but only using reliable sources. the skomorokh  13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson and the Church of Satan
Hi, any German speakers care to check out this thread?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking German won't help much nor is it necessary to chime in as the German wiki is unsourced with respect to the Church of Satan. It seems to me that the thread has already moved on to other possible sources.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan's citizenship
Can somebody deal with this? I'm tired of repeatedly removing this biased section. I explained what I think is wrong with it here.71.182.184.103 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Section removed. the skomorokh  13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian
This page fails on the biography of living persons, as it is merely used to print bad. Blogs are used, every comment ever made that seems to knock Torossian is added. It is a fight to get balance. I think the article should be deleted until people can be less biased about him. He has a firm that has grown, clearly there are people and firms willing to pay for this person's counsel. That needs to be considered, but instead, attacks are placed here. Handle in the Wind (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help ! Torossian has tons of positive things but 2 users and some sock puppets are continually writing negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goldberg's mention in the piece should be considered in this context: The man writes a blog now, not WP:RS, and he may be seen as an expert in Israel; Why is his OPINION on PR professionals relevant to a wikipedia article? They should not be. TLVEWR (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I understand you all want your firm and your boss to be presented in a positive light, but there's a good balance of positive and negative in the article. And writing a blog, especially an Atlantic Monthly blog, does not result in the loss of your notability or authority. --Mosmof (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Airlie James
- Weakly referenced article is subject to persistent edit warring between two parties. Brought over here from WP:3RR as malformed 3RR report by someone indicating to be the subject. // Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the most egregrious puffery and wikified the article. The may need to go to AfD unless the assertions of notability can be verified. the skomorokh  13:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tikiwont found two newspaper references that greatly improve the article's credibility. The external links to forum postings should probably go. Nothing to show that muaythaionline.org is reliable; it is not mentioned in our Muay Thai article. If the warring IP keeps up his defamation campaign we might need semi-protection. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah good, Tikiwont's refs prove notability. I removed the links to the forums per WP:EL as well as two dead links. I think the article is in good enough state that we can sit tight and keep an eye on our watchlists. the skomorokh  14:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Image used for attack purpose

 * Image:Tonny.jpg - an image on Wikimedia Commons - i am not sure if this is the right place to report it, but I couldnt find a place at Wikimedia. The image is solely to attack a living person. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I arranged for it to be deleted and the user blocked on both projects. (IRC has it's uses.)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of negative claims without references on John O'Quinn
I've tagged most of the unsourced claims with. Someone more knowledgeable may want to take look. Besides, if this guys is a bad-ass lawyer worth $1Bn+ as the article indicates, he could sue Wikipedia into oblivion for something like this. VG &#x260E; 11:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed - absolutely no good sources. Exxolon (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Mathews
There is a disagreement about possibly giving undue weight to a minor incident. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Amanda Milan
is about the murder of a Transsexual in New York. I dispute a passage on this where it says the men accused with the crime has plead guilty and took a 15.5 years sentence, because there's no reliable source supporting this information.

The article used to be a lot worse, presenting just the "accusation" versions, even distorting its (few) references articles to present witness's accounts as established facts.

I've cleaned up the article's prose to get rid of these problems, even finding a great reference for the information that the accused men had been " indicted " for this crime.

When searching for sources to support the information about him pleading guilty, I've only found a few LGBT activism websites listing this info, with no corroborating sources. Then I removed the passage,

insists on adding this accusation to the article, and has provided as source an article from "Gay City News" and a pdf-printed webpage hosted on a file-sharing website.

I'm worried that some LGBT activism organizations have more interest in inflating figures of gay-violence than in accurate fact-checking.

I believe American courts have public records, so it should be easy to reliably source an information like that.

Asking for input here instead of engaging in a damaging edit war. Thanks, --Damiens .rf 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have placed the article on AfD: Articles for deletion/Murder of Amanda Milan so that editors can weigh in and assess notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this address the case here. --Damiens .rf 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney
A US politician who stood in the recent Presidential election as the Green Party candidate. Judging from her WP entry and the sources cited in it, she seems to be fairly outspoken and to attract quite a lot of flak (that's kind of par for the course for a lot of politicians, naturally)

For the last few days there has been a slow-burning edit war over the inclusion of a quote from this Alan Dershowitz op-ed in the New York Daily News, which includes a specific accusation directed at McKinney as an individual. For example the material was removed by one editor here, and re-added by another here. It has come and gone several times since (with other editors involved), and as of now remains in the article. The relevant talk page debates start here (and continue into the following section).

Most of the arguments for inclusion/exclusion are covered in the talk page - my view is that the comment being included is potentially defamatory. The Green Party have described the comments as "slanderous". Even though attributed to Dershowitz rather than being stated as fact, it remains problematic. People have sued over this sort of thing in the past, eg here (this judgement was I believe partially overturned, but the point still stands).

It raises related issues under other WP policies and guidelines as well, eg WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS & WP:REDFLAG. If we were looking at a considered appraisal of someone's career that made this sort of judgement, say in one or more professionally researched and published biographies or fuller journalistic investigations, which laid out the evidence and came to a conclusion on it, inclusion might be justified and even then there should be some counter-balance, assuming the issue was genuinely debated in reliable sources. But this is hanging a serious accusation on a single disparaging comment in one newspaper op-ed which is actually focused on two other individuals. --Nickhh (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added extra citations, and a rebuttal to Dershowitz's claim. CM has had more controversy surrounding her than your average US Congress backbencher, no question. As to AD's comment being defamatory, that's Dershowitz's lookout, not ours, and I have a feeling he has a wee bit better understanding of relevant case law than yourself (or myself, for that matter). IronDuke  00:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, possible defamation is his concern; you won't be charged with that. WP:BLP is our concern, however, and you're violating it.--G-Dett (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to be your equal in argument by assertion, G-Dett, but I'll give it a whirl. "Um, no I'm not." IronDuke  00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood. I didn't make the case for your having violated BLP for the simple reason that Nickhh had already done that, directly above.  You evaded his case by suggesting that we don't have to worry about WP:BLP if the source in question is a lawyer, because a lawyer will know better than us what libel is.  I pointed out your evasion, and suggested the silliness of its premise.  There was no "argument by assertion."--G-Dett (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also make the observation that in UK law at least, those who repeat a libel can also be held responsible for it, not just the individual or outlet who originally made it. That - I assume - is one reason why WP rules on BLP are so tight, and why the "the page only says what someone else said, we're not stating it as fact" excuse doesn't always wash. But hey, what do I know. Anyway, some more input would be good as to how WP procedure applies here. --Nickhh (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course while Dershowitz may be a genius [sic], he is not infallible. And I'm not sure he's a libel expert anyway. The Daily News' lawyers may be, but even they can make mistakes presumably - even assuming this piece was vetted and reviewed, were someone to sue, they could still in theory win. It happens all the time. --Nickhh (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a strange post. BLP has nothing to do with UK libel laws, any more than the Danish cartoons being republished here's violating Saudi law would matter. (Re the mild legal threat you insinuate: per AGF, I also assume you're joking.) Dershowitz isn't an expert on libel? He's a civil liberties lawyer who has himself engaged a highly prominent battle with Norman Finkelstein over what AD alleges are NF's libellous claims. Wait... why am I writing this? None of this is remotely relevant to the article at hand. Libel, slander, defamation: none of these things are operative for our purposes. IronDuke  00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're absolutely  right, whatever .. btw, civil liberties [sic] is very different from libel, and hence expertise in one field is irrelevant to the other. Ask a lawyer. --Nickhh (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm very confused as to why libel or slander are not relevant to WP:BLP, if that's what you are actually saying.


 * I'm not sure why you're linking to irrelevant diffs to suport my contention but, as you say, whatever. [C]ivil liberties [sic] is very different from libel." Did you intend for that sentence to mean something? Libel is a speech issue, free speech is a civil liberties issues, AD has ample experience regarding it. I shouldn't have to tell you this, as you've previously indicated your far-reaching knowledge of all things Dershowitz. IronDuke  00:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, they're links to news stories about the reach of UK libel laws, as discussed previously. Apologies if you didn't understand that. Or if you don't understand that there are different areas of legal expertise. As I have said, ask a lawyer if you are confused at all.--Nickhh (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now now. You complained bitterly when I implied that you might be less than an expert on Dershowitz. Surely you want to model good behavior for me. Also, that's the second time you've used the lawyer line -- fresher material, please! But to the "substance" of your claim: if WP policy reflected incredibly severe UK libel laws, we'd be removing most "controversy" sections of most BLP's, rendering them mere hagiographies. IronDuke  01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Scott Shafer
– There is a paragraph that keeps getting re-added to this article which is not source nor is it a neutral point of view. There are references, but none refer to specific article, only to websites. The paragraph is as follows:

''Since joining Michigan, Shafer has been widely credited with destroying the once proud tradition of Michigan defense. Shafer inherited a Top 25 defense that was returning 8 starters. In their first year under Shafer, this defense became ranked 96th out of the 119 teams in the NCAA FBS. Shafer has been widely criticized by the fans and the alumni who have grown increasingly impatient with state of the team. Improper tackling fundamentals, poor coaching schemes, and player motivation are all cited in factors in the demise of this unit .''

— X96lee15 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dick Lucas
This BLP has a convoluted history of suspect IP editing. Would anyone care to dig through the recent edits and find the good content? the skomorokh 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Eric Dezenhall
- As the subject of the article, I am requesting an admin or other Wiki-editor familiar with WP:BLP to review and correct the Eric Dezenhall entry. The article violates Wikipedia BLP policy in several areas, including WP:ASF,WP:VERIFY, WP: UNDUE, WP: RS, False light and WP: NPOV requirements. NPOV issues that I raised a year ago have not been fully resolved and since then additional false and strong POV information has been added. Additionally, it is my policy and my firm’s policy to never disclose who our clients are. The list of clients included in the article about me is inaccurate speculation, presumably by individuals who want Wikipedia readers to believe these are clients of my firm. The sources currently cited in the article are either reprints of or refer back to a single article published by Business Week that relied on an anonymous source, who later apologized for providing false information to the journalist. I would like to see any passages involving speculated clients of mine or my firm’s removed and the entire article to be better sourced. Would an editor please weigh in on these issues and leave any feedback on my talk page. Edezenhall (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added an initial disclaimer to the client list, but most of the clients are sourced per WP:RS. Although not useful in the article, CFSA lists a Dezenhall email on its media |contact page and numerous edits to Payday loan and related articles have been made by Special:Contributions/209.183.197.163, which resolves to Dezenhall Resources. Flowanda | Talk 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor wrote on my talk page and asked that I outline my specific concerns; I will try to do so below:
 * 1.The client section and any mention of specific clients must be removed.
 * a.	Because neither I, nor my firm, ever discuss who our clients are, any mention of clients in the article about me is inaccurate speculation.
 * b.	The references cited verifying the list of clients all refer back to and were published subsequent an article published by Business Week in 2006 that relied on an anonymous source leaking false documents.
 * i.	This anonymous source has since apologized to me for providing false information to the journalist regarding the clients named in the Business Week article.
 * ii.	Wikipedia is clear on sourcing requirements for BLP material and while these articles may have been published in reputable magazines, each relied on false information and do not offer new evidence to confirm the claims laid forth in the Business Week article.
 * 2.	The entire article needs to have better NPOV sourcing.
 * a.	The articles used to criticize me do not live up to NPOV requirements and contain many Weasel Words that cast me in a False light.
 * b.	In every single article that is used to cite the list of potential clients, I declined to comment on the alleged clients. Even the Washington Post article couched their allegations by saying they “reportedly included Enron and Exxon Mobil.”

Because of the nature of my work, I am often associated with clients and other groups that I have never had anything to do with. A perfect example is an October 2008 Associated Press story that linked me with the practice of “astroturfing.” The original article is no longer available, but the AP’s formal correction can be found here. It is difficult to clear my name entirely and I thank all the editors for their speedy attention in this matter. --Edezenhall (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any documentation (Business Week retraction, perhaps?) of what you allege the anonymous source apologized to you for? Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The AP article is not mentioned in the article, and there's no reference to astroturfing either. The article does not indicate whether the quotes were from an interview conducted by the writer or statements taken from the books, but the correction concerned the subject of the books. The clients are sourced per WP:RS several times over, and they're included in accordance with Wikipedia policy, not your company's policy. I agree the article needs major work -- not to remove the sourced criticism, but expansion to provide info about Dezenhall's fiction writing and commentary -- but it's not something easily accomplished by just one or two editors. Flowanda | Talk 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is calling a person fringe antisemitic far right writer a BLP violation?
Please see my question here for detailed explanation and diffs. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not, if that is the way the person is described in reputable sources, and even in that case, you should attribute the opinion to those that hold it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All the uses in question seem to be on the talk page, not on the article page. The BLP policy deals with article content, as I understand it.  TSP (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really... WP:BLP says that 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. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, what should we do? Should the user who (apparently acting on his own judgment, not citing any sources for those slanderous descriptions) be warned about BLP and asked to refactor his posts? I pointed out that it may be a BLP violation, but so far this is repeatedly ignored. As I am involved there, I'd appreciate if neutral BLP reviewers could issue warnings if deemed appropriate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please tell me who "Mark Paul" is, or something - anything - about him, and then I can try to ascertain whether or not he has been the subject of a BLP violation. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Guilty until proven innocent? Sorry, Jayjg, that's not our policy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, you at least have to provide some evidence that "Mark Paul" is a real living person for BLP to apply. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's precious. I hope some BLP admin will step in soon... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No seriously--any evidence that it's a real person? I can't find any. All that comes up are fringe websites and Wikipedia articles where some of your colleagues have used "him" as a source, or in one instance, created a whole article plagiarized from "his" website. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, BLP violation - under almost no circumstances should we be making this kind of deeply unpleasant accusation - and that part of policy even includes circumstances in which we have really good evidence for it. This is not borderline, since administrators have previously warned that even naming a convicted holocaust denier is a blocking offense. PRtalk 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh no. The individual in question is not a convicted holocaust denier. The reason that was removed is because it simply isn't accurate. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a mis-understanding that blp only applies at articles, not talk pages. At Jimbo's talk page there is a discussion where a admin thought I was worng for deleting potential blp from a talk page, and Jimbo Wales explained the policy. RetroS1mone   talk  02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need argumentum ad Jimbum for that. That's in the policy proper, and not relevant to the discussion at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Will Kirby and Janelle Pierzina
An IP editor has been engaged in rather tendentious editing and edit warring on the above two articles. In the case of Will Kirby, there has been repeated addition of such promotional material, going somewhat beyond what is generally considered encyclopaedic information. In the case of Pierzina, there has been deletion of details of police arrests among others which, to me, indicates possible conflict of interest editing. The content warred upon appears to be the same as inserted previously, and warred upon by, User:HairyHannah. Activity of HairyHannah, a single purpose account, has been going on since the end of August until the account was blocked for serious and persistent edit warring, and the IP editor has become particularly aggressive over the last two days, and I request investigation and eventual blocking of these accounts. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

More on what Ohconfucius has written. Similar edits came from another IP address last month before the IP address and the  registered user name received a one month ban. Both current and previous IP addresses are from Comcast in the Dallas area. BaldPete (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * HairyHannah, back from a one month ban, has once again been edit warring (the IP users appear to have stopped). xhe has been served with a WP:3RR warning, but continues to edit disruptively. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Leakywaders reported by Appraiser

 * Page:
 * User:


 * 1st example:
 * 2nd example:
 * 3rd example:
 * 4th example:
 * 5th example:
 * 6th example:

Although the material differs with each edit, the jist is similar and unacceptable for a WP:BLP.--Appraiser (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef for being a vandalism-only account. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Alexander Litvinenko/Vladimir Putin
- in this article there is the section, Alexander_Litvinenko. This is not BLP of Litvinenko, but is possibly BLP of Vladimir Putin, and it is my understanding that BLP information of any living person is not allowed in any article. Some background is needed here. In 2006, Putin kissed the belly of a boy whilst in public view in the Kremlin grounds. On 5 July 2006, Chechenpress ran an article written by Litvinenko, in which Litvinenko made claims that Putin is a paedophile. It needs to be pointed out that Chechenpress is a news agency which is linked to Akhmed Zakayev, who himself is an associate of Boris Berezovsky; both of whom were associates of Alexander Litvinenko. Zakayev is the current PM of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria; depending on who is discussing it, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is the separatist/terrorist government of Chechnya. All 3 people are/were critics of Putin; and all 3 people are/were wanted in Russia on criminal charges; and all 3 people were granted asylum in the UK. This information is required to be taken into account in order to understand potential biases.

Now to the problem. One of the sources referenced for this section is the Daily Mail. Their article states the following: "Alexander Litvinenko wrote a sensational and unsubstantiated article earlier this year accusing Putin of having had sex with underage boys." Looking into this deeper, I can find no evidence that Litvinenko made this accusation before the belly-kissing "incident", and the fact it was initially reported by a website with dubious reliability, and if not that then vested interests, and a history of making unsubstantiated claims. All sources (with the exception of the Chechenpress) which have even mentioned Litvinenko's accusation have only made mention of the fact that Litvinenko made the claim, so they do not substantiate the claim in any way. I am a firm believer in Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; a source such as Chechenpress, which has an obvious bias against Putin, should not be used a source in which to present such claims. Again, I can find no evidence that Litvinenko made this accusation before the belly-kissing "incident". Litvinenko also had a history of making other outlandish claims against Putin; according to Litvinenko, Putin had a hand in the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Again, that is a sensational and unsubstantiated claim; however, this is no longer in the article, but equally sensational and unsubstantiated claims of Putin being a paedophile is kept. It is a firm belief that this paedophile claim is kept because it purposely creating a BLP problem with Putin; but tin foil hat egregious nuttery comments that Putin was involved with the London bombings are removed; and it is also my firm belief that editors own assertions of their opinion that Putin being a paedophile is "probably true" is allowing this information to stand.

This needs to be looked at on the grounds of breaching WP:BLP, and am requesting some assistance in doing that from uninvolved editors. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the diff by Russavia above I actually removed those claims from Introduction per undue weight, and in the second diff by Russavia I justified this removal. However, another user (Krawdawng) argued that materials should stay in the article as notable accusations published in multiple sources, and I agreed with him.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even present as fact that Putin is supposedly a peadophile, it merely says that Litvinenko had accused him of paedophilia. This isn't listed on Putin's biography page, but on that of Litvinenko, who most certainly isn't a "living person" anymore. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not find anything about it in books. So, it would be safer to remove. Done.Biophys (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've reinserted it, because now it is written in a totally NPOV way. It is all sourced to reliable sources (Chechenpress whilst not being a RS, is included as this is where it was originally reported and is linked to in order to demonstrate the accusation existed). End of saga? Perhaps not. :) --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What is this? First, you accused me of BLP violations and reported me to ArbCom and personally to Kirill Lokshin. However, when I deleted the thing (after carefully looking at secondary sources), you reinserted this again. What are you trying to achieve here?Biophys (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
Dispute over whether (or how) to include this critical article from the L.A. Times. Uninvolved editors requested to step in. the skomorokh 19:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Easy call -- the article is specifically editorial in nature, thus allowing it as a cite only as representing the opinions of its author.  It does not try to present factual information by any journalistic standards. Collect (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In this instance, that is incorrect. The issue is that you have Limbaugh and conservative commentators saying that Democrats are planning to take over 401(k)s.  There is no plan, there is one economist's testimony.  That an opinion piece points out that there is no plan, and that it's based upon one economist's testimony, doesn't make that an "opinion" - that's a fact.  -- David  Shankbone  20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the column (and not an editorial) is as much a fact-check as it is an opinion piece. Though if the rebuttals in the column couldn't be used as fact, then could you instead say, "James Rainey of the LA Times disputed..." or something to that effect? Mosmof (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As a person who listens to Rush (but thinks he is out of touch with most people including Republicans) I would say no. First, there is an issue of undue weight.  Second, while Rush did apply the position of one economist to the entirety of democrats, he still credited it to the economist.  There are other issues out there of much more import that have received a lot more reliable coverage and impact than this limited tirade---which is no different than any number of his other tirades.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian
This page is completely negative and hypocritical. His firm's page at 5W Public Relations was scrubbed, because blogs werent reliable, and now those same editors are citing blogs (goldberg posted on a blog, no matter where else he writes) to condemn him. He was named to arguably the 2 most prominent 40 under 40 lists in his industry (adage and PR Week), but its posted as a negative. Those editors have taken it hostage. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the above report here from Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns, which is for general BLP issues, not individual complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the BLP complaint here. Anything that could be considered negative is attributed to a reliable source (the user complained about an anonymous quote that was taken from an article, and I was happy to remove it). As it stands now, the article mentions the subject's industry recognition and a couple of praises, as well as some neutral assessment, and a harsh critique by an Atlantic Monthly writer. The article subject is known for, and takes pride in being controversial, so the balance between praise and critique seems reasonable to me. Mosmof (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is now being discussed at the RS noticeboard ,where  I and several other people gave a very definite opinion that Goldberg's column in the Atlantic is the column of a well know commentator published in a reliable publication, not a blog, even though it is published in that format. It is in my opinion acceptable even for negative BLP. Reader write in responses are the sort of  things that cannot be used for BLP in most cases. Further discussion should probably take place there for centralization  DGG (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky Googlebombing-like tactic
This edit, where a name was linked to idiot, had the (unintended?) secondary effect of making idiot come up in search results for the name. This is rather hard to spot. Any suggestions? --NE2 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Could have something to do with ?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We seem clear of any mention of her. . --Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean for spotting stuff like this, other than happening across it when searching. --NE2 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could do a "what links here" on Idiot and check the lot manually - but....well...because then you'd need to check moron pervert ignorance gay paedophile and well... need I say more.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the problem. Maybe someone could check a database dumb dump for any links of the form non-person|person? The way it appears in the search is a bit of a BLP problem. --NE2 18:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I'd really like to see what kind of golden regex you plan to use for that…
 * The single most helpful thing here would be to include the "piped text" with each line of whatlinkshere, then you could just spot-check down the list for anything that is clearly outlandish. I would like this feature as a better way to cleanup "easter egg" style links in general.
 * But I'm not sure what would be the best way to indicate that a page has several different linked phrases all pointing to the same other page. Regardless of how many times page A links to page B it only makes (currently) one row in the database, so this change wouldn't be as simple as it sounds. — CharlotteWebb 19:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you could get a list of people from Category:People, and then run through the articles using that. It would probably take a while though. --NE2 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

South African Arms Deal

 * - Poorly sourced article implicating several real life personages in a corruption scandal. Urgent action required. Exxolon (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourced to self-published sources; I've nuked the bulk of the text and added a warning to the talkpage. Thanks for the heads-up, the skomorokh  02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Van Johnson
Can someone in authority please look at Van Johnson? This was a major film star of the 1940s, and he is one of the last surviving stars of that era. The article is slanted toward allegations about his sexuality, and also includes a reference to his supposedly being a bad father. Someone even had him being nasty to visitors at the nursing home, which I took out. Reading BLP, I suspect that ther may be an issue with the "undue weight" rule and also that this whole article may be gutted and started from scratch. However, I did not want to do that on my own authority and would appreciate a second opinion.--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. Everyone is in authority. I deleted the most egregious tabloid and non-RS stuff, but left in that his wife did appear to call him a "homosexual" which has a genuine source. Collect (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronnie Nader Article
There are many inconsistencies with referencing in this article. I have researched the sources cited and they have begun to change. For example, the EXA website was registered to a Ronnie Nader. When I wrote this on the discussion board, the new link idicated it no longer belonger to Ronnie Nader. Fortunately, the website keeps a log of any changes, and it was clearly changed the very morning when I posted the information. YOUTUBE is not a source for biographies yet it is used extensively. I firmly believe it is a vanity article and respectfully ask that you review it. I will no longer comment on the discussion page as the tone has heated up quite a lot. I do apologize for not adhering to your policies regarding discussions but the threats I received were uncalled for. I will trust and respect whatever decision you make.Sanrafael (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jean Claude Van Damme

 * - entire 'Health' section seems suspect - not sure the sources qualify as reliable. Exxolon (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "About.com" does not meet the WP standards for being a "reliable source." Lots more to clean up, but removal of non-RS material is a no-brainer. Collect (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When subject requests deletion
I've been a bit out of the loop on this. What's our current policy when a borderline-notable (may well be deleted by Prod or AfD) BLP subject requests deletion? -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ask the obvious question: how do we know the person requesting deletion is the subject? —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because she's a good friend of mine (Yes, IRL ;-)). She knows I'm a WP Admin and contacted me about it. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This has come up several times. It depends on how notable the person is and why they want it deleted.  The typical process has been to send the article to AFD with a comment about the request.  At AFD they will generally go along with the deletion, assuming the person is truly of borderline notability.  This is particularly true if the person didn't ask for notability---eg a radio show personality chose a profession that imbues notability.  It also depends on why they want it deleted?  Is the person somebody who gained notability because of a crime, and want it deleted because they want to hide it?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See my essay WP:BBLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose as long as we're doing the essay plug, see my essay on it as well. In general, there's no real consensus position at this point under what circumstances such deletions should be allowed. So the best thing to do is to AfD it with an explanation attached and see what the community decides. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

John Reid (politician)
Keep an eye on John Reid (politician), it's getting some vicious attacks. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Celtic F.C. is getting some pretty vicious hits, as well. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * General vandalism isn't a matter for BLP.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeated assertions of being a murderer and war criminal by multiple editors is.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI and ask for page protection if it gets bad. No need to discuss it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it has gotten bad enough for protection, and have semi'd it for a week. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry_Paulson
I am probably reporting this wrong but I'm trying.

The article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson currently starts with "Henry Merritt "Hank" Paulson Jr. (born March 28, 1946) is a crook; and should spend the rest of his life in prison."

I believe that's a pretty clearly against a few policies here including NPOV. 64.26.176.12 (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I see you've reverted it. Good work; I've watchlisted the article in case more of that garbage gets added. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Chamales
I've just reverted what was obviously a copyright violation of a magazine profile piece that was written over this article. I'm not at all happy with the old content that has been restored, however. Two sentences stand out. Normally, I would excise them immediately. Two factors are staying my hand: this edit by  which didn't remove this content and the fact that the copied magazine profile asserted the same things. I have a suspicion that this content is not disputed and is verifiable. Clearly, however, we should have a far better article than this. Please improve this article mercilessly. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary
I'm certainly not an expert in BLP, nor libel, but this caught my eye. Appropriate? The claim is that as a ''medical student at the University of Southampton, where friends say he called himself "Andy", [he] drank alcohol, indulged in casual sex, smoked cannabis and even took LSD, although Choudary himself denies this. His friends say that he was famed for his ability to drink a pint of cider in a few seconds.'' The POV descriptions continue. Cheers, LindsayHi 12:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the Evening Standard is in principle a decent enough WP:RS, even if the article being cited is a bit of a hatchet job (and of course bearing in mind that the UK media have more or less declared open season on him and others like him). My view FWIW is that there's no problem with mentioning this report. However I would say that there's no need for the level of detail that's currently there - it can and probably should be at least summarised much more concisely. The tabloids may want to lay it on with a trowel but it doesn't mean we have to here (and I note elsewhere in the article there is a direct reference to him "raking in" benefits money). But I'm no more of an expert on BLP than you to be honest. --Nickhh (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sentences should be removed. Probably the intent of his "friends" (and maybe the Standard too) was to discredit him among fellow Muslims. There is no reason the information should be trusted or repeated here. It also has nothing to do with his notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

yet another Barbara West (TV news anchor) issue
Currently in the article: "Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and [MSNBC]] commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West was influenced in her presidential candidate interviews by her husband's connections with the Republican Party.[15][9] The non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts "aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC." [16] Commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned why other reporters with political connections by marriage aren't also questioned.[17] West said that while her husband had worked for Republicans he was also involved with Democrats and denied any impact.[18"

Some wish to delete anything about Olbermann, although his statement is possible contentious. Is the non-partisan cite an improper balance? The other balance offered (after this issue arose) was to add Rush Limbaugh who is possible more partisan than the non-partisan cite is. Is a stronger partisan view better and does the Limbaugh comment effectively balance any contentious issue? Or would the article be better off sans the entire paragraph in the first place?

I would truly appreciate hearing from editors who are genuinely politically neutral on this, lest my viewpoint or others already in the talk page simply get iterated here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggested a possible solution to the article's problems: Start a new article on the controversial interview of Joe Biden.  Then there would be no limits on the length of the article and on the opinions quoted in it. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

is Joe the Plumber a "nickname" or a "sobriquet"
The desire for some to edit war is insatiable -- for a very long time "JtP" was listed as a "nickname" but now "by a vote of five to three" according to one person, the official word is to be "sobriquet" which seems like a 25 cent word to me. And the ones who are fighting the hardest to use "sobriquet" say that it is only Republicans who want to use "nickname" . I trust this is about as apolitical a decision as is imaginable, but we really need cool heads to settle this. Next issue will be "big end" or "little end" I am sure. Thanks in advance for your input! Seems there is no end to what some people will keep doing. Collect (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you strike your implication of knowing other editors desires? And Edit wars require at least two participants - in the article, one of the participants has been you. I hope that your comment does not reflect the fact that you actually desire the edit wars. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I think the same thing about you - you just can't stop arguing your point. For someone who keeps harping about edit warring, you sure like to tediously bring up the same points over and over. Tan   &#124;   39  00:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep my comments short, though. Collect (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And you forum-shop if the general trend isn't going your way. While you're clearly an educated person and I assume you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, you should think about taking a step back for a moment and seeing what you're doing - you're accusing other editors of getting worked up about silly things, and that they can't let things go, and that there's "no end" to what some people will do - but that's how other editors are perceiving you, too. Things work best in these discussions if there's at least an indication that your mind could be changed, given the right argument. You've dismissed every argument for sobriquet, however, by either ignoring it or reiterating your 200:1 argument ad nauseam. In trying to solve problems, I think you've become a main factor in continuing these arguments; you just can't seem to let a point go. I could be wrong, but it sure doesn't appear so. Tan   &#124;   39  00:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "25-cent words"? Clearly, "sobriquet" and "nickname" are not interchangeable, and I don't see how the former, which appears to be an apt description for JtheP, being too fancy schmancy is a good reason for using a less than accurate descriptor. Mosmof (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would add that this does seem to be a case of forum-shopping. This venue should be used where there is a general issue at stake. There isn't - the use of this word is particular to Joe the Plumber and it should be decided on the talk page of that article where it was being before being inappropriately elevated to here. I suggest that this discussion is closed and the matter referred back to where it belongs. TerriersFan (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bringing it here was salubrious in getting essentially the original compromise reinstated (after hundreds of lines of iterated comments in the original talk page). Collect (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment In my research, I have come across an article from a mainstream newsource that used the word "sobriquet." Just more food for thought... Secureourdream.com, Joe The Plumber site from Thaindian News. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - this is too small a point to be on this board. I honestly can't believe it's here.  Mattnad (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The reason some people forum shop is that some forums are already owned. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton
This article accuses a living person (federal prosecutor) of official misconduct. There are mechanisms by which proprietorial misconduct can be corrected, yet no misconduct by Sutton has been substantiated. The controversy regarding Sutton stems purely from sympathy for two individuals prosecuted by Sutton who were convicted in jury trials and whose appeals have been denied. Don&#39;t Be Evil (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You might try nominating the article for deletion. It seems to be mainly a coatrack for controversies. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this rises to the level of a BLP issue
Our article on Freeport, New York says that "Havoc and Prodigy of hip-hop group Mobb Deep currently live in Freeport." Nothing the least bit pejorative in that, but there is no cited source, and all an online search turned up was a BBS post on ClubPlanet (certainly not citable) and [http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12049826 this on Yahoo! News] (no idea whether that's citable). The combination of the two leaves me guessing it's probably accurate, if inadequately cited. Any thoughts on how to proceed? - Jmabel | Talk 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove it. If it's re-added, then we have an issue, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would be. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or dele the cite, mark clain as "citation needed" and see if they come up with a real cite. Would likely cause less anger, and the claim could still be deled if no cite is given. Collect (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It had no cite (but till I got there, neither did most of the article). Yes, I marked it (just before posting here) as citation needed; I just wanted to know if BLP raised this to something where marking it as needing citation wasn't enough. - Jmabel | Talk 08:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt
aka has made a number of BLP violations against Jennifer Love Hewitt on the talk page, and possibly a few other stray BLP violations on other articles.
 * 1) Talk page, 21:03, November 12, 2008 "traitor" (as anon)
 * 2) 15:54, November 14, 2008 "fraud"
 * 3) 21:56, November 14, 2008 "fraud"
 * 4) 17:54, November 15, 2008 "fraud"
 * 5) 18:33, November 15, 2008 "fraud"
 * 6) 18:42, November 15, 2008 my BLP warning on that page.
 * 7) 20:46, November 15, 2008 specific allegations of Federal crimes

There's a possible BLP on Paul Pantone, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How is asking the question ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE "is 'Love' really Jennifer Middlename Hewitt's middlename?" a violation of WP:BLP? 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, merely asking a question is one thing, but speculating about fraud and crimes and using surprise piped links is quite another. Gimmetrow 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not so much a BLP violation, as inane trolling. "20dot", knock it off or you will be banned.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that fabricating a false birth certificate and applying for a US passport under false pretenses would be crimes is a fact that I posted in response to someone's comment paraphrased as "Why would a fake celebrity middlename even matter?". The link Jennifer Middlename Hewitt is more appropriate I believe though I only attempted to create an actual redirect once, I appologize, I should have gone through the Wikipedia requested redirects for creation procedure/guideline or something, though it is troubling few Wikipedia editors seem to share my concern about the subtle yet profound possibilities of deception. 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User indef blocked as a troll.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonal Shah
Attention is invited to possible libellous statements and WP:BLP/WP:COAT violations of a prominent member of Barack Obamas team by anti-Obama Dominionist sympathizers in the article Sonal Shah currently under indefinite protection. Points raised and issues with WP:SPA trolls also raised in talk page here and here(see this link for more diffs and links Talk:Sonal_Shah). The primary culprits are User:Sap ipand meatpupepts User:Whereisjack despite attempts by administrator user:Kingturtle to stop them Zuppeandsalad (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lutz Heilmann
Cross-posting from ANI (apologies if I have the wrong forum). Slashdot has a story about the German Wikipedia having some legal trouble with a member of the Bundestag (Lutz Heilmann) over the content of his article. More eyeballs on the en version of his article would be appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Template positioning kerfuffle
Over at Talk:Osama bin Laden, a mini edit war ensued over this edit, which placed the WPBiography at the very top of the talk page. This seems to be a somewhat unusual place for the template, despite User:SqueakBox's insistence that this is where it appears on every biography of a living person. So the current situation is this: the WP:BLP warning now appears there twice. Once because of the WPBio template at the top, and once because of the usual reason: that the blp=yes parameter of the WPBS template has been set. Now, in my own version of the talk header, the talkheader template is immediately followed by the WPBS template, with the BLP notice prominently displayed. However, SqueakBox seems either not to notice or care that the notice is displayed prominently and correctly in my version, in a manner which is quite consistent with most other BLPs I have seen, and that it appears twice and in an inconsistent and idiosyncratic way in his/her own version. Does anyone here happen to know what the stylistic recommendation concerning the positioning of the template is? Squeakbox seems to think that there is some policy to support the assertion that it should be the very first thing on the talk page, but this is surely not the case for most BLPs that I have seen. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 20:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: I have repeated instance of the message, leaving SqueakBox's preference of the template at the very top. However, I would still like to urge someone here to comment.  If there is a community consensus that the BLP template should go before any talkheader template, then it should be deprecated as a feature from WikiProjectBannerShell.  If SqueakBox speaks for the community on this one, then this feature runs against policy.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell} seems to say that the blp=yes flag must be set on biographies of living persons, and this seems to be at odds with User:SqueakBox's interpretation of things.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ray Robinson
was severely vandalized last March, an earlier attempt to remove the vandalism (he was said to be "raised by goats") was reverted by the vandal himself. Now Der Spiegel makes fun of this article in (german text). I'm not a regular here and edit mainly on de:wp, could someone please watch this article? (and, maybe, clean it up a little because it will get some attention as a result of this Spiegel article) --Tinz (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the peacockery, but the article probably needs cut down, it is currently biopic.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Willis
(Cross-posted to the reliable sources noticeboard.) - There is an ongoing dispute over the consideration and classification of some sources. Specifically, there is disagreement over whether some sources are primary, self-published and/or independent of the subject. This has lead to further disagreement regarding whether or not notability has been established and BLP standards are being met. Outside opinions are needed to help resolve the dispute. Additional comments at Talk:Dan Willis (author) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Rodriguez

 * This article appears to be a vanity/advertising page written by the subject of the article. Tags to this effect have been removed several times. To avoid an edit war I am asking that the article be looked at. Eeekster (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Rodriguez wrote this entire entry herself. She advertises it on her blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymomma (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The subject is apparently reading this because she removed the reference from her blog, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article. I am new to Wikipedia, but I've never heard of anyone creating their own page for promotional purposes. Is this common? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymomma (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pankaj Mishra
The User Zuppeandsalad has violated the BLP with regards to Pankaj Mishra. Pankaj Mishra is a public figure and the edit is a major WP:BLP and Coatrack smear involving poisoning the well. I believe that it serves wikipedia well if the following remarks are removed

"Mishra's polemics regarding Hinduism as a religion and the modern history of nationalist movements among Hindu people in India such as the BJP have generated some disquiet among some Hindu circles within India. His book Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet and Beyond was reviewed by The Economist (1 July – 7 July 2006 issue) and provides an example of the analysis and commentary that have made Mishra controversial in India. His remarks against Hindus have earned him accusations of being an anti-Hindu, and of "pandering to white pro-Muslim audiences in the West"." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancrusader (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Eric Dezenhall
- As the subject of the article, I am requesting an admin or other Wiki-editor familiar with WP:BLP to review and correct the Eric Dezenhall entry. The article violates Wikipedia BLP policy in several areas, including WP:ASF,WP:VERIFY, WP: UNDUE, WP: RS, False light and WP: NPOV requirements. NPOV issues that I raised a year ago have not been fully resolved and since then additional false and strong POV information has been added. Additionally, it is my policy and my firm’s policy to never disclose who our clients are. The list of clients included in the article about me is inaccurate speculation, presumably by individuals who want Wikipedia readers to believe these are clients of my firm. The sources currently cited in the article are either reprints of or refer back to a single article published by Business Week that relied on an anonymous source, who later apologized for providing false information to the journalist. I would like to see any passages involving speculated clients of mine or my firm’s removed and the entire article to be better sourced. Would an editor please weigh in on these issues and leave any feedback on my talk page. Edezenhall (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added an initial disclaimer to the client list, but most of the clients are sourced per WP:RS. Although not useful in the article, CFSA lists a Dezenhall email on its media |contact page and numerous edits to Payday loan and related articles have been made by Special:Contributions/209.183.197.163, which resolves to Dezenhall Resources. Flowanda | Talk 22:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

An editor wrote on my talk page and asked that I outline my specific concerns; I will try to do so below:
 * 1.The client section and any mention of specific clients must be removed.
 * a.	Because neither I, nor my firm, ever discuss who our clients are, any mention of clients in the article about me is inaccurate speculation.
 * b.	The references cited verifying the list of clients all refer back to and were published subsequent an article published by Business Week in 2006 that relied on an anonymous source leaking false documents.
 * i.	This anonymous source has since apologized to me for providing false information to the journalist regarding the clients named in the Business Week article.
 * ii.	Wikipedia is clear on sourcing requirements for BLP material and while these articles may have been published in reputable magazines, each relied on false information and do not offer new evidence to confirm the claims laid forth in the Business Week article.
 * 2.	The entire article needs to have better NPOV sourcing.
 * a.	The articles used to criticize me do not live up to NPOV requirements and contain many Weasel Words that cast me in a False light.
 * b.	In every single article that is used to cite the list of potential clients, I declined to comment on the alleged clients. Even the Washington Post article couched their allegations by saying they “reportedly included Enron and Exxon Mobil.”

Because of the nature of my work, I am often associated with clients and other groups that I have never had anything to do with. A perfect example is an October 2008 Associated Press story that linked me with the practice of “astroturfing.” The original article is no longer available, but the AP’s formal correction can be found here. It is difficult to clear my name entirely and I thank all the editors for their speedy attention in this matter. --Edezenhall (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any documentation (Business Week retraction, perhaps?) of what you allege the anonymous source apologized to you for? Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There has never been a retraction printed for this particular story, nevertheless, after this story ran, the anonymous source came forward and apologized for spreading false rumors using the media. Unfortunately, libel law does not require journalists to print a retraction and these allegations have taken on an almost urban legend aspect to them.  As the subject of this article I want to go on record and make it clear that I do not identify clients and listing them in the article extends the trafficking in inaccurate information.  Please see the talk page of the article for further clarification of my feelings on this matter  Edezenhall (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The AP article is not mentioned in the article, and there's no reference to astroturfing either. The article does not indicate whether the quotes were from an interview conducted by the writer or statements taken from the books, but the correction concerned the subject of the books. The clients are sourced per WP:RS several times over, and they're included in accordance with Wikipedia policy, not your company's policy. I agree the article needs major work -- not to remove the sourced criticism, but expansion to provide info about Dezenhall's fiction writing and commentary -- but it's not something easily accomplished by just one or two editors. Flowanda | Talk 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand WP:RS and WP: Verify and that according to those standards the client list is sourced accordingly, however, because my firm does not disclose its client’s identities, listing clients in an article about me as fact is incorrect. This list of clients is speculation by reporters and anonymous sources and it needs to be clear in the article that this list of clients is “rumored,” “alleged” or “speculated” and should not be stated as fact. Edezenhall (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've followed a convention in dealing with contested claims to more visible attribution. (i.e. 'Stacy is a stupid girl' to 'Some people think Stacy is a stupid girl' to 'Critic Lucy Jones has identified Stacy as "a stupid girl"'). The content in the Wikipedia artilce is now beyond dispute - the sources cited did say the things we are saying they did; it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader how to read their papers, however. Mr Dezenall, do you have any published statement regarding the client list issue? If so, I think it would be suitable to include. the skomorokh 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I raised my objections to listing clients on my talk page and in multiple published sources I decline to identify my clients due to strict confidentiality agreements. (As demonstrated, and among many other places).  I understand your argument for including the list of my firm’s clients, regardless of the inaccuracy of the list; however, I do ask that they not be presented as fact.  If the Wikipedia convention is to say “Critic Lucy Jones has described Stacy as ‘a stupid girl.’”  I would like to ensure that the same convention is applied to the rumored clients of my firm.  I noticed that you edited the section and identified the sources that speculate who my firm’s clients are, but I think you should go further to keep with Wikipedia’s standards.  By saying “TIME identified,”  “Business Week reported” or “The Hill cited” it appears that these allegations are fact.  Again, in the strongest of terms, I object to including a client section or any mention of clients in any way, in the article about me and/or my firm. It is my and my firm’s policy not to identify clients. As a result, sources that name clients of my firm are not reliable because they are relying on rumors and speculation to write their stories. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.  Edezenhall (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay Eric, I'm glad we are getting somewhere at least with this. I understand you object to the material, but you have no special status here more than any other editor, so repeating that you and your firm is opposed to including lists of alleged clients does not really carry much weight. Your point about citing things as fact is interesting; does "Time identified x as y" mean


 * (a) That in the subjective opinion of Time, x is a y


 * or


 * (b) Time reports the objective fact that x is a y?


 * When writing it, I assumed the first interpretation would be the natural one, but I am not a native speaker so I am perhaps in error here.


 * If for the time being at least, the material is to be included in the article, would you (or any other native speakers of English) have any suggestions as to how to word the material without committing Wikipedia to asserting that the firm has such-and-such clients? Regards, the skomorokh  17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * comment I really dislike Wikipedia articles which give the impression that the purpose of their creation is to attack, discredit, or intimidate individuals. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. It is my opinion that by listing speculated clients as fact, some editors of Wikipedia are attempting to link me and my firm with controversies associated with various organizations and companies. If the article about me was truly biographical and not a platform to discredit my work, it would include more information about the novels I have written, the blogging I have done for the Daily Beast and the other general commentary and consulting I am frequently involved in on cable news networks and in the press.  Edezenhall (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "some editors". Are you referring to me? Flowanda | Talk 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Richardson family murders
I've removed the name and (non-free) picture of a twelve year old girl convicted of murder from this article. Under Canadian law, her name cannot be published. While that law obviously doesn't apply here, I think that Wikipedia should hold itself to at least a high a standard where BLPs are concerned as Canadian publications are obligated by law to meet. More involvement would be appreciated, both to review my edit and, if in agreement, to enforce it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the first time I've seen this issue come up this weekend, so I've mentioned this discussion, and the other situation, at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, to see if there is/should be a wider standard. As for this case, I'm inclined to agree with you about leaving out the names. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not operate under Canadian law. I am not clear if the law applies to just children. If not, we have always consistently ignored a similar UK standard on suspects names, and I think the rule should apply too. What rule would replace it--we honor the law of the place of the crime? the place of citizenship? any court who cares to rule on anything? would we honor Singapore's restrictions on publication, or China's, or Thailand's? It's a question of what standards we ourself should have more restrictive than the florida and US law under which we operate. I point out the Canadian legal restriction includes not naminfg the family name of the vcictims, a/c the Canadian newspapers--they talk about the"Medicine Hat murders". I see with relief that this hasnt been suggested here. Whatever we do here, should be what we would do in a similar case anywhere.  I would normally say that if it's public information, and she's been convicted, publish -- except for two factors: first the girl was only 12 years old--now 13. Second, she's obviously not sane by any common-sense standard.DGG (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The law does apply exclusively to children. And I'm not suggesting that we subject ourselves to Canadian law; I'm only suggesting that the fact that publishing something is forbidden by a liberal democracy with constitutionally-protected free speech should inform our view of what constitutes "decency" when it comes to living people.  If we're holding ourselves to a lower standard than Canadian media outlets are legally bound to abide by, it seems to me that we're not holding ourselves to much of a standard at all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Our principle is "do no harm" balanced against the importance of the information in question to the reader. When a legal jurisdiction suppresses information, we don't automatically follow that (Iran?) - but it should trigger our "do no harm" question. Here the need for the reader to "know the name" is not so pressing that we shouldn't follow the lead of the Canadian court. I'd suggest, as a rule of thumb, a presumption that any law (or journalistic practice) originating in roughly liberal state, which suppresses information, on the grounds of protecting minors or vulnerable people, should be respected on Wikipedia, unless there is a pressing reason to feel that it is unreasonable or unduly restrictive to do so. (we are having the same discussion on AN over the Baby P case)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier blp by IP and new sock
(blp violations by banned user Whereistheproof moved to history) RetroS1mone   talk  00:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * - IP number and its new username is a single purpose account to soapbox and coatrack for HIV/AIDS denialism and smear scientists Robert Gallo and Nobel winner Luc Montagnier at Gallo biography, talk page, Luc Montagnier and AIDS denialism. Did it November 18 again after IP was warned when they did it before to the Gallo biography and at AIDS denialism and talk page. And more pls look at user histories. Started a new article just speedy deleted to copy, past a probably libel to Gallo and fringe internet document about AIDS denialism. RetroS1mone   talk  13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Added stuff about new username.  RetroS1mone   talk  13:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * - IP number and its new username is a single purpose account to soapbox and coatrack for HIV/AIDS denialism and smear scientists Robert Gallo and Nobel winner Luc Montagnier at Gallo biography, talk page, Luc Montagnier and AIDS denialism. Did it November 18 again after IP was warned when they did it before to the Gallo biography and at AIDS denialism and talk page. And more pls look at user histories. Started a new article just speedy deleted to copy, past a probably libel to Gallo and fringe internet document about AIDS denialism. RetroS1mone   talk  13:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Added stuff about new username.  RetroS1mone   talk  13:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP editor has now been banned for a week and four socks indef banned. RetroS1mone   talk  00:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also known as Brodie's Little Shits
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with listing names of living people in an article called Brodie's Little Brats. Outside input appreciated. the skomorokh 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham K. Biggs
Recent suicide, so not quite a BLP, but you get the picture. The outside world will be looking to Wikipedia for info on this and it would be best if trolling was dealt with quickly and decisively. the skomorokh 15:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming of suspect who is not a suspect
An article made use of this bbc news report source that named an individual as a suspect in a murder case. I investigated further and found a more recent source also from the bbc that said the individual in question had been found not guilty. On the basis that when dealing with BLPs we should always use the most recent and correct source, I swapped them out as it contains the same details as the earlier report but also makes it clear that the named individual is *not* a suspect in this case and indeed has been found innocent of involvement. This has been reverted and I have reverted it back on BLP grounds. I do not want to get into an edit war about this and would like outside views. I actually no problem with both being present as long it's clear that the suspect is *not* a suspect. The presence of the first reference alone is misleading. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The important questions here are
 * a) is the source reliable?
 * and
 * b) does the source verify the text?
 * The initial report verifies the death date, address of the victim, fact that the victim had been living as a woman for several years and that she was strangled in her home. The later source does not explicitly verify either the death date or the fact that the victim had been living for several years as a woman, although it comes close on both accounts. For that reason, your change did not improve the article. All first BBC report says about our LP is that they were remanded in custody, which is true, so I think focusing on its negative impact would be an overreaction. Sincerely, the skomorokh  16:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * so we shouldn't focus on the negative impact of not presenting the most update information about someone's involvement in a murder... I see.. oh wait I don't.. and the problem with including both of those would be? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't present the issue as a question of whether or not both should be included, you presented it as a question of which of the two sources ought to be used. Our article says nothing about the accused; if it did, then certainly the most recent and accurate references ought to be used. There is no reason to add the later reference unless there is unreferenced text in the article that including the later reference would verify. the skomorokh  16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

rm duplicate

Timothy Geithner
A Pakistani newspaper, in an article which alleges that Jews run the world, has reported that President-elect Obama is friends with Geithner and that Geithner is Jewish. This article has been linked as a legitimate resource here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner

President-elect Obama is Christian.

I think it is fair to inquire as to the faith of the person who linked the article. It should not be a secret.

I am Jewish.

Regards,

Inna Tysoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.68.25 (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear what the point of the above message is, but the linked article looks pretty bogus, there is a consensus against it on the talk page, and the link has been removed from the Timothy Geithner article. It should remain that way.  Until a reliable source reports his religion, his religion can be left out, or perhaps it can be left out entirely since he doesn't seem to self-report it.  NYTimes says he was married in a Protestant church.  Smallbones (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I don't see anyone else's religion being listed. You don't (for example) see the Wikipedia reference to Nelson Mandela state "Nelson Mandela is Methodist." No-one cares about that.

But it seems to matter whether Geithner is Jewish. Or (as someone said) we shouldn't be trying to hide his being Jewish or whatever. Well fine. Then let's identify everyone's religion. Mandela is a Methodist; Obama is a Christian; Michelle Obama is also; Hillary Clinton is a Methodist (can't remember what type of Christian Bill is); Tony Blair is Catholic; I am Jewish; you?

Oh--lots of Wikipedia pages are in need of revision. We need to id everyone's religion you see.

Regards,

Inna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.68.25 (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly, there's not much in WP:BLP about reporting religion, but under categories (those things at the bottom):
 * "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources"


 * I think that's a good general rule. If the guy wants to be a "closet whatever" let him, if he wants to be "out" we don't report it, unless a reliable source thinks it is notable.  This seems to be the way it is handled in most articles.  BTW, I'm a semi-closeted Episcolopian Smallbones (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris Burke (actor) vandalism
I've never worked on Wikipedia before so I am not sure how best to report this, but the page for actor Chris Burke has been deeply vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.33.164 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, the skomorokh  21:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Article about unrelevant person: presumably self-edited
The article about Alexander Straub [link below] seems entirely self-edited. It reports dozens of uninteresting minor details of his life, and he is not a person of public interest. The article has had a history of self-editing.

Alexander Straub's own wikipedia entry:

The 1st paragraph reports a standard university student's pre-25 years. Not of public interest. It also reports details that can only be known to Alexander Straub himself, suggesting self-editing.

The 2nd paragraph deals with Alexander Straub's winning of a newspaper prize, and further details only known to himself, suggesting self-editing.

The 3rd paragraph deals with Alexander Straub doing various internships, and further details only known to himself, suggesting self-editing.

The 4th paragraph deals with Alexander Straub's current position, and further details only known to himself, suggesting self-editing.

The 5th paragraph deals with his wife, similarly not of interest to anyone besides Alexander Straub.

I have no personal connection to Alexander Straub, but this is the most dull wikipedia article I ever read, and therefore wish to report it for deletion, and to block it from re-opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.70.124 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia is here. The Business Week profile constitutes significant coverage in a reliable source, thus satisfying our inclusion criteria from my perspective. So the article is unlikely to be deleted. I agree that the article is boring, but the point of encyclopaedia entries is not to be interesting, but to be informative. If you have suggestions based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines as to what material ought to be removed, then by all means proffer them. Regards, the skomorokh  21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Kamel Agiza
Lots of allegations, sourced to a broken link. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you google the name of the link, you will find mirrors of it. But WP rules don't allow the linking to copyrighted texts on outside websites that don't hold the copyright themselves. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires valid sources.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ...yes, I'm aware. The sources are both from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and clearly meet WP:RS. As I said, because the official link to the files online location is no longer working, I could either link to one of the copies posted online elsewhere -- or simply give the name of the offline file. If you want to find the government report, look online and google the name -- you will see it. The only reason it is not linked is because we do not want people linking to off-site copyrighted content. For example, if United Nations Resolution 1267 is no longer hosted on their website, but is hosted on many other websites -- we should not link to those other websites, we should include the dead link to the official version (Archive.org to the rescue) and include the names of the offline files. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Go look for a source" is not a reliable source. It's the responsibility of the person creating the article to provide a valid source.   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ...at this point I'm working off the theory you don't know WMF policies. It's a moot point since the article is now a redirect -- but you are aware that all sources don't have to be online, right? I suggest a refresher, m'dear. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try really hard to assume good faith, and please point to what policies I don't seem to know. You have yet to provide a source.  Period.  I'm still waiting.   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no issue here. Nothing in WP:V or WP:RS requires one to link to an online source. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How to fix an archived problem?
Hi all, I hope someone here can offer advice / help with a small problem I have. I was on a Wiki break for a while and during that time a discussion that made some incorrect statements about me occured and was archived. Those in the discussion did suggest someone ask me, but no one left me a message on my talk page (which in any case I may have missed, not being active at the time) and no one e-mailed me. I have now answered the question and besides one editor who seems to be acting contrary to various policies, the only real issue is the mis-information in the archive. Just to be clear, I edit under my real name and am published both as an academic and in the press... as such this is about "living people" not about an anonymous Wikipedia account. Discussion on this is at. What are the options for resolving this?

My concern is that left as is, the page will show up in search results, and might give people the idea I was / am an office holder in the organisation when I am not. Should that organization get further press coverage I'd rather not have my name wrongly come up in the press as an office holder because of a wikipedia talk page.

Thanks, Oboler (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Internet Defense Force organization at one time listed Dr. Oboler as affiliated with them on this Facebook page: . That information has since been removed by the JIDF, which removed their entire list of "officers" after it was noticed. (The JIDF is rather anonymous, and secretive about who's actually behind them.) Dr. Oboler now disclaims any official connection with the JIDF.  That information is not in any Wikipedia article, and it never was.  But there's a mention of it in a talk page archive somewhere, because  was editing the JIDF article heavily and there was a WP:COI issue. It's not really a WP:BLP issue because there is no article about Oboler.  It's his record as a Wikipedia editor that was an issue.  But it's a minor point. I suppose we could have Winston Smith go through the archive and take care of the matter. Comments?  --John Nagle (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that interpretation of both facts, events and the consensus of the discussion on both the archived talk page and the current talk. I am posting here as per Peter's suggestion. Please do not try and turn this into a personal confrontation. As a real person posting under my own name I do have certain rights, such as the right not to be defamed on Wikipedia - be it an article or a talk page. An explanation was asked for and was given (some what belatedly as I was moving my life between countries and on a Wiki break as a result - as I have explained and you have read, or at least responded below). If you wish to make a personal issue over this, that is a nother matter entirely, but this is not the place for it. Oboler (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The BLP policy page does discuss non-article space as somewhere where BLP issues can arise. It also does state that it is Wikipedia policy that libeled individuals can call on Winston Smith (aka the oversight committee) to ensure that certain edits are removed from the record. So, if Andre's relationship with the JIDF is portrayed in a manner he does not like and there are no reliable sources that back the portrayal, (and, unless there is a RS we have missed despite all our efforts to find one, this is exactly the case,) then it is entirely within policy that he comes here. If and when he starts making contentious edits to the article, then we can start asking if there is a COI. (I know of at least one editor who has made edits to the article and I have since seen that he is identified as a member out in the blogosphere, if this editor returns to the article, then I will raise it as a COI. He hasn't, at least under his main user name, so I haven't raised it.) In Andre's case the now-removed list on the JIDF site handled Andre's relationship with them rather ambiguously and this raised questions of COI. Andre has now clarified what the real relationship is i.e. that he was approached by them (as he has been by many others with a variety of political views) as an expert on Antisemitism 2.0 and supplied them with info (as he has with many others with differing political views). They wished to make him an officer of the group and he declined but said that he was happy if their use of him as an external consultant were in the public domain. He has in print made it clear that he likes certain of the JIDF's activities, he has refrained from commenting on other aspects of the organization. Given this info, then it is possible to think up example hypothetical edits to the article that Andre could make that would fall on either side of the COI barrier. We as fellow editors will have to deal with Andre's real edits, not imaginary ones, on a case-by-case basis as they come up. We can ignore hypothetical ones unless he himself wants people's views on whether potential edits would be acceptable under COI policy. What is under discussion here is a totally different matter i.e. what appears in our non-article space about Andre as a result of people making their individual good faith efforts to make sense of the ambiguous content of the JIDF officers page, a page which has since been removed from public view. And my interpretation of BLP policy is that he has a very strong case that changes should be made. Now let's just leave things to do with COI alone so that someone with experience of making BLP changes can advise Andre on his options.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Send it down the memory hole, as a courtesy to Dr. Oboler.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Article ratings indirectly detrimental to character?
I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I do not know if the question I am raising here is new or not. Perhaps, as the project has developed and grown over the years, it has not come up yet.

It seems to me that an encyclopaedic biography added to Wikipedia about a living person, and tested and approved for notability, reasonably can be considered a somewhat accurate account of that person's life story, even if partially incomplete in non-essential details.

If even on the talk page of that article, open to public view, there is added disparaging information about the biography, i. e. the life story of the person, such as rating it "C" and giving it a "low priority" rating, that doesn't make that living person look very good. According to the Wikipedia link to the encylopaedia's definition of a "C" rating that is. Can we agree so far?

This would be true especially, it seems to me, if the person contributing the article, from what is evident about it such as references, can be assumed to have done as good a job on it as anyone else possibly would be able to do.

If such tags (C-rating plus low priority) in any way could be suspected to have been entered gratuitously and/or with the intent of harming the article, and then indirectly the reputation of the depicted person, couldn't that too constitute "controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately"?

If so please see Jacob Truedson Demitz. Thank you. EmilEikS (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggested to User:Momoricks that this be the assessment given for the article as it exists at this point, specifically C-Class and of Low priority. As I noted on the article talk page, assessments are two fold. The Class designation reflects the criteria as given in the WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. It does not meet all 6 of the criteria for B-Class in that discussion and addition of references is currently ongoing. Class status is not a grade for the subject or for the editors involved. It is a comparison of the article points vs. the criteria. Priority has equal criteria that is listed at WikiProject Biography/Assessment. A Low priority biography would be that "Subject is notable in their main discipline." Priority is not a reflection on the person for who the article is about. It is a relative assessment to others who would fall into the same category. After having worked in assessments on four different projects, I can state quite confidently that this assessment of the article is correct. There is absolutely no reflection on the article's subject and as noted above, would be a misunderstanding of the purpose and meaning of assessment parameters. This isn't a violation of WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We need neutral input. Meanwhile, I must maintian my questioning of the C-rating. Quote Wikipedia re: C-rating "C-Class: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria: The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or trivia." None of the above pertains to the Demitz article, leading anyone to suspect that the rating may be gratuitous. The added effect of the correspondence between the negatively inclined editors, which I entered on the article's discussion page as evidence according to Wikipedia policy on Wikihounding, but which the above editor instantly reverted, bolsters my fears of continued impropriety. There is also evidence on file that this editor reaches out to other editors in a campaign of sorts regarding me personally and this and two other articles in particular, and gets old friends to do some of the things she wants done. I have done nothing of the kind ever. Outside help is urgently needed now to avoid a further escalation of animosity. "... discussion and addition of references is currently ongoing", which the above editor cites to qualify the C-rating is (1) no longer needed essentially for this article and (2) might intentionally be continued indefinitely. For English Wikipedia's Mae West article, in which the above editor long has been deeply involved, it has gone on for almost 6 years. I have no interest in arguing and am willing at any moment to apologize for anything I have done wrong. It is my right to state facts to whomever I please, and to ask a valid question (see heading!) in this forum. EmilEikS (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with editors who work together actually working together, or talking together. It's quite odd that so many people can work together congenially, with the exception of one editor who even takes umbrage at a project assessment classification. Posting user talk page discussion on an article talk page as you did is improper, and was misconstrued, since you didn't bother to take into consideration the other side of the conversation which was about the Texas Chainsaw Massacre film. Cross-posting user talk page content is not what the wikistalking policy suggests. It is you that continues to make this a personal issue, and quite frankly, I'd suggest you get over it. The assessment of this article is not a WP:BLP issue, and as such is not appropriate for this page. Project assessment is just that, for a project to sort articles under its provenance according to specific criteria. What this is, however, is a Wikiquette or AN/I issue in the making and really, really, really needs to stop. I've been quite patient under the circumstances but as someone else suggested to you, quit being so sensitive about Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent issues, such as the Mae West page. The page was created on 22 January 2003. I first began editing on Wikipedia on 22 July 2006 and I first edited the Mae West page on 24 June 2008. Whatever has gone on for 6 years is irrelevant. Do you actually think an article is ever actually done? For what it's worth, no article is yours, anyone is free to edit and alter a page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are obviously some problems between the two of you that need addressing. I am not going to look into it to find out whose fault it is, or if it is symmetric; this is not the right forum for this. I don't think taking article assessment as a proxy for the underlying problems is acceptable. What happens on the talk page is much less important than the content of the article itself, and constructing a BLP violation from an article assessment would be a big stretch. Anyway, I have never heard of this person, so low priority looks about right to me, and a global refimprove template on a BLP is a serious problem that I hope is generally considered inconsistent with a B rating. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: the a global refimprove template, I am waiting for the editor who placed it on the article, as asked to do so by the above person, to advise me, as he wrote he would on the article's talk page - "there may be a few other points that need referencing". So far nothing has come in. The principle question remains (dosen't it?) whether or not gratuitous rating can effect the reputation of a BLP, good or bad. Thank you for your constructive input! EmilEikS (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point concerning "gratuitous" rating. If the article is a borderline case between B and C (I don't know if that's the case), the obviously the right thing to do is to choose one of them, not to leave it unrated. The rating is for internal purposes, such as deciding which articles go to DVD editions of Wikipedia, or for editors who want to look at articles of a certain quality rating to get inspiration for their work on other, similar articles. Being unrated is an implicit rating implying "nobody has bothered to rate this article yet", so it's actually lower than a C rating. The language in the article criteria only superficially suggests otherwise, and only if you ignore the general context. It makes no sense to prescribe upper limits for the quality of articles in a certain class, and that's clearly not its intention. It describes the typical article in the class. Obviously articles that are somewhere between two classes don't fit that, but I am not aware that anyone saw this as a problem before you. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to be taking the rating personally. Article ratings have nothing to do with the subject of the article or the contributors and this dispute does not belong on the BLP noticeboard. Discussion should go on the talk page of the article and third opinions may be sought from the Bio WikiProject or the A&E Workgroup. I hesitate to suggest further forum shopping but perhaps the true dispute you have is on what makes Reliable sources and that could be taken to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ultimately this could go to mediation but, really, concentration should be on improving the article rather than rating disputes.  D OUBLE B LUE  (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If no one considers it possible in any way that an article can be rated too high or too low and if such a rating, if done intentionally too high or too low, never in any way could impact the reputation of someone described in a BLP, for better or worse, then I have done a lot of misunderstanding while reading Wikipedia policy and my point is moot and I need to apologize to all concerned for this foolishness.

If there is the slightest danger, however, that such classification, gratuitous as I have called it (perhaps incorrectly?), could impact thus, I am glad to turn a discussion of such a seemingly important issue over to much more qualified debators. Hence, there is no need to further address me personally about it. EmilEikS (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced autobiography
The article Amber Lynn has been mostly written by Amber Lynn herself and an administrator in email contact with her. Her identification has been confirmed by multiple WP:OTRS submissions. However, the article has remained mostly unsourced for the past 8 months. Is this a BLP problem? Epbr123 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the article is largely unsourced, so I stubbed it - regardless of what's going on behind the scenes, a BLP article cannot have large sections of prose and no sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Harley Reagan
Oh dear. Is there anything nice to say about this person (don't know of him but to me this really is an attack page). What do we do about subjects who perhaps aren't nice, it strikes me he has borderline notability and should be spared- on the other hand, maybe the public needs to know, and it does appear in part sourced. Sticky Parkin 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article reminds me of Jews for Jesus in that both were mainly about how other people dislike and disagree with the subjects, not about the subjects themselves. The other article has been somewhat improved. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * considering that the material here is essentially similar to that for Chuluaqui Quodoushka and he has no notability independent of that, i think a merge would deal with the situation. But making a comparison with a non BLP article about something interationally famous is besides the point. DGG (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if almost everything one can say that is well-sourced about someone or something is negative that's life. Compare for example Kent Hovind a notable Young Earth Creationist who is now in jail for tax fraud and who is disliked by many of the other major YECs. There's no BLP problem with an article that reflects those facts. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter how hateful the person, BLP requires material to be well-sourced and presented in a neutral manner. Collect (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Missing the point. That's completely true. For all articles. That doesn't mean if the reliably sourced material isn't overwhelmingly negative then we add false balance to it or delete the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say to add false balance? I said that the cites must be presented in a neutral manner per BLP. That means "Doe falsely claimed" etc. are not allowed except as cited statements of others. In the case at hand, the material, which is admittedly negative, was not presented in a neutral manner. That is, additional words not sourced were used to present an even more negative view than any sources provided. Collect (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry are you commenting on the original article or the one I referenced? It seems like you mean the Reagan article but I'm confused then by the fact that your comment is indented under mine. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I indented because you had indented under mine  so I trusted that you were referring to my post supra. The Harley article had and has many problems, including unsourced or unsourceable material presented with words which would not appear neutral to an outside observer.  We can hate a guy all we want, but that does not mean an article should not be scrupulously sourced and presented. Collect (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? You indented under my comment at 22:43 which was a reply to Steve's remark. Also, while were here we might as well discuss the article. What is wrong with a) the summary sentence noting that Reagan has been criticized by both traditionallists and non-traditionalists and what was wrong with the ref on the sacred sexuality seminars? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an old adage about piling Pelion upon Ossa which is applicable. The "sex section" is at that point. Collect (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bjørn Sagvolden
There seems to be some concern about this article. The claims, against this article, are too many to list here. Please see the discussion-page :
 * It concerns a special forces soldier, who is injured while on duty, and a few weeks later, perceives a deadly threat from his "surroundings". And employment, being terminated, still a few weeks later.
 * Please google for "Bjørn Sagvolden", and please let me know, if you too, are having problem with finding this Wikipedia article on Google. ( Maybe this is only a problem when searching from a Norwegian ip-address.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bj%C3%B8rn_Sagvolden

regarding article about Mister B.Sagdalen.
 * A major claim is that nothing in the article is notable.
 * Counterclaims include:
 * He is the first FSK-employee, to have his identity revealed, while alive. ( The FSK, is now 26 years old, and only this year, the second FSK-employee, had his identity uncovered ( as a result of having to testify against Mister B.Sagvolden ). (Notability !)
 * This is in contrast to the long list of SAS-personnel ( British ) and ( USAs Army Rangers ), who are known to the public.
 * List of former Special Air Service personnel

( Claims have been made, arguably, that a handful of Norwegians have an advantage, if there are few, or no FSK-employees known to the public. )
 * The first employee of the Royal Norwegian Defence Ministry, to have dived with oxygen, in 1983. (This is notable for Norwegians, and (a little less, perhaps, notable) for Norwegian-wiki. )
 * The first employee of the Royal Norwegian Defence Ministry, to have dived with oxygen, in 1983. (This is notable for Norwegians, and (a little less, perhaps, notable) for Norwegian-wiki. However, the achievement, is until now, not recognized, by any other wikipedians, as notable achievement. ( At least no one, has voiced their opinion, of such a view. )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sju Hav 1128 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have noticed,that I am the first wikipedian, to mention any alleged problems, with the B.Sagvolden article. ( How many days, and hours, has there been a link to this forum ?
 * Is it possible, that the article is not under scrutiny, but rather that the discussion pages, are being "flamed" by parties, who have an agenda ?

( Work in progress. )

So far, NOBODY, has voted to keep the article.

Good luck, in your just endeavours. Here, and wherever. Sju Hav 1128 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has been deleted. The full discussion of this issue was at Articles for deletion/Bjørn Sagvolden. There is nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Helen Jones-Kelley
Currently has a dispute on whether material from Ohio newspapers is properly in a BLP. One editor asserts that where a newspaper has an article specifically on the person, making factual statements about the person, that such may be used as a cite, and a direct quote from the article (not an editorial) is reasonable and proper. Another editor states " had hoped to find some compromise with you on this, but you continue to avoid dealing with the issues that the quote gives a false and damaging impression. Just saying it was in the newspapers evades the core issues and shows you are not arguing in good faith. I will eliminate this quote and keep on doing it per wp:blp. And you know well that the 3 revert rule does not apply to those acting conservatively to protect a living person. If you attempt to revert this, I will petition to have you blocked." And has reverted all attempts at compromise more than three times now.

At issue? Is the following allowable under BLP: " According to The Columbus Dispatch on November 14, 2008, "In response to a public-records request, the state agency said yesterday that it had no records involving previous checks of the type that Director Helen Jones-Kelley authorized on 'Joe the Plumber.'" "Jones-Kelley, a Democratic appointee who contributed $5,000 to Obama campaign funds, said there were no political motives behind the checks run the day after the Oct. 15 presidential debate, in which McCain repeatedly referred to 'Joe the Plumber'"

Is this allowable under WP:BLP? Thank you! Collect (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I regret that this Board has to deal with another effort by Collect. This editor puprosely left out the core issue of the WP:BLP violation. An official investigation concluded on November 20, 2008 that the searches breached protocol but found there was no evidence to prove they were part of a political agenda or linked with a political group or campaign.  The quote promotes a damaging suggesting we have good reason to believe is false. It does not matter if a newspaper published something in the past if it is potentially harmful and demonstrably untrue - this can border on libel. Please take a look at the talk page - in it you'll see Collect essentially evading good faith queries on why this damaging material should be left in.Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please avoid pushing personalities. This is a legit issue which you said you would post, but did not. Second, the issue is not about the investigation, but about a newspaper article where the newspaper is acepted as RS, so there is no RS or V issue at all. Third, the newspaper article is not an editorial, and per WP:RS is accepted at face value for what is contained in it. Indeed, it is presented as a quote so no one could think WP:SYN or any such other issue arises.  Fourth, asserting "libel" for a newspaper quote is an extraordinary charge which I would welcome input on here.  Fifth, you again seek to engage in personal attacks rather than simply letting the issue speak for itself. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The libel is not the quote, which was written before the inquiry findings, but adding it to the article after the Official findings have been published. We know it suggests political motivation where there is none. Libel requires knowingly promoting false and damaging statements. So even though the source is reliable, the content was written at a time when republicans were claiming her acts were political.  We and they now know they are not. Mattnad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh? Try consulting a lawyer or at least looking up "libel" someday. By the way, Helen Jones-Kelley is a "public person" under US law.  And as for her emails being political, the Inspector General's report specifically found that they were political. Even if you know they were not. Collect (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the attempted misdirection - Collect has just tried to conflate the e-mails (which were clearly politically motivated) with the quote about the database searches (which were not politically motivated). And note, he has never provided a statement of how the quote in question brings value to the article, and possibly mitigate perpetuating a falsehood. Why bother having it?  What's the purpose?  On the talk page, I asked many times.  No answer. Mattnad (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much of an issue here. We can include the quote as long as we make very clear that the official finding which was subsequent to this found that there was no abuse of power. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree -- and if there is any emphasis, it must be on the later finding, not a longish bit with the first quote and then a comment that it was later found that there was no abuse of power. dougweller (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actual report is Collect (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Powell

 * - This article has been a battleground for proponents and opponents of this evidently controversial political figure. I've been watchlisting it since it was listed for copyright review some months back. Currently, it's the opposition's turn, and I'd be very grateful for some additional eyes on this, as I will be traveling this week. The WP:SPA contributor at bat this time,, is blanket restoring an earlier version of the article, not all of which is inappropriate by BLP, but which includes significant portions that are, including material cited to what is evidently his own blog posting: "Kevin Powell likes demeaning teenagers exclusive". Not unusually, he is convinced that I am working for the enemy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The contributor has moderated his approach, though still citing his own blog entries. (here). I've removed this, corrected some misinformation restored by reversion and re-added some sourced material (positive and negative) that was removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Glover
Could someone glance at this? It's been raised at WP:COIN re the subject removing cited controversial material about political involvement. It's somewhere on the cusp of WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:RS: depends if the citation - one uncorroborated British tabloid newspaper - is considered reliable. Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail's column by Stephen Glover on 19 November: "Many decent people will nonetheless feel a spasm of sympathy for the 12,000 or so British National Party members whose personal details have been posted on the internet. " So the list is mainly likely correct, and the claim that British law applies is, per WP:BLP not relevant.  confirms it as well. Unfortunately, the list appears to include people who do not regard themselves as BNP "members" - the list has 13,000 names, but estimates of "active members" are under 5,000.  So, the likely way to go is to not give the questioned quote, but, at most, to point out that his name appeared on a list of BNP members which also likely has non-members on it.  The news about the BNP list made it to all the UK newspapers, it seems. Collect (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Rafferty
The Gerry Rafferty article currently includes and a ==Disappearance== section that says:


 * Rafferty had checked himself into St Thomas' Hospital hospital for liver problems. However, he disappeared on 1 August 2008, leaving his belongings behind. The hospital filed a missing persons report.

86.148.33.132 is repeatedly editing the article to say that he's no longer missing, but isn't providing (can't provide?) a source. I've requested a source on the User talk:86.148.33.132 page, but that hasn't worked. The most recent edit does have an edit summary - "Gerry has been in contact now with several members of his family his whereabouts is now known to us."

As I've now reverted the unsourced "he's no longer missing" edits three times twice, I thought I'd mention it here and see if someone more experienced in BLP issues would care to take it under their wing. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reinforced your note at the contributor's talk page, including links to WP:V and WP:RS. I'll also watchlist the article for a time, though I'm going to be traveling for a few days later this week and won't be able to help out then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: DAVID PASSARO- REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL
To Whom It May Concern:

I am making a formal request for immediate removal of the Wikipedia Page about David Passaro.

In an effort to defame, and cause harm through allegorical content, this page is riddled with information that was not in line with the trial, and non-admissible for Judge or Jury. (Such as the personal attacks, which there was no grounds to for consideration during the trial like the Ex-wife's, and the stepson's content....)

While there is basis for some of this information, it is clearly created to continue to harm David, and directly affect the family name. Some of this information, while substantiated by the actual federal case against him, is a far cry from the 5 PILLARS of the Wikipedia protocol. There is no way to disguise the lack of neutral tone, or the neutral viewpoint, as every statement is meant only to further disparage, and defame David.

Furthermore:


 * It was stated in the Wikipedia article that David "murdered" Wali. Wali was in the custody of the US ARMY, and was found dead days after the interrogation.


 * Since there was no autopsy, there is no validity to the "breaking of pelvis" statements.
 * I was present in the courtroom, and I personally watched, heard, and caught FEDERAL PROSECUTORS LIE! When they were called on their lies, they twisted and squirmed, and recessed.


 * There were bulletins issued giving the interrogation precedents, and stated that there we no limitations on what could or could not be done, but, conveniently, this was discounted during court proceedings, and stated as nonexistent. However, Recently, regarding the head of the CIA, this information has come out again, and of course, too late.(gee, wonder why the head of the CIA was not permitted to testify...??)


 * The allegations, by ex-wife, and stepson, are the one-sided stories/jibberish of people who stood to profit, if from no other means, than by seeing done what they themselves could not do, and that was impose hurt and harm upon David. I know personally, of the stepson, and the continued defiance, and gross contumacious behavior. The ex-wife, ... or the girlfriend... all such information would only continue to argue truths which they know, and which would not change the outcome of David's sentence. (in truth, David did what he did- but the choir of dark angles singing the refrain against him, was only meant solidify and cement, their (Federal) case. (discover for yourselves the lives, and the marital trauma of all such soldiers- or any??? soldiers- but then again, no one would profit or be exalted by such concrete findings....)

These are just a few examples of "ugliness" surrounding David, and why the outcry against him was so personal.

Now, can I say that David was a model citizen? Was David a quiet, white-picket fence yard, person? No. But then again, he was an elite, highly trained military combatist, sent around our world to do what was both wanted, and needed, to be done, while those who sent him, hid their faces, and names, and placed full accountability on David. ( I would dare to say that this entire tragedy and travesty, was merely a plot and a ploy, to unveil yet another tentacle of the Bush administration, and flex power through the Patriot ACT.).

Needless to say, what is done, is done. (want to continue to hide behind your naiv'te, and say that our government doesnt work this way, (evidences only of ignorance of history and government...), and you wish to continue defame, and defraud other readers, and hearers, then so be it, but be warned, you shall be held accountable for the spreading of slander, lies, false witness against your neighbors, and will give the account for the blood YOU shed, just as David will for what he has done- the exception is, that what he did was out of being commissioned by our governement, and what YOU do, is out of contempt, hate, and malice- GOD WILL HOLD YOU accountable. Want to do something productive, get those who are profitting from this war, out of power, and out of business. Help those who are suffering, and stop causing suffering - to name a couple constructive worth-while projects.)

However, the continued assault on David, and ultimately the entire family name, which causes loss of employment, relationships, life, and due process of pursuit of happiness, by the unfounded, and allegory statements, by people with clear intentions of disparaging and vindictive activity, by the continued references outside of the facts and the trial regarding Davids charges, and the outcome of court proceedings, is in fact and deed liable to damage.

If you feel you must continue to vault the erroneous proceedings, trial, the travesty and perversion of due process, and lay your hand to this wicked and debauched plot, then please leave the personal jabs and quips about ex-wives, and stepsons out of it, and put them on your personal my space or face book blogs, where such juvenescent vindictiveness belongs.

"Jujmintday (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)"
 * The article in question is David Passaro, and there were valid WP:BLP concerns with the article. I have taken a quick axe to some of the most obvious problems, but it will take a little time to go through it more carefully and update the sourcing. Additional eyes welcome. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This probably falls under WP:BLP1E, this article should be deleted and an article on the event created. --Tango (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably right; however, I'm tired and not going to mess with this anymore today. I believe I've removed the most obvious problems; there formatting/MOS stuff/citations are a mess, but I'm simply not up to it at the moment. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of Joe the Plumber
Until recently, his occupation was listed as "plumber." It is now a bone of contention, with some insisting that his "occupation" is "illegal plumber" or "unlicensed plumber" or "plumber's helper" or "plumber's assistant." To what degree has such an argument occured before on WP? Is there a precedent for editorializing about occupations in the info box? The prior consensus was that "plumber" was clear enough, but the edit warring with the variants is becoming quite distracting, despite efforts to actually handle this in Talk. I would hope some editors who have absolutely no axes to gring would look into this. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be plumber in the infobox, with a section describing the reported nuance of his occupation/title. -- David  Shankbone  22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you will find a huge amount about his occupation in the article, possibly too much. Collect (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Joe the Plumber" isn’t a plumber — at least not a licensed one, or a registered one. References refer to him as unlicensed. Asserting that he is a plumber implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own. A qualifier is the NPOV way to go. There is serious disagreement with asserting he is a plumber according to the references presented. It should be attributed per WP:ASF.  Q ua ck Gu ru   00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Asserting that he is a plumber implies that he has the ability to act legally as a plumber on his own."
 * I don't think there's any such implication - "plumber" simply refers to someone who fixes plumbing as a profession, and that is what Joe the Plumber is. It's less a matter of Joe the Plumber's legitimacy as plumber than a variance in licensing standard from state to state. As long as he's employed by a licensed firm, he is allowed to fix plumbing for a living. As deplorable as the use of Joe the Plumber as a campaign prop was, the licensing was, I thought, a non-issue. Why does it matter that he didn't have a license he didn't need? By that logic, a NYC cabbie who doesn't own a medallion isn't a cabbie because he can't pick up passengers on his own. Mosmof (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) If he plumbs he's a plumber, right? It's like if a restaurant doesn't have a health license it's still a restaurant.  It's not like "CPA" or "registered nurse" where the "certified" part implies the license, or "Realtor" where the term itself is trademarked and reserved for those in the guild.  He may be practicing illegally, and in contravention of a law saying he cannot hold himself out as a plumber, but apparently he is practicing.  Further, the possible illegality is not part of his profession.  Incidentally, this does sound like a content question rather than a BLP issue - although I would argue that adding a pejorative term like "illegal" before someone's occupation, without rock solid sourcing (in this case, a court ruling probably), is a BLP vio.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If he assistant plumbs he is an assistant plumber, and we have multple reliable sources that indicate that is what he does. -- The Red Pen of Doom  10:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quack and Red -- the purpose is to get NEW opinions, not to have you iterate what you have aready said on JtP. Tht is why I specifically asked for editors with no axes to grind. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can post here, so can any other editor. No editor is authorized to forbid those who disagree with him from posting while he is presenting his views in a new forum. If someone does not have a license in a field where licenses are granted in some state, and reliable sources say he is an unlicensed plumber, electrician, massage therapist, embalmer, dietician or beautician, then it is NPOV to note that fact in an article about him. Edison (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If he is an assistant plumber, then that's his title, not his occupation.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, no one practices "assistant plumbing" as occupation, just as a junior analyst doesn't "junior analyze" and a chief strategist doesn't "chief strategize". Either one fixes plumbing or one doesn't - Joe the Plumber, between his media appearances, works on plumbing for a living. He just happens not to have a license he is not required to have. Mosmof (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of posting here was to get fresh opinions. Folks who iterate opinions they have already iterated in the article talk page do not really offer new opinions. I agree that "title" and "occupation" are not the same, which is the main salient opinion shared by all those who were not already involved in the talk page discussion. Collect (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By all accounts the gentleman works as a plumber, so that is his occupation. Info boxes should not be use for editorializing. Also, we can only state (in the body of the article) that he was not licensed as of the date of the last reliable source that reported on the question. --agr (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a completely uninvolved individual since I've commented on the Joe the Plumber article before but just saying "plumber" seems reasonable to me. We can deal with any further subtleties in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, as a person who (as far as I can recall) hasn't contributed to the JtheP article, I'll reiterate, he's a plumber. That's his occupation.  Whether legal or licensed, that's a different matter.  The user box is not the place to make commentary on his profession.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The question here is about the user box but that is not what the current content dispute is about. This entire discussion is mostly a waste of time when the discussion is about something else. Review the talk page if anyone is interested in answering the correct question. Since the relevant question is not a BLP issue this may not be the place to discuss it. The wrong question was asked here anyhow. So, that makes this entire discussion irrelevant.  Q ua ck Gu ru   04:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey guys -- I asked for new voices. Seeing a hundred lines which could have been cut-and-pasted from the article talk page does not add new opinions very well, which is why I avoid stating any opinion here. As for saying the "sicussion (is) irrelevant" it is here because of WP guidelines about asking for opinions from neutral editors.  I am sorry that you only want to have the same stuff iterated in the article talk page, but asking here is not only proper, it is nearly essential. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just a tired voice, but here at least I am a fresh tired voice. The man plumbs, or less facetiously he does for payment what plumbers do for payment. Ergo, he's a plumber. Even though he's not personally licensed and even if a plumber ought to be personally licensed, "plumber" doesn't imply having a license to do his plumbing thing, and therefore he's a plumber. (Incidentally, it's my unsolicited opinion that the use/abuse/self-ab--, uh, forget that last one of Joe the less than optimally qualified or remunerated plumber have raised more serious questions, and I'm puzzled by the concentration on this niggle. S.W. is charmingly [?] contrarian: a right-winger whose talk visibly infuriated a Fox News person on air, and yet who a few days ago got a sympathetic informal interview in that alleged hotbed of pantywaist liberalism the [London] Guardian.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the vast majority of editors never even knew one had to be licensed to professionally clear clogs in toilets. Should we also add a qualifier for "Joe" since his name is Samuel?  Regardless, I find this wrangling over semantic minutia in the info-box to be a waste of time.  The issue is addressed appropriately in the article.  We aren't talking doctors and lawyers here.  We're talking sewage.  That's what he does.  I think this is the kind of issue that leads people to get burned out (on both sides) with editing Wikipedia.  There are more productive and substantive debates one could engage in.  My second of two cents.  Hope you guys resolve it.  -- David  Shankbone  15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, let me just say that I had a guy who does a lot of plumbing but never took course make a mistake on a drain pipe for a shower - too small for the water flow. So the shower pan would fill up!  Had to pay a real plumber to come in, rip out the old pipe to fix it.  I think there's a difference ;) Don't put down plumbers - you really appreciate them when they do the job right. Bruno23 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is putting down plumbers. But it is not a professional that always requires a license.  It is often an apprenticed, family business.  And the quality and honesty can vary widely.  I do not think a license is what makes the difference.  And there is a valid theory that some licenses, especially in places where government is prevented from raising taxes, ends up being a way to raise revenue instead of for any real necessity to regulate something.  -- David  Shankbone  06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'm uninvolved, as well. I went to the source, and the lead sentence of plumber specifies that "A plumber is a tradesperson who specializes in installing and maintaining systems used for potable (drinking) water, sewage, drainage, or industrial process plant piping." While various jurisdictions may have licensing requirements that Joe the (Alleged) Plumber may not have fulfilled, I would say that the argument that he is not a plumber fails our own definition of the term. Heck, "Plumber" is the guy's last name as far as most people are concerned. I see no issue whatsoever with referring to his profession as "Plumber". Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * psst - Wikipedi is not a reliable source
 * Thanks RedPen -- but I do not think he was using WP as an RS in the sense of a footnote reference, but as an example of what "plumber" commonly means. Meanwhile, I think we know your position, but sign your comments, please. Collect (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already commented on the Joe the Plumber discussion page - I think there's a difference between someone who does plumbing, and a "Plumber." In Ohio, you need a license to be a "Plumber" but you don't need a license to "work for a Plumber."  The local Union has pointed out the difference and that made an impression on me.  And then another editor did some research and found an official occupation of "Plumber's Apprentice" which is pretty much Joe.  I guess in the end, we could use the broad term "Plumber" to refer to what he does, but there's a more accurate term that's officially recognized.  Why wouldn't we want that?  Bruno23 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "local union" does not appear to be apolitical. "Occupation" and "Job Title" appear, at this point, to differ for many people. I think you were aware of this from the other page? Collect (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "local union" does not appear to be apolitical." - Got any source for that? -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Washington Post. Usually you don't footnote comments here, especially when this has taken up more than 1000 lines in the article talk page. Collect (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You dont need to footnote your claims, but if you make statements as the one in question it is good to be able to show that it is not merely your personal opinion. And if you are referring to the same WaPo article that we are discussing at the JtP talk page, well such a claim is not supported. If you have a different WaPo article that actually makes a claim of Union bias, please let me know and we can probably insert that in the article and our quibble over inclusion of the Union endorsement can be at an end. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC
 * To Collect: I'm not sure whether their politics matter. I've read some of your posts and I think their politics matters more to you, personally, than whether or not they have a valid opinion on whether or not Joe is a plumber.  I think for the Union and their members, the distinction is a matter of professional pride. I've read with some sadness the low esteem some editors have for trade professions. It's not right. To dismiss the Union outright because they favor the Democratic candidate is unfair and unjust. Instead of examining why they might take a position you disagree with, you suggest we should ignore them just because they may prefer one party over another.  That doesn't sit well with me and it shouldn't sit well with other editors.  Bruno23 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas -- everyone is iterating positions at length, I decline to do so. The sentence from the Washington Post which seems to indicate that the union might not be apolitical is: "Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, which had endorsed Obama, stated that Wurzelbacher has not yet completed the apprentice program he began in 2003."  By the way, for those who ascribe political motives to any who demur on their positions, I was involved in no way with any campaign, and did not donate any money to any campaign. So much for that bit of sillyness. Collect (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Collect, while you've dismissed the Union with an Ad Hominem attack, you never address the point that "Plumber's Apprentice" seems to be a viable alternative. What say you about that?  Mattnad (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked to post the Washington Post quote. That is an ad hominem attack how? And the occupation, stated by every single new voice here (that is not counting all the iterations of views from the JtP page) is unanimous that the occupation is "plumber." Guess you do not like that. Collect (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When quoting the source, you may want not to edit quite so heavily... "said Thomas Joseph, business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, whose national membership has endorsed Obama. " The source does not at all state anything about the local's endorsment if any. --  The Red Pen of Doom  02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um -- first of all, I did not say the union was biassed. I said it was not apolitical. I am amazed that you would parse "national membership" into not meaning the union endorsed Obama.  Are you saying "national membership" is not the union? Interesting. Collect (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the one who claimed this article supported your claim of bias by the local union. I am pointing out that the article does not support your claim. The article says that the NATIONAL union has particular political views and that it is you who are making implications about the local union. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Collect, how dare you come here and repeat your previously stated positions at length, repeatedly, while seeking to forbid those with differing opinions to express their views. That is forum shopping, pure and simple. In many trades and professions, there are "assistants" and there are practitioners, Anyone could assist a plumber or a lawyer and they would not be a plumber or a lawyer without being licensed. If someone is an unlicensed "legal assistant" it would not pe correct to call him a "lawyer" in an infobox. Plumber likewise have a licensing requirement in Ohio. Screwing two pipes together does not make an unlicensed person a plumber. Edison (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh? I have not made a single comment about my opinion on the issue raised about "occupation". To say that I iterated something I did not say is interesting. To say I did so at length is even more interesting. I did ask for fresh opinions, as much here us uterations of other's opinions. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

An argument over whether he should be called a plumber? I'm not 100% sure, but it may be the most ridiculous argument over a BLP that I've come across so far. Just like we put "executive" "lawyer" or "judge" as the occupation on other articles (as opposed to vice president for product development and market research, or public defender for misdemeanors, or superior court judge for family law, etc. etc.) we should use his obvious profession (plumbing) to guide us to the name of his occupation -- plumber. Avruch  T 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And now the word "plumber" in the lede is marked "neutrality disputed."  Collect (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And the ones who insist on "unlicensed plumber" are still trying -- this is about the most futile thing I have ever seen considering the uniformity of opinion of the ones who were not already pushing their views ad nauseam. Please -- go the JtP article and set things aright someone!  Even when a compromise was offered and accepted, they go right back. Collect (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * New adamantine push is for "Plumbing" as an "occupation." About as good as "Plumber's Helper" going from a plunger to a toilet ... Collect (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And now to eliminate "occupation" altogether ... Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm uninvolved, and I think that "occupation" should simply be "plumber", WITHOUT any asterisks or sidebars or "disputed" marks.  Whether or not he's licensed is an interesting issue that should be discussed in the article, but someone can perform activities as their occupation without being legally sanctioned to do so.  In such cases, that is their occupation.  Dwheeler (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question now placed: Is there a "consensus" here regarding what the "occupation" is? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One person asserts his own consensus (sigh) "First, the this page is to discuss article content not my statistics. You want to include content identifying Mr W as a plumber in more than nickname in the article. Wikipedia WP:V states that you need to have a reliable source that backs your claim for article content. Which reliable source are you intending to use to back your claim? There is a source that was removed from the article identifying him as a plumber's assistant [1] If you cannot provide a source to identify ocupation as plumber, discussion over.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC) "  Back to square one, anyone? Collect (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still looking for your reliable source that identifies his occupation as a plumber in more than a nickname. If it is so obvious, you should be able to easily provide multiple examples - but the fact is that especially after the first day of his appearance, reliable sources go through much linguistic gymnastics in their description of Mr. W.: "North Ohio resident who works for a company which does plumbing" "the tradesman made famous in the presidential debates" "the man known as 'Joe the Plumber'" etc. so that they are not identifying his occupation as "plumber". WP:V trumps any consensus here or otherwise. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, having suggested this on the talk page, if he does plumbing work then his occupation is plumbing, and that covers all variations. If he were qualified and licensed he would be entitled to be called a plumber, but evidently that's not the case. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For comparison, a student driver is not allowed to drive except under the supervision of a licensed driver. But that student driver is still a driver under those circumstances. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we had reliable sources calling the student driver a "driver", I might agree with you, but when all of the the reliable sources call the student driver a "student driver" and we cannot locate any that call him/her a "driver", then wikipedia rules say that we should call her/him a "student driver". And we can call on WP:IAR, but tell me how using an unsourced less specific identification when we have multiple reliable sources using a more specific identification improves the encyclopedia? -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and it takes us back to the dilemma of what this article is really about. I stated before, and I still say, that "Joe the Plumber" is a plumber, but Joe W. is whatever the reliable sources say he is - a plumber, a plumber's assistant, or whatever. See the problem? "Joe the Plumber" is a metaphor, a symbol. Joe W. is an actual guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of like Stephen Colbert. He has two articles, because there's Stephen Colbert the actual guy, and there's Stephen Colbert the TV character, who's a parody that just happens to have the same name as the guy who plays him. Joe W. is an actual guy. "Joe the Plumber" is a character. Ya follow? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is not yet clear about the "Joe the Plumber" symbol/ generic small business owner/US taxpayer/campaign talking point and SJW the real life man who had 15 minutes two months of fame/scruitiny as a result of inspiring the symbol. But it is not clear to me that either one is a "plumber" - the metaphor is relating to any small business owner, not just those in the plumbing industry. And it is also not clear at this time that SJW the man will have any lasting notability for a seperate article outside of his inspiration for the metaphorical use- should he become an actual viable candidate for office; writer/speaker; musician; TV show host/personality, then two articles may make sense.-- The Red Pen of Doom  19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide of Megan Meier
I'm not sure this article should fall under biographies of living persons, as the young lady is deceased. I think it belongs under the heading People Notable for a single event. I understand many of those involved in the case are living, however, the article isn't about them. By the title, it isn't actually a biography of Megan Meier, but a description of her suicide and the events surrounding it. Glenda 69 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The event is notable, but for lack of a better way to neutrally title it, Suicide of Megan Meier is the most reasonable title - especially since her name is a likely search term for anybody who reads about the case. To me, the subject of the article is the events around her suicide. BLP applies regarding those persons mentioned in the article - and to Meier, to the extent that the privacy guidelines are appropriate. Do you have any specific concerns regarding that in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the article itself. After all, I found it by searching for the young lady's name, only the categorization.  I understand there has already been a discussion for deletion, which I feel would be a disservice to the quality of the article and the subject matter.  However, since it covers a significant event, the category of 'biography' seems inappropriate.  Merely being mentioned in an article doesn't mean that the article is biographical in nature.  It is possible I have more difficulty with Wikipedia's definition of 'biography' than the author's categorization. Glenda 69 (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I see your point about the legal ramifications concerning those persons mentioned in the article and protecting their privacy, however, although I don't personally consider this a 'relatively unimportant crime', the article should still be considered for redirect or merging according to and . Glenda 69 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though Susan, sadly, is not living, we should still be careful about how she and the people around this case. I'm not so concerned about wikipedia's definition of what constitutes biography. I'm mostly concerned about treating the people with respect that they are due under the rules of WP:BLP. BLP or not, it's the better approach. Also, this is a landmark case, and for now it can probably stand on its own without the need to merge. I think for now it can stay alone, but as "cyber-bullying" evolves, then this case will become part of a broader spectrum of events. Then it would make sense to merge per the Onevent guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan. Glenda 69 (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)