Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive56

Saying that living people are former terrorists
A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to recklessly toss epithets as if they were mere bombs used to make a political point, would we? Edison (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources
At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To give you more info, here is the situation: a noted and respected masonic appologist website (masonicinfo.com) has stated that the website of a particular breakaway Masonic group contains statements that "are extraordinarily misleading and, we believe, fraudulent". As this accusation goes directly to the notability of the breakaway group, I wish to report this opinion in the article on the group, using those same words (clearly and neutraly attributed as being the opinion of the author, in quotes and fully cited).  JASpencer seems to want to remove the word "fraudulent", saying that to quote the author is a BLP violation.  Please note that the article does not say that the group has committed fraud as a statement of fact... it simply quotes the author's opinion.  The author has stated that he believes that the group's website contains statements that are "extraordinarily misleading" and "fraudulent".  Is it wrong to quote him? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The word fraudulent is only mentioned in the original source once, and there is no explicit link with the founders. This is not the case in the original Wikipedia wording which did single out the founders, did mention the word fraudulent twice, including in the heading.  It has toned down, by why is there such an insistence on using this term?  I have no link with either side of this fight, but I find the use of this word ugly and needing a very high level of sourcing which is simply lacking. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? JASpencer (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to WP:3O to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. A ni Mate 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, here is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues here. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage...  So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. JASpencer (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. A ni Mate 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

templates for new editors?
Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

http://biography.jrank.org/pages/3187/P-rez-Eddie-Alberto-1957-Political-Leader.html

http://www.hartford.gov/Government/mayor/biography.asp

https://www.cpbn.org/program/where-we-live/episode/mayor-eddie-perez

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/rankings/influential_hispanics/2007/9/26/the_stars_align_the_100_most.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk • contribs)


 * You humans are always meddling with our plans! Outputting data, please wait...
 * These are your three edits to the article:
 * These never contained any of the sources above, and actually removed this source,
 * You made claims such as:
 * "Mayor Perez lives the American Dream everyday and wants to make that dream a reality for all residents of the Capital City." and
 * "a loving family is the foundation for this effective leader"
 * Cluebot and Smackbot might be fairly primitive, but I am a very advanced bot that can detect blatant astroturfing. If you'd like to improve the article, you can interact with my chat interface at Talk:Eddie Pérez (politician), and we can work together to build a neutral article. --POWERING DOWN-- *BEEEEEeeeewooop...* -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the continuing problem with this article. My changes included portions of all the links referenced above. However, facts and reality aside, libelous statements continue to be posted not because any of the bots or humans have a clue about the content, they just need someone to follow their process to get to a "neutral article". Folks if you can source outrageous claims, do so, if not give it up. Don't defend the libel and slander of someone else because it was there six months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is another link that helped him win re-election in 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have continued this discussion on the article's talk page. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Libelous Edits inserted in bio of David Ferguson (Impresario)

 * A user by the name 'CassandraR' has engaged in libelous behavior against the bio of David Ferguson (Impresario). On several occasions, 'CassandraR' has posted legal cases involving Ferguson.  These cases may indeed be of public record but posting them online is quite possibly illegal as they contain access to home records of the people involved in the case.  In addition CassandraR has posted incorrect, probably libelous statements, about the tax and non-profit status of Ferguson organization, the Institute for Unpopular Culture, as well as factually erroneous comments concerning the relationship and legal history between Ferguson and the band, The Avengers (see 'The Avengers' section in the Fergsuon bio).  The consistent vandalism of CassandraR will be reported and it should be moved that the ip address for CassandraR be blocked and the Ferguson article be restored to its original state  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJamesX (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm Cassandrar.  I have removed "The Avengers" section in attempt to de-escalate the issue and did not restore statements about the tax status of the Institute for Unpopular Culture until I find better source material.


 * The fact is that I have attempted to discuss my edits with the people making edits on the David Ferguson (impresario) page but no one has actually responded until today and, rather than responding to me directly, the simply started leaving comments at places I had been and I had to follow their contribs.


 * I felt the Avengers section was properly sourced but am happy to get another opinion and additional citations. I have also told DrJamesX that I would consider removing any links to material that contained addresses that he was unhappy about.  Cassandrar (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A battle seems to be brewing over adding mention of legal troubles, including at least one new SPA badgering me on my talk page for removing the section. It appears to be a case of enemies and friends of the subject using WP as a battleground, though I am utterly unable to be sure that interpretation is an accurate one. Some uninvolved third parties able to parse what's going on would be very welcome.  CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! I have been trying to make the article more neutral to no avail, I have both taken down some unsupported statements and I have tried to add citations. I saw that the page has been made un-readable now; I think it is about time that the nit-picking stopped on the page and Uwishiwazjohng was asked to step back from the article. I have been accused of being a WP:SOCK for "similar editing patterns" to DrJamesX when I have just been trying to be fair. I think the article needs improvement but not to the point when every single line of it is cited down to the paragraph in the primary source. On both "sides" there seem to be some pretty harsh feelings. Evey time I add a citation or ask for clarification the Uwishiwazjohng seems to be provoked into a frenzy of editing wherein he tears apart every line of the article. He is particularly concerned with the Legal History: I am of the opinion that legal cases need to be under the headings to which they pertain (IE. the IFUC case under the IFUC heading) but he persists in adding a section that leads the reader to assume Ferguson's guilt. I make this assertion about the ambiguous legal history section because that is how I got involved on Wikipedia; I was looking at some articles about Glam and Disco music and from the Sylvester (singer) page I was linked to Ferguson's page. I became interested in the Institute for Unpopular Culture and was doing some research about what the organization is all about and then I noticed the Legal History section a few days later. When I followed the citations and I saw that Ferguson had won the majority and most of them are petty claims and fee negotiations, not really note-worthy or scandalous enough to be noted as a separate section (especially the ones for under $1000!). I think that Uwishiwazjohng is involved in Ferguson's Legal History as a plaintiff and ought not to have any input on the matter on Wikipedia. That being said, I am really interested in learning how to edit articles and I would like to take out terms and phrases that make the article biased--as some of the phrasing needs to be improved to make the article more neutral. I just wish that Uwishiwazjohng would take a more balanced approach that led to improving the article rather than one that makes it un-readable. He doesn't seem to have an interest in making the article into an A-Class piece, rather he has some personal investment in making the article conform to his view of Mr. Ferguson. Personally, I don't want to have any pre-formed notions (good or bad) if I ever meet Mr. Ferguson, so I would appreciate your help, CalendarWatcher, in making this article something more than a playground for a man with a petty vendetta.
 * Switchintoglide (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not the neutral 3rd party that CalendarWatcher requested, but I would like to respond to the above. Clearly, I've angered User:Switchintoglide.  That was not my intention.  We clearly disagree as to the fairness and pertinence of my comments.  I will not argue the verifiability of her statements here.  I trust you will look these up for yourself.  I too am new and didn't realize how horrible my last set of edits would make the article look.  Someone else cleaned it up before I had the chance.  I did apologize for the mess in my comments.


 * Per neutral third party, DoriSmith is someone who I don't know and who has been involved and may have an opinion about all of this. As to Damsmartypants, I don't know her. Hopefully someone will contact her to confirm.  I'm trying to play by the rules as much as possible.Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Kamla
A persistent and aptly named editor wishes to add a link and a description of a YouTube video featuring Kamla having a "hissy fit" on the air. The editor clearly wishes to use this trivial incident to paint the subject in an embarrassing light. Also, the video is unauthorized/copyrighted. I'm not going to edit war over this, but this is plainly inappropriate.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked indef and reverted, I first warned him but seeing the name... Secret account 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I hope you didn't hardblock his IP too. Maybe he'll create a new, less blatantly anti-Kamla account and halfway-behave himself; you never know.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting input
Would appreciate input about this edit, its deletion rationale was BLP: : "His historical work has, however, been described as politically motivated and as displaying elements of conspiracy theory. " The sources are Rice University and CESNUR. Novickas (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Zaid Hamid
There is some Major vandalism to this guys page.
 * I semi-protected the page and removed a lot of dubious content. There's still a lot more unsourced except by external links which would require reading through his entire website to test for verification. It's tempting to stub the article but I'll wait and see what others think since there's nothing too controversial as far as I can tell (Pakistani foreign politics not being my area of expertise). CIreland (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Disappeared versus dead
Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Karen Weldin Stewart
This article, about the Insurance Commissioner-elect of the State of Delaware, was edited several times by ElizabethGabriel, an editor whose only edits have been to this article, and who inserted unsourced and potentially libelous content.

It was then reverted to a bare-bones stub, then re-edited with less controversial but still factually dubious and potentially libelous material.

The current incarnation of the article is better than the versions created by ElizabethGabriel, but still has serious problems. Two citations were made to unsourced statements in the Delawareliberal.net blog: one citing an unreferenced statement by a Republican group that Stewart falsified her employment background and was employed as a security guard at a Lowe's store at the time of the election and another from an admittedly anonymous source that Stewart was "unemployed or working as a store clerk for most of the last 10 years", that she does not own a business, and that "She can only speak from prepared scripts, and she can’t write, either". (Admittedly, the article does not claim that Stewart cannot write or speak other than from prepared scripts.)

The article also contains unsourced claims: (1) that Stewart "Karen Weldin Stewart has long been peripherally involved in Democratic politics" in Delaware, (2) that she won the election "with only a high-school diploma, a mere two years of community college, and little business experience", (3) that she was "confronted late in her campaign with evidence of her acceptance of campaign contributions from the insurance industry and its lawyers", and (4) that she was elected to office "despite having the lowest percentage for any Democrat running for state-office." - Sensor (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the previous version was a shambles full of snide comments and weasel statements - are you happy with my stubbed version? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's far better. Thanks! - Sensor (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary Winnick
This editor has previously been warned for posting non-cited and accusatory allegations. The following language was previously removed on the grounds of being accusatory, non-cited, and non-notable. The same editor has since posted it to the article again.


 * Drexel Burnham Lambert - In the early 1980's Winnick worked with convicted felon Michael Milken at the now bankrupt investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert.


 * Prior to Global Crossing's bankruptcy and before the company's dire financial condition was widely known, Winnick sold a substantial portion of his holdings in the company for hundreds of millions of dollars.

I will not engage in an edit war over, so I kindly seek your assistance in this matter. // Brycetom (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor was warned and now he hasn't edited since Nov 29, 2008. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay
- Assistance is needed in regards to the recent affair allegation raised against the subject of the article. Discussion on the talk page is unable to resolve the ongoing issue, and I request assistance in preventing further BLP violations. Knowledgeum :  Talk 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that no edits to the article have been made so far, and that the discussion of the affair allegations remains in article discussion. The allegation had been publicly addressed by the subject and reported upon widely through a number of news outlets (though the originating outlet is a British tabloid - anyone recall John Edwards?) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Hidalgo
User IP 124.177.112.110 is re-adding the same paragraph of page Andrew_Hidalgo continually, which is unreferenced and probably libelous ("has several piercings in interesting places."). I'm not going to revert anymore, I need some others to look at his edits and help sort this out. tedder (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Riley Martin
This article is full of unreferenced statements about Martin, from problems getting a raise to an alleged arrest. Am I wrong in thinking quite a bit of it should go? dougweller (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell - burn it, burn it to the ground - it could all be true - but we deal in verification not truth. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * made some big cuts to this article. Seems reasonable enough now, although it could still use more sources, but it's not a BLP crisis anymore in my opinion. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kausalya_(actress)
Claims she married Daniel Jayan a producer on Asianet in 2008. This is not true.


 * That information has been removed. —BradV 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Leif Olve Dolonen Larsen
This article uses a Norwegian newsarticle as reference, even though Larsen's not named in this article. - Mr. Hill (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've removed this information. In the future, please simply remove it directly and do not wait for intervention from the BLP noticeboard except in cases that require intervention from an administrator. You can see WP:BLP for more information on this. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One editor commented on my talk page that these edits should be removed from the history. Per the WP:BLP policy, only users with oversight privilege can do this. Please see these policies for more information on how to make such a request. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who made that comment to Ryan Delaney. The way this such cases are dealt with at Wikipedia in Norwegian (which is my homewiki besides commons) is simply to delete and restore without the critical revisions. They will still be avvailable for administrators, but hidden from the average user. I do belive that would be sufficient in this case, but since en:wikipedias policy requires the more drastic action of oversight I'm sending an e-mail requesting just that. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Barkha Dutt.
More eyes please, especially edits made by who is ignoring blp warnings, putting back unsourced claims without sources, adding blogs referencing vandalaized versions of articles as sources, removing reliable sourced claims, the whole shebang. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-05t13:30z


 * has not edited since January 2007. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nilakar
 * 2008-12-05T10:48:08 (hist) (diff) Barkha Dutt ‎
 * 2008-12-05T10:37:18 (hist) (diff) Barkha Dutt ‎ (→Controversies)
 * 2008-12-05T10:32:30 (hist) (diff) Barkha Dutt ‎ (→Controversies)
 * 2008-12-05T10:26:49 (hist) (diff) Barkha Dutt ‎ (→Controversies)
 * ... -- Jeandré, 2008-12-05t15:06z


 * How odd. When I first clicked the link it didn't show any of these newer edits. I'll review the history now. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit history of this user on Barkha Dutt is out of line with the standards for biographies. I've placed a final warning on 's talk page. If the disruption continues, please notify me here or on my talk page and I will begin placing temporary blocks. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Political machine
I posted this here a few days ago. It seems to have been archived with no discussion and, of course, no resolution. I am bringing it back. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored
 * I think the uncited inclusion of several living people as machine bosses in the lists in Political machine raises BLP problems. - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

End restored
 * Sorry I missed this first time round, Joe. I've hidden the unreferenced list and asked for a few page numbers here and there, but I'm not sure who the living people you are referring to are. Richard Daley is alive, but the content referring to him seems supported. Can you clarify? Thanks, Skomorokh  17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not actually referring to the living Richard Daley, in any case. I'm not sure I see the BLP problem either. Avruch  T 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Karl Shuker
User Czbiker has identified himself as Karl Shuker and has expressed concern about repeated vandalism/libel to the Karl Shuker article that has eminated over a period of months from the above IP address (for example). It appears that the majority of the edits from that IP editor have been of a disruptive nature and the editor has recieved a number of warnings about such behavior. Has the situation reached the point that the IP can be blocked? -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That IP has only vandalized once in the last week, and hasn't received enough warnings to be blocked. If he does it again, report him to AIV.


 * What's a lot more troubling here is that the subject is editing his own article and having a fair bit of control over its contents. It now appears to be quite biased and contains a number of unsourced statements. This article could use a few more eyes. —BradV 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Purported author of How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq
The page How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq had someone add what purported to be the author's name. The person named contacted oversight, concerned for their safety; I zapped the edit. But if people could keep an eye on the article, delete purported names and notify oversight of said deleted revs, that would be very helpful. Might be worth keeping an eye on Matthew Alexander (the pseudonym of the book's author) as well - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted, thanks. Skomorokh  22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, what is the best way to notify oversight? Is there an email list or should one just add a comment to the talkpage of one of these people? Skomorokh  22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Email oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org or send Wikipedia email to User:Oversight. (This is only oversight for en:wp, btw.) Thank you :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks. You might want to stick that information somewhere prominently at WP:OS, as it's the type of thing BLP victims for example would need but might not be able to find very easily. Regards, Skomorokh  22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm seems prominent enough to me. In big red letters Requests for oversight even. We do outline what we expect of requestors first but that's just common sense since if people ignore them they may find their requests take longer to process (or they may realise there is no point making a request) and resonably brief. If your referring to WP:OS specifically well that clearly says right at the top in text with a red background, you're at the wrong place, please got to the other page. Do you have any more specific suggestions? Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, yes, but pages like this train the reader to skip to the text; a little redundancy would not hurt much. Le meas, Skomorokh  16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just moved the article to How to Break a Terrorist - sorry if this messes with anyone's watch list. Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dovie Beams
While wandering through a list of B-movie actors I stumbled upon a Dovie Beams, a very minor actress who evidently is famous solely for her allegedly having an affair with Ferdnand Marcos. I have placed a "notable" tag on it but request that the article be examined by other editors as to its notability and whehter there are other BLP issues. Stetsonharry (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears to be notable enough, but the article could certainly use a few more sources. —BradV 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I only see two sources there so I'm reserving judgement. Of course mention of the Dovie Beams affair relating to the Phillipines in wikipedia is probably a given, but that doesn't mean Dovie Beams herself is notable enough for an article Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for the affair worried me as possibly not being sufficient.--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Raj Thackeray
The article has a total of about 1200 words, of which about 730 are just criticism. It has two pictures, one is the picture of his party flag and other a group of guys protesting him for the terrorist attack happened recently in Mumbai. The terrorist attack was neither perpetrated nor supported by him or his party. For some background, Raj was involved in 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra.

Political protests against leaders are natural in politics and therefore, the picture appears to be irrelevant and adds undue negative significance against the subject. Adding that negative image while the article doesnt even have the subject's image along with the huge quantity of criticism in the article appears to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and therefore WP:BLP. The related conversation can be followed here in the article talk page. Thanks for your opinion.  Docku:  What up?  23:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus (again)
This article needs eyes. There are a lot of external battles intruding. I have removed both these edits.  Ty  00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like the offender hasn't edited the article since you placed a warning on his talk page. Please keep us updated if there are future problems. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tuncay Güney
How appropriate do you think it is to categorize this spy under ? If you read the article, you'll see that he was convicted for fraud -- some say as a result of a deliberate "mistake". His crime is notable, because his testimony taken during the detainment was responsible for the uncovering of a criminal gang called Ergenekon. I wrote the article myself and I am having second thoughts about the appropriateness of that particular category. --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin Bryant, an article about a murderer, needs sourcing and inline refs
Martin Bryant is desperately in need of references and proper sourcing - It has references, but they are not inline. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber - redux
Sorry to barge back in here -- but Joe the Plumber has an editor determined that the occupation of a plumber is "plumbing" and issuing 3RR warnings about it. Following WP guidelines, I am therefore asking once more (sigh) whether Joe's occupation is "plumber", "plumbing", "illegal plumber", "plumber's ass" (actually proposed), "unlicensed plumber", "turd-gurgler" (also proposed) or whatever. Thanks in advance! Collect (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The last time here, there was no one who was able to find a reliable source who identifies SJW's occupation as "plumber". {The reliable sources go through linquistic gymnastics like "the north Ohio tradesman who became known as 'Joe the Plumber'") Per WP:V having a reliable source that identifies the occupation as "plumber" would seem to be a prerequisite before our article identifies his occupation as such and before we waste any more time "discussing". -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * plumbing= occupation (see ). plumber= title.  pretty straightforward.  as for warnings, check JTP history and take a look for yourself at the edits and what was said.  i also must agree with redpen.  there are many editors trying to make a good page by talking it out on the discussion page.  everyone seems fairly reasonable and willing to compromise until we get to collect.  if you look at the discussion page you will see that we were on the way to finding a solution by compromise.  then collect disagreed and now here we are.  Brendan19 (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you here quickly. Alas -- the primary definition for "plumbing" is "pipes." As for "compromise" the last time here, fully sixteen people weighed in for "plumber" which means it is, alas, you who are trying to force the issue. Thanks! Collect (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But you still have no source to support your version? The Zanesville Times Recorder has now been added. -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By me. You asked for a solid ref, so I gave you an extremely current one. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The current text does a good job of explaining who he is and why he is notable. However, I think it should begin with his correct name. "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher came to prominence as Joe the Plumber during the Obama campaign...". This is more in line with MoS. Further down we find out exactly what his day job involves. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been the consensus of editors that "Joe the Plumber" is at least (if not more) notable as a political short-hand to represent "small business owners" that is based on SJW, rather than being a strictly biographical article about a specific person - a la Rosie the Riveter. Although the dust has not yet settled on that discussion either yet- your suggestion of directing the article lede to be primarily about the living person would need considerable discussion at the article page. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The identity of SJW and Joe the Plumber is uncontested. I don't see Rosie the Riveter as an exact parallel. There are redirects in any case. It's not a huge deal. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is this a BLP issue? It looks like a content dispute. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Were it that it were that simple. It certainly is a dispute over contentious material in a BLP -- which has spilled over into just about every noticeboard there is, with all sorts of "warnings" and the like. As it does boil down to a "contentious issue" the only place where it sort of fits in is BLP/N.  And the BLP/N folks  very recently were unanimous that a plumber is a plumber is a plumber (apologies to Gertrude Stein).  Unfortunately, three editors seem to think that this did not mean a "consensus" said he was a plumber .  So now all we need is the magic word "this is a consensus," and as it is part of WP:LEW I had thought it long settled.   Collect (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed that BLP discussion - 4 editors felt that "Plumber" is not accurate, and a few others said that "plumbing" (rather than "plumber") is what he does. But really, no one is arguing against saying that Joe is sometimes called a "Plumber" in the article's text.  It's that Collect wants to pin down the overall article with "Plumber" in the info box and lede while it's well established that this is a debated fact. That's the issue from my POV.  It's been troubling to see how the issues get distorted here....  Mattnad (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. The only place this fits is an article content RFC. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um -- I fear you have not read the many talk pages and archives involved . And multiple RfCs, etc.  And trying to get people to discuss what has alredy made WP:LEW is interesting. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: WP:LEW, what Collect doesn't mention is that he's at the core of this edit war. So he's thereby tagged himself, in a sense, as a Lamest Edit Warrior<g>. Bravo Collect! But seriously, we've been working hard to reach a compromise, and Collect won't participate - he just says this matter has been already decided (and I guess that's that).Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personalizing this again? There were over FIFTEEN who said "plumber" on the BLP/N discussion -- yet it is I who is solely responsible for actually using dictionary English? As for compromising -- "plumbers ass" is not a rational one at all.  And note that making personal comments does not help determine anything on WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Plumber's ass" is not on the table as part of the compromise discussion. So if that's what's holding you up, don't worry about it. Now, if you're ready to discuss, we're open to it.   Mattnad (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If RFCs and so forth have not resolved the issue, that does not justify spilling it onto BLP/N just because that is the last place you haven't yet done so. This is an article content issue, not a BLP issue. Can you explain to me the rationale for why you think this belongs on this noticeboard? --Ryan Delaney talk 02:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its been here before, don't worry about it. Seriously, though, this really doesn't belong here.  Take it to another content RFC if you must.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deborah Warner.
I've been removing "spouse" and "domesticpartner" from the infobox after a complaint to the foundation, because the first wasn't sourced and the 2nd is contradicted by a new ref. User:Emerson7 (see messages removed from talk page) has been putting back unsourced and contradicted info and calling my edits contentious, so I'd like someone else to apply BLP there. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-07t03:58z


 * It's not clear what is exactly is claimed to be "unsourced" or "contradicted". The fact that Winterson and Warner are a couple does not seem to be in dispute and is openly acknowledged by both of them. If the situation has changed recently or there is some dispute explain the circumstances and discuss on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See "do not live together" in source 7. "spouse" was also not sourced anywhere. I don't want to take it to the talk page because article talk pages are crawled by search engines. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t11:21z


 * Spouse is just the default term in the infobox. It's arguable whether couples who have no legal contract of partnership should be so described, but I'm not sure that it's really a BLP issue such as to exclude Talk page debate since there is no question of anything defamatory. The "partner" concept is well documented. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may not be defamatory, but it has been challenged by my removal because it doesn't adhere to the referencing requirements of wp:blp which states that
 * "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: [...] Verifiability"
 * which states
 * "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. [...] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
 * Another challenge was an email to the foundation: . -- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t12:04z
 * Yes I am aware of the rules. The assertions are attributed to reliable sources so I really do not understand why you are harping on this. BTW, you seem to have missed the point that I was making, which is that there is no reason to exclude talk page discussion in this case. Or are you suggesting that the rules mean that nothing should ever be discussed ion Talk pages of living persons because by definition any dispute about content implies that material is "challenged or likely to be challenged"? That has not been the consensus and it would cripple legitimate discussion. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill White (neo-Nazi)
An IP editor, has been added unsourced contentious material to this article, and keeps replacing it after reverting and after blocks. Can someone please keep an eye on it as I am taking a wikibreak, and deal appropriately? The editor's other edits may be worth scrutiny also. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering exactly how notable the subject is and whether it would not be better to have an article on his website rather than a BLP on him. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I sincerely doubt White would want any article of this type on his website. Collect (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Itsmejudith meant that WP should have an article about the website, not that White's website should host the current bio on WP. If so, I disagree because I think the website is a one-man operation and he's known for more than just that. Getting back to dougweller's point, I've actually blocked this IP twice already for disruption, and maybe it's time to give a longer block. While Bill White is not a popular figure in almost any circles, WP:BLP still applies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Hubbard
. Just an alert that there are email rumors about Freddie Hubbard being in poor health, and the article has been edited to reflect these reports (and I reverted). I have yet to see an actual news article (or other reliable source) that mentions it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley (politician)


The wiki entry for maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is chock full of sensational text and potentially libelous statements starrfaithfullStarrfaithfull (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RNC 8
Poorly sourced political and biographical entry; could use additional references and watchlisting from BLP-savvy editors. Skomorokh 01:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Barry Chamish
This page, which I first looked at after a message here, is still highly problematic. Very controversial writer. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The blocked edit-warring vandal is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Zuminous (who is in turn very likely another persona of Runtshit), and I have submitted a report at Suspected_sock_puppets. RolandR (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Guujaaw needs cleanup
This article has a number of issues, as evinced by the "article issues" template at its top. "Events in which Guujaaw was involved" has some entries that may be valid if cited and explained, others seem trivial; "books that mention Guujaaw" has ben deleted, another books section remains. I'll leave it to experienced BLP editors/admins to clean this up; I've made enough enemies LOL. Guujaaw is a major First Nations leader in British Columbia and appears to have edited this article himself, though much of his POV/resume content has been changed/taken out. Still more work to do, but lots seems like "fluff". And see edit history re things taken out that will probably be put back in at some point and have to be taken out again....Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reads like "things I did at politician/artist summer camp", basically.Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand
A single-purpose account, which I strongly suspect to be yet another appearance of the Runtshit vandal, has been repeatedly adding to this article defamatory remarks, citing a hostile article in an extremely unreliable POV blog. The main allegation does not even appear in the source cited. Please could an uninvolved editor or admin take a look at this, and help maintain a neutral POV with proper sourcing. RolandR (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having looked at it I note that User:Nikky glasses includes a comparison with Irving whose name does not appear in the source. And yes that certainly looks libellous to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the whole source is questionable. I have removed the unfounded Irving assertion; and I have amended "His critics regard him as" to the more accurate "He has been described by a critic as". This article, like many others about Jewish critics of Israeli polic, will need to be watched continually to prevent such BLP-violating vandalism recurring. RolandR (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I was writing the above, an anonymous IP (now blocked as an open proxy) was reinserting the unreferenced material). RolandR (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Watts
Alleged gangster, no references. Db template removed by admin. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ I speedy deleted it under CSD G10. Please direct the administrator who removed the db template to the Biographies of living persons policy. Thanks for bringing this here. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Daisy Evans
Could someone please figure out what to do with the article Dasiy Evans? The name is a misspelling of Daisy Evans (which redirects to S Club Juniors, a girl band of which Dasiy/Daisy is a member). The article isn't referenced, could use a complete rewrite, and a merge (or deletion) seems appropriate. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Wu
- Looks like we need a big-time translation into English. I tried to roll back previous edits, but the Chinese characters are still there. What should I do???? Willking1979 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * has added notenglish to the article and I have listed the article at Pages needing translation into English. Icewedge (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 jail break in Clovis, New Mexico
This article has WP:BLP issues in naming and describing relatively unknown individuals who are criminals. Refer to BLP. Similarly this article as well 2007 triple homicide in Easton, Pennsylvania.Michellecrisp (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a big problem re BLP. There's no doubting the persons named given the frequency of reporting, even if it is mainly a single source.  But for me the bigger issue is the article's suitability for WP.  If it survives AfD I'd not be too bothered.  –Moondyne 12:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Sax


On seven different occasions, an editor calling himself John Riemann Soong has inserted the same list of derogatory and unsourced statements regarding Dr. Sax, such as that Dr. Sax is a proponent of "sexual dimorphism in language ability." Mr. Soong -- and another editor named DarwinPeacock with a suspiciously similar POV -- continue to post the same derogatory allegations, always unsourced. Because this is a low-traffic site, this vandalism may go undetected and/or risk an editor violating the three-revert rule to reverse the vandalism. Can Soong and DarwinPeacock be blocked from editing this page? Otherwise there is a risk of an unproductive edit war. Fritzvonturin (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is the edits of single-purpose-account, such as this, which really need the scrutiny. I note, in regard to the "suspiciously similar", that when one is pushing bias in Wikipedia, accusations of "everyone else is biased" are not unusual. Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Maureen Colquhoun
Possible conflict of interest edit by Heaneypeter. User posted a statement by Peter Heaney from the Labour Party. Willking1979 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes, I don't know about the COI but that was a serious BLP disaster. I've removed a lot of stuff, but more eyes please.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like our good friend Heaneypeter is at it again with a possible COI. Should his edit stand??? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography of Victor Halberstadt - wrong information
Hi there,

Please note that all information on the biography page of Victor Halberstadt (Victor Halberstadt) is actually information about Hans Wijers, the CEO of AkzoNobel. We would appreciate it if this information would be corrected. We prefer not to edit this page ourselves as we are not experts on Victor Halberstadt.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Bram Koster Manager of Digital Communications AkzoNobel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.95.32.9 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it for being wholly unsourced and patently false from its very first version onwards. (It started as a copy of Hans Wijers with some extra text thrown in, and this was not fixed by any later version.)  Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources such as mediamatters and newsbusters In bios
What is the current rule about using media matters or newsbusters as sources? Both are very partisan but are being used in bios. Fru23 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well wouldn't that fact give you the answer!? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So just to be 100% sure both are allowed correct?Fru23 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends what you want to source to them. You also need to ask, "If this is being reliably reported, why can't it be found in more neutral sources?"
 * Be especially wary of sourcing things like "John Smith alleged that Jane Jones did/is/believes a terrible thing" to partisan sources. Selective reporting of allegations and criticism is pretty routine for non-neutral sources but falls foul of our policy on undue weight.
 * All that being said, this would be a much easier query to respond to if you gave specifics. CIreland (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What this is specifically about is his latest attempt, this time in a roundabout way, to try to delete the Bill O'Reilly criticism page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Fru23 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this particular catfight is about, but all the Criticism of..... articles should be deleted as POV-forks. I suggested that the BLPs were valid G10's on WP:AN a couple of months back. You'd have to dig through my contribs to find the discussion. CIreland (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The O'Reilly criticism article is not a POV fork. It used to be in the main article, and was spun off because it was getting so large. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. What happened to Praise for Bill O'Reilly? CIreland (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just point to his own website, and that should cover it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's funny, but I'm a Brit and don't have a clue who this O'Reilly chap actually is/was. Anyway, the point is it (and the others, the Bush, Blair and Băsescu ones are the worst) should have been spun out to Commentary on Bill O'Reilly or somesuch that would have included both favourable and unfavourable remarks. One superficially plausible solution would be to move the offending articles to more neutral titles but the trouble is that they have developed in such a way that a neutral title would not now reflect the content. CIreland (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bill O'Reilly controversies or The O'Reilly Factor controversies would probably be a better title, as it's all about stuff that's come up either in his show or in his books. He's just so "out there" that it's hard to distinguish between O'Reilly "the guy" and O'Reilly "the TV show". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although looking at the article again, maybe a better title would be "O'Reilly against the world". But keep in mind that he loves this stuff. He relishes it. It helps keep the viewer ratings strong. He comes from a TV show called Inside Edition, which specializes in muckraking. And that's what O'Reilly is at heart, a muckraker. He boasts that "the right wing hates him". He doesn't have a political ideology as such, he just gravitates towards anything controversial and takes a stand on it and challenges someone to disagree so he can tear the guy apart. That's what he's about, and if you're skeptical, just catch his show sometime, if you have a way to do that. It's very entertaining. The point I'm making is that this spinoff article works for O'Reilly. If anything its presence could be argued as POV-pushing in his favor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to feel that way, but now I have realized this is a golden opportunity to push my pov on everyone else with insanely large amount of readily available super partisan sources bashing people I don't like. Plus I can now add then as reliable sources to BIOS and criticism pages further my stupid, unhelpful agenda, jk but I see were your coming from. I really would never do that. Fru23 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who, pray tell, are you talking to? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * God Fru23 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong page. Go talk to User:Zahd. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru, could you point me to where you made an effort on an article talk page to engage editors in a constructive, collaborative way? I think that you may find that other editors respond well to thoughtful and reasonable discussion, and less so to variations on "IFYOUREVERTMYEDITSYOURAPOVPUSHERANDIMGOINGTOANOTHERARTICLETOPUSHMYPOVJUSTLIKEYOUDO!" Rasmquire, to name just one editor you have made a habit of attacking, has expressed on numerous occasions that he would be interested in hearing your case for removing or reworking sections of the O'Reilly article. I would be interested as well. You may even find that if you present a good case, others will agree with you and you can build a consensus. I see your current approach doing little to benefit much of anyone right now. To the original question, we should be careful about using partisan outlets as sources. If they are sourcing factual material, it is probably better to seek out a different outlet. If it's sourcing opinion, it could be appropriate to provide a richer background or to report on an especially noteworthy issue. Again, this means that issues like this benefit from reasoned discussion, not uncivil attacks. Croctotheface (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show me when I have attack someone.Fru23 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You've made lots of comments dismissive of other editors, chiding them for not operating in good faith with you, making snide remarks about how ignorant they are, calling them out by name while trying to make your WP:Point ("Blaxthos will back me up on this, right"), and on and on. However, that, of course, is not the point.  The point is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  You have shown no interest in actually working with other editors or engaging in civil discussion.  As this is a collaborative and cooperative project, you may continue to find yourself frustrated with the lack of progress you achieve with your current approach.  Croctotheface (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying not to look at all the tangential stuff above ... If I had my druthers, no blatantly partisan sources would be utile. All they manage to do is furnish reasons for adding POV material in large heaps of compostable verbiage. Granted, I would have fairly boring stuff in articles, but the fact is that most articles on most people should be boring. I would hope that someday the era of yellow e-jounalism would go away. For now -- it looks like the game of "I have more sources for this stuff than you have for that stuff, and they are worded more sensationally" is the rule. Collect (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question of whatever happened to "Praise of O'Reilly", technically it can and should go into this article. I wish more editors understood that criticism does not always have to mean negative and unfavorable coverage. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to encourage CIreland to read Summary style and come to an understanding of how we address large topics on Wikipedia. "Criticism of" articles generally aren't "POV-forks"; they are a perfectly natural result of summary-style article building. We have a Criticism of Windows Vista article because there's been so much of it over the last two years that would overwhelm the Windows Vista article. Huge articles are discouraged for both technical and usability reasons, so we split the content out. It's also generally a sign that the matter of criticising a topic or person has become so widepsread that it has, in and of itself, become a noteworthy topic, and thus, Wikipedia needs an article on it. Whenever I hear someone like CIreland claim tha "all Criticism of... articles must be deleted", I wonder what it is, exactly, they're trying to accomplish, other than to do damage the encyclopedia. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment that "Criticism of..." should also include praise is consistent with Critic which says a "critic" "offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation." In art, criticism may be impartial and informed analysis, but in politics it usually refers to hostile disagreement. How many "criticism of" sections of main article, or stand alone article, include any praise, other than as rejoinders or defense in response to destructive attacks? Edison (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The specific thing Fru23 keeps trying to get tossed is about O'Reilly's highly controversial response to the Shawn Hornbeck situation. O'Reilly basically said the kid had opportunities to escape and didn't take them. Putting on his amateur psychologist hat, he opined that basically Hornbeck was having a good time and that's why he didn't try to escape. O'Reilly also took the opportunity to bash the so-called "Stockholm syndrome". Surprise, surprise, O'Reilly took a serious public verbal beating for those comments, and tried to modify, qualify and justify them as time went on. Fru23 wants us to pretend that stuff didn't happen. What would be better, or more "fair and balanced", would be to find someone (if there is someone out there), who would say, "O'Reilly has a point, he just said it in a stupid way." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm both aware of, and have made that precise argument in the past, Edison. The problem is that quite a number of people (both editors and readers) don't consider the output of a professional popular-culture critic (who engages in both positive and negative) to be "criticism", because the common usage of that word is almost always negative.  A critic writes a review, not a criticism.  The review may contain criticism, but it's not in its entirety, a criticism.


 * It's a little different in certain fine arts and literary cultures, where a person may "write a criticism" or a "critique"; this fomulation isn't universal, though: People who do commentary on political or social issues aren't "political critic" or "social critic" are all but unused; we instead call them "political commentators" and "social commentators". A commentator writes commentary.  Commentary can be critical or laudatory.


 * Confusing, yes, but that's English for you. (insert grumbling here. :-) )


 * In short, the word "Criticism" is ambiguous. What ends up happening on Wikipedia is that sections that contain both positive and negative material ends up no longer being called a "Criticism" section or article.  Any of "Controversy", "Reception", "Reviews", "Viewpoints" and "Response" have been used as fair substitutes.  <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that there is a topic ban discussion concerning Fru23, on WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this suddenly about O'Reilly and me? Stay on topic. Fru23 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because O'Reilly has been your total focus since beginning on wikipedia on 11/11/08. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute and not a BLP issue. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. The poster has been forum-shopping since he can't get his way on the article talk page. He's already been blocked twice since his very first edit on Nov 11, due to edit-warring on that page, which has been his sole focus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dov Hikind
This editor would like to add to the Dov Hikind bio that the Catholic League considered his protests against the movie Passion of the Christ to be "anti-Catholic, incendiary and ruthless". Kilfeno's source is a Catholic League newsletter of some sort in which it lists all the protesters (around 50) and announces that the campaign against the film has been unseemly and ruthless while admitting that it was not anti-Catholic.


 * 1) Is the Catholic League a source that is eligible to be quoted in criticism of a blp?
 * 2) Assuming that it can be used, Kilfeno's edits are misleading. Kilfeno makes it seem like the Catholic League was specifically referring to Hikind.

Thanks for your input, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a bit of a stretch. Provided that this is the source in question (can't really tell from the references in the article), the conclusion drawn is not supported. The source doesn't even mention Dov Hikind. I'd say leave it out until a second source can be provided. The same goes for a lot of other claims in this article - some more fact-checking is definitely needed. <font style="color:#C60;font-family:Papyrus;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic">—BradV 18:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The source does mention the subject as an example of reviews the Catholic League characterizes as "unseemly." It would be a content dispute whether and in what manner the source merits inclusion here, but I don't see this as a BLP issue; there is nothing libelous about characterizing Hikend's review of the film as "unseemly". I don't know why it would be encyclopedic to include this factoid, but it's not a BLP crisis, and if someone can figure out a way to meaningfully work it into the article, then that should be OK. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its probably libelous to characterize Hikind's comments as ruthless when the Catholic League was only referring to the general campaign. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ I'm not a lawyer, but this is a criticism of his review, not anything about him, his personal character, or his life. Sorry, this is not a BLP issue. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think OP was correct to raise it here. The material from the Catholic League was highly critical of the subject. If it counts as poorly sourced then it must be removed immediately. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of writing an 'anti-Catholic' review at the very least IMHO amounts to a definite BLP consideration. I would say so does incendiary depending on context although perhaps not ruthless. Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be a very broad interpretation of BLP to take it to mean that we cannot describe criticism of someone's ideas. This could effectively make all living persons advocating any position immune to criticism in Wikipedia articles. It is not the spirit of the BLP policy to provide people with a shield from us ever reporting controversies surrounding their published opinions. To give you an idea of what I mean, consider the difference between an article that says, alternately:
 * Dov Hikind is cruel and ruthless and Anti-Catholic.
 * -or-
 * The Catholic League published a response to reviews of the film that described its critics as "ruthless and Anti-Catholic."[cite]

These are very different indeed, and one is a BLP problem, whereas the other isn't. We can argue merits of whether the Catholic League is notable enough to deserve mention, but that is a content dispute, not a BLP issue. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz
An IP user has included this offensive image, a number of times, into the article: Image:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. This seems to be a clear BLP violation, and the user has ignored requests not to return the image. Is there a way to block the image itself from WP articles? It is very offensive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IFD has the procedure. Is the image copyright free? If not, that might speed things. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image seems to be in Wikimedia Commons. I had asked here.


 * It's still a blatant POV violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I brought it here because I know of no solution, and thought someone else would. Here someone mentioned a "Bad image list." I did not even look, I have had enough problems dealing with anything that might go wrong, with ensuing accusations.  Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It got slipped into Commons somehow, but it still doesn't belong in a biographical article, nor probably in any article here. In fact, I should think that either it's copyrighted and doesn't belong in Commons; or it's the work of some editor here, which makes it POV-pushing and doesn't belong anwhere here. Until or if it gets removed from Commons, page-watchers will have to be vigilant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's by a "freelance" cartoonist Carlos Latuff who places his work under "CC no rights reserved." His work is generally anti-US, anti-Israel. This cartoon is incorporated in his Wikipedia article.--agr (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a new editor that has added this. A little attention would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You could try asking it be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list although if it's only being used for disruption in one page I don't know if that would qualify (the talk pages says the list should be short for performance reasons Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a BLP violation as long as it is properly explained that it was a controversial cartoon drawn by a political cartoonist. It is notable, because it did create a lot of controversy in the news. Naur (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard L. Madoff
Madoff has apparently confessed directly to the FBI to a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. It's clear that both Madoff and many of his victims are Jewish, and I've argued on the talk page that this has a place in this article. However, it's clear that some editors are using this article for anti-semetic propaganda (I can provide diffs if you want). In particular, use of the star of David symbol (✡) is completely out of place here. Could some uninvolved users keep an eye on this article. It's clear that some mention of Judaism is fine but that some users want to abuse the religion and Wikipedia policy. A good deal of judgment is involved.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted some myself. They seem to come from this IP address, along with more trolling. Can't anything more permanent be done about it? Xasodfuih (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't be around much, but ask an administrator to protect it (or semi-protect if it's just an IP address), if it gets too bad. Smallbones (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see some IP editors doing useful edits, so semi-protection won't work too well. Can't they just protect the page from that particular IP? Xasodfuih (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of this anti-semitic stuff go up (always going to expect SOME), but not a whole lot. I wonder if it is going to get out of hand, because there aren't a whole lot of "public" victims, i.e. this is not like Enron where a wide swath of the public got swindled (CFO was Andy Fastow, who is jewish) - the victims here are a very narrow slice of America - mostly jews, and even then mostly the Palm Beach and New York jewish communities - and even many of the hedge fund victims listed are jewish-run, so, really, the victim list is generally a very narrow slice of America.  I'd be surprized if the anti-semitic stuff gets out of hand.  I mean, it's like that other large fraud that was recently uncovered - the $100 million fraud executed by that Marc Dreier guy - Dreier it turns out is also jewish, but you're not going to see much made of that in his bio because the victims are all institutions - mostly hedge funds - firms like Perella Weinberg Partners.Betathetapi545 (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing BLP dispute at Yip Pin Xiu
There is an ongoing BLP dispute at Yip Pin Xiu. The dispute is about whether the article should include her birth date and Chinese name. I believe that, since she is a minor and non-public figure, BLP mandates that we respect her privacy and exclude both her birth date and Chinese name from the article (though including her Chinese name is not as dangerous as including her birth date). Jacklee believes that since one reliable online reference mentions her birth date and at least three mention her Chinese name, including such information does not violate BLP. Neither of us really understand BLP; in fact, an article he wrote recently received a BLP complaint. Thus we need several editors who are familiar with the BLP policy to give their input and help us resolve the dispute. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Janet Napolitano
-- IP editor 70.160.129.216 keeps adding/restoring unsourced material about hearsay? joke? something about Napolitano's sexual orientation. This continues after several warnings. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Diablo Cody
User:Jason.cinema is attempting to add a biased 'Criticism' section to Diablo Cody's article, as evidenced here, with only a couple of blogs as references. I removed it but he just reinstated it again. Granted, I don't doubt Cody has received a bit of flack for her "honest to blog"s, but considering that her first film had a 93% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and she won "Best Screenplay" in the Oscars, a section with nothing but criticism sourced just by blogs seems a little unwarranted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Majora Carter
I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources.

By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. Rhere was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

James Toney
Multiple edits to alter nickname and to alter parts of biography in derogatory manner. See recent edit list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.165.172 (talk • contribs)
 * The page has been semi-protected for a month by . Icewedge (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Walsh (bishop)
Opinions offered as fact without the most basic of sources regarding Walsh's liturgical, theological and canonical position. Nonsense comparing his presidency of St. Malachy's Grammar school to 'a totalitarian state', again without any evidence. The unsubstantiated/impossible to quantify claim that his retirement came as a relief to the majority of the diocese's clergy and laity.

In short, potentially libellous. Most certainly offensive and moronic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I removed the unsourced opinion as well as some of the detail of his education. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Baker (activist)
The article Jack Baker (activist) is currently a single-editor magnum opus written by User:Baker's Friend which appears to be an NPOV-free zone; it also makes numerous statements about other living people which I am concerned may raise WP:BLP issues. Just to give you a flavor of the article, it has subheadings like "Bigotry", "Trickery", "Abuse of Power" and "Justices compete for public flattery".

Although it contains vast numbers of cites, many of them do not directly support the substance of the statements being made, instead only supporting some tangential point. This article is so vast, and so full of contentious statements, that I can't see how to fix it other than more-or-less completely deleting it and starting again. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: I've now reverted the article back to a very early version, removing nearly all the content. I will notify the article's author of the BLP policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Current article makes him quite minimally notable at all. Collect (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Craig Roger Gregerson
Is it really appropriate that the redirect page for convicted child molester Craig Roger Gregerson has a category for his religion? His religion is not even mentioned in the article to which the redirect links. - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Remove that category mercilessly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with an IP editor who insists on inserting problematic material and linking to a blog as reference. We are not technically in a WP:3RR situation because we are evidently in different time-zones. Also, I do not know if it is related, but we have had problems in the past with aggressive edit-warring from another user with the same 71.200. IP prefix. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have semi protected the page for a few days, but with some hesitation. Rather than revert and get reverted again, please try and explain the user the reasons for not including sources based on blogs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a fair comment. The article has been subjected to such repeated 'attacks' that I was in defensive mode. The fact that the changes were made by an IP editor didn't help the suspicion that it is a continuation of the previous attacks, although the changes were relatively minor. I used edit summaries to explain, but it obviously is no substitute for proper dialogue. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Muntadhar al Zaidi
Recently, an editor added the following text to the article on journalist Muntadhar al Zaidi, who is currently being held by Iraqi authorities for throwing two of his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush:

"According to ABC World News, following the incident, al Zaidi's cameraman stated that just before throwing his shoes, al Zaidi handed him a note reading, 'It's glorious to die a martyr.'[24]"

The reference goes to an ABC news video. Concurrently, a Newsbusters blog carried a transcript of the news story.. Here is the text from this transcript:

"The shoe thrower himself hasn't lost any relatives, though his family says he was kidnapped once by militants. His cameraman said that just before he got up he handed him this note saying, 'It's glorious to die a martyr.' He survived, of course, and his story may live on as well. Jim Sciutto, ABC News, London."

Out of the thousand(s) of news articles on Muntadhar al Zaidi, only one claims that this "note" exists, namely the one above, ABC News. Jim Sciutto makes a strange claim here, making it sound like the source for Zaidi's kidnapping in 2007 was his family, which is bizarre. The 2007 kidnapping claim has nothing to do with his family, and was announced by Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (NGO that monitors violations against journalists in Iraq) and covered by major news outlets around the world (including Reuters, Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and many others). It was even published in a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I don't understand how ABC News could cast doubt on this claim by attributing it to his "family". Perhaps they made an honest mistake.

When ABC says that the shoe thrower hasn't lost any relatives, they also appear to ignore the fact that many sources mention that his family was arrested during the regime of Saddam Hussein.

To summarize, I am concerned that this note has not been corroborated by any other news sources and about the accuracy of ABC News. To date, no other news agency has reported on it. Unless we have corroborating sources, keeping ABC's unique claim in the article (combined with a distortion about his kidnapping) introduces a bias of some kind that could pose a threat to any fair trial he might receive, or even his safety. Could I get some feedback on this, please? Reliable sources and undue weight says the following:

"Corroboration—Do the conclusions match with other sources in the field which have been derived independently. If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination. Undisputed corroboration among high-reliability sources can help establish something as a fact rather than an opinion."

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Randal Smith
I just found this languishing in articles to be wikified since July 2007. Subject is a pathologist whose professional work has been called into question by the courts. No references, only some ELs. Will need quite a lot of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Persondata
One of the problems with the by-default invisibility of these data is that edits like the above go unnoticed for months. Please be aware of this type of BLP vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * edit

Jaclyn Reding
There has been an ongoing BLP dispute with the Jaclyn Reding article since September 2007. Original research, one dubious foreign language source , and a blog have been the rational for adding the supposed maiden name of the author in addition to a bunch of poorly worded family history. The only English source for the maiden name is Fantastic Fiction which is not reliable and the previously mentioned blog which is still depending on OR to make the connection between the maiden name and the married name. The other info can't be sourced in English that I've found. --ImmortalGoddezz ( t/c ) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

D. M. Thomas

 * - Grateful for comment on this diff: []. The editor who make the change commented on it here [] - please ignore the bit about attacking editors, which was my error in using an incorrect template.  The substantial question is over the appropriateness of the edit to D. M. Thomas.  // Springnuts (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Swami Shyam
I wanted to bring your attention to the Swami Shyam article which contains some sensitive material. The newspaper article cited here seems a little incongruous with the content posted. As your policy on biographies of living persons is quite a high priority I thought an admin should have a look. In particular, the Globe and Mail article makes no mention of abuse towards minors. AaronCarson (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I double checked the source and it does not mention "sexual abuse" of women or sex with minors. It does focus on sex with adult women, including a mother and her grown daughter. I've revised the text to match the source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Will--AaronCarson (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff address
In reading WP:BLP Privacy of Personal info: "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted."

My question is whether this is an absolute prohibition, i.e should "should not" be read as "may not"?

Bernard Madoff's addresses have been released by reliable sources, eg times online (Times of London). When a major fraud like this is alleged, I think it's important that people know that the alleged perp has some assets, so a general description of them seems reasonable. IMHO the addresses don't add much of anything to the article, except perhaps a very faint smell of a lynch mob. So I looked up the policy, and to my reading, the addresses should be deleted. Several others disagree. Let's follow the noticeboard's advice.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The neighborhood is appropriate, but not the actual street address or coordinates. If he were a resident in a notable building, like The Dakota, then it might be acceptable to mention that but that's an exception to the rule. (We should probably limit the list of notable occupants to former residents, for privacy, but that's a different topic.)   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It almost seems that those adding his address expect someone to pay him a visit. Creepy... Xasodfuih (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bert Newton

 * - recent spate of vandalism on this article. I removed the vandalism, but there are still problems regarding lack of sourcing. Could use some additional eyes and cleanup. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok So-ri biased
Someone that can read Korea please write some more about her career, so that the article is less biased towards the adultery case. All English sources I found focus on the adultery case. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl, use of problematic sorses in controversies section
Sources are problematic, because they are taken out of context like this one referring to an event solved in year 2000 as an "ongoing controvercy". Highly critical quotes are from anonymous sources or non-english sorces. I have been trying to debat the questionable sources, remove them when no answer came and argue why I did this. They are however replaced. True there is controversies, but it seems unfit to say that someone calls him "a self-promoting schmuck and quasi-cult leader" without even knowing who said that.

I tried to ask the editor in question to cooperate to find reliable sources, both in my edit comments, on his discussion page and on the talk page. He gives no response to this Siru108 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting BLP articles feeler survey
FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:


 * Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Your feedback is appreciated. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew and Jeff Conaway
Much negative unsourced content; can someone familiar with show or actor try to sort out fact from fiction here? Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

D. M. Thomas

 * - Grateful for comment on this diff: []. The editor who make the change commented on it here [] - please ignore the bit about attacking editors, which was my error (now rectified) through using an incorrect template.  The substantial question is over the appropriateness of the edit to D. M. Thomas.  // Springnuts (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wendy James
Entry seems to have a great deal of negative unsourced material. 98.14.164.155 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed large chunks of it. The article badly needs rewritten though.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems far more like it. Thanks, people. 98.14.164.155 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI by User:Mikebaker20. Unsure if it is the same Mike Baker as in the article, but worth looking into. // Willking1979 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: article nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Mike Baker, broadcaster and journalist, ex-BBC. Willking1979 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Paradiso
Biography of an alleged mobster who allegedly wants his daughter killed, etc. 62.147.36.69 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted by an admin as a badly sourced negative BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Do talk page comments count?
This editor makes inappropriate comments about (living) researchers and professionals with whom the editor personally disagrees about sexuality. The garbage in the articles usually gets cleaned up, but the comments on the talk page, such as today's "Bailey was a sex addict and purposely chose a gay sex bar to do his research on transsexuals because it was where he knew he would find sex and fetishs there" usually don't. The editor appears impervious to subtle hints, persistent in this behavior, and of course I'm not sufficiently dedicated to the Bailey-hating camp for my opinion about rude remarks against him to be of the least value to the editor. Would someone unrelated please take a look from an impartial perspective and consider an appropriate level of education or warning for the user? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not familar with the specific comments in the talk so I can't say whether or not it is a violation but I do know that BLP applies to talk pages. This is an excert fromWP:BLP. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space --70.24.179.138 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not forums where anything goes. If slanderous/libel material is introduced there, it should be removed. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles, not forums to trash individuals. --Tom 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you think that calling J. Michael Bailey a sex addict is libelous? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only a court of law could determine that, but I think it is potentially libelous and I'd be surprised if a typical Wikipedia contributor's opinion to that effect, not cited to any expert, was genuinely relevant to the creation of an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the purpose was to assert that nothing in Bailey's book or written by anyone sympathetic to the sexologists' views on the general subject of the book (femininity among men, and more relevantly the sexuality of transwomen) should be accepted. The editor seems to use insults against the author as a way of "proving" that the asserted facts are inaccurate.
 * But what can we do about it? The talk page is toxic in general, and the editor is specifically unlikely to respect anything I say.  Should we ignore it?  Is it worth an RFC?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

 * An anon editor added a BLP violating comment to the effect that Pipes was <modified own edit to avoid propagating BLP vio> the talk page of this article here. It is an incredibly serious charge, and I reverted it, but was reverted myself here and here by User:Zencv, a user with a rich history of trying to insert gross BLP violations into this article. He has been warned about this multiple times, but is aggressively uninterested in changing his behavior. IronDuke  22:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This complaint is without any merit as the user IronDuke himself has moderated his behaviour by beginning to engage constructively in the user page(instead of reverting without stating why he would do so). As for BLP vio, I have been warned only by this particular user and noone who scans my contributions would find "rich history" of violations as claimed here. In the same page(Daniel Pipes), I had previously contributed by removing some poorly sourced statements included or supported by the user IronDuke, like here. The user gave no legitimate reasons for his reverts and was apparently trying to stalk  me. A separate case is opened for that  here  ZencvLets discuss 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (cross-posted to Talk:Daniel Pipes). A certain amount of discussion about potential BLP violations is allowed, simply to help reach a consensus on whether or not the information is appropriate for inclusion in the article.  However, the information under discussion must be accompanied with a reliable source to even be worth discussing.  If there's no source, the information should be removed immediately, both per WP:BLP and also per WP:V. --Elonka 19:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Also cross-posted) Right, but this isn't about "information" being put in an article. The BLP-violating talk put in by an anon wasn't meant, even by the anon, to be article content itself.  IronDuke  19:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironduke, if your problem were the single word "anti-Muslim" in the talk page, there was no need to delete the whole section which contained a legitimate point posted(ie, ethnicity of Pipes being mentioned). I have some problem to digest your logic behind it. I'm glad that now you yourself corrected it. ZencvLets discuss 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though it's somewhat disturbing you weren't able to see what violated BLP in the anon post you kept restoring, I am glad to see that you understand it now. I trust you won't be reinserting it. IronDuke  22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Majora Carter
I am restoring the following because it was not addressed; it was not even in any way responded to, and as far as I can tell wasn't even copied to the archive page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that at least some of Drawn Some's recent edits to Majora Carter constitute a BLP issue. Since I had earlier tried to modify what I considered Drawn Some's inaccurate representation in this article of what a New York Times profile said, and was simply reverted by Drawn Some, I'm bringing the matter here for a third party to look at. Also, I would note that Drawn Some has latched on to (and, in my view exaggerated) just about the only negative in that New York Times profile of Carter, which does not suggest to me a particularly appropriate use of sources. By the way, also, possibly not a BLP issue, but I also find the removal of the phrase "environmental justice"—the usual name of the movement with which she is identified—from the article, also suggests to me an animus against its subject. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC) I also now see that this same editor earlier made major deletions from the article. There was undoubtedly an excessive listing of awards in the article, but eliminating these completely seems to me equally excessive. It would seem to me that things such as having won a MacArthur fellowship, the Distinguished Alumni Award from her alma mater, and the New York Post Liberty Medal for Lifetime Achievement belong in an encyclopedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin D. Weiss
Over at Martin D. Weiss, a newbie editor (from uploads at commons presumably close to the subject) has removed a section about some 'Securities and Exchange Commission' stuff previously added by an anon. (Its also possible that they are the same person, since the pix uploaded on commons were added to the article here by anon).

Could someone please review the insertion / removal and make a call as whether the material should be kept or not? I'm willing to clean it up and do the sources legwork if its decided that the material should be kept in substance. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just now noticed this section. Earlier today (20 December) I posted a refimprove tag, had a minor grammatical tweaking and deleted the empty "officeholder" infobox. Comments? Willking1979 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems ok to me now. The SEC section seems a little apropos-of-nothing; would it make sense to pull it up into the biography? -- Fullstop (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned over the section David_Miscavige. This is sourced to a podcast by Tom Smith that may have been broadcast by a college radio station (see article talk page). It is not hosted on the station's official site, however. The content is corroborated to some extent by an article in a minor alternative weekly, The Portland Mercury. While the author of that article is named, I note that according to our article on it, the Portland Mercury's most popular feature is one "in which local readers are encouraged to submit anonymous, usually impassioned, and often incendiary letters to the city at large". Apart from that, I cannot find any coverage of these allegations of Miscavige beating people up in more reputable news media. In fact, on the whole Internet, I get only 91 google hits for Jeff Hawkins + David Miscavige, and almost all of them are to anti-Scientology forums and sites.

Are the sources reliable enough for BLP, given the nature of the allegations? Is inclusion of this material due weight? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be taken out. It doesn't feel right, maybe someone is trying to discredit him to try to take his job.Redddogg (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Paul Franklin
-- Several serious criminal accusations without references. He has committed several murders, but this still needs more cleaning up to source all the negative stuff.--chaser - t 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Diane Cibrian
- I have deleted Diane Cibrian as there is no version of that article that does not violate WP:Copyright or WP:BLP. Requesting review of action. //  MBisanz  talk 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kyle Eckel
author Chrisjnelson has been repeatedly using hear say and personal interest to revert and change articles especially that of an article of living person, Kyle Eckel

use of selective news reports are strung together to make untruths seem true

as under bio of living persons a description should be left as relevant facts, not personal interests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.8.36 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

user: Mynameinc is abusing power by blocking pages for constructive edits notably under the article Kyle Eckel

the author is allowing an untruth to continuously be posted within this article as its attempted to be removed. the author, Mynameinc, is threatening "blocking" to keep correct edits to continue

as under bio of living persons rules and US law stringing together several news articles to make an untruth seem true is both against wikipedia rules and US law. Also relevant facts pertaining to "Kyle Eckel" do not include selective news articles relating to irrelevant instances such as an accusation which was administered and than dropped in a months time

such persistance will not be tolerated under US law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.8.36 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain exactly what untruth is in the article Kyle Eckel. You cannot accuse a person without providing sufficient evidence. Please also start the discussion in the talk page Talk:Kyle Eckel if you disagree with its text. Otherwise your complaint here will be ignored (and the "US law" would ignore your statements without evidence as well). In addition please be aware that if you will make legal; threats, you may be permanently blocked from editing wikipedia: see the WP:LEGAL policy. Mukadderat (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Shame on the administrator, Toddst1 who both reverted a BLP removal as if it were vandalism and then blocked the complainant, and shame on the several administrators at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents who totally ignored the BLP issue in favour of blocking the complaint. Looking at the article, and then at the sources, I find that the negative content is not in any way supported by the sources. Indeed, at least one of the sources says outright that it was unable to find out why this person and the Navy parted company. A negative original conclusion is being synthesized from sources that do not state that conclusion, in violation of our No original research policy. I note that discussion on the talk page has been on-going since March 2007, and not a single editor, let alone Mukadderat or any of the editors who re-inserted this unsourced negative biographical material no fewer than nine times in the past 24 hours, has justified its inclusion with a source that actually provides reliable and explicit information on this subject. Mukadderat, it is not the 68.163.8.36's job to explain why the material should not be included, not least because that has been explained here on this noticeboard, on the talk page of the article, and in edit summaries, several times over the past two years. It is, per the burden of proof outlined in the Verifiability policy, Toddst1, Mynameinc, Pharaoh of the Wizards, HexaChord, Chrisjnelson, and others that have to justify their additions of it; and that furthermore have to justify their use of vandalism rollback tools against edits whose summaries explicitly state that the Biographies of living persons applies. And we do not simply "ignore" complaints made at this noticeboard that a biography of a living person contains factually inaccurate and defamatory material. Accordingly, I have removed the material, and protected the article from editing, on BLP grounds. Any further re-insertion of this material by any party without a proper supporting source will result in a summary removal of their editing privileges. Uncle G (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * the material was not removed however the BLP article has beem blocked. there is no concrete word in any article as to why he left the navy. the conduct board was a college event and not in any way related to his professional career. should we add how many demerits in higschool and how many timeout as a toddler he had? this article has turned into a blog citing speculation and not an encyclopedia article


 * apologies. the speculatory comments were removed. i'll read more carefully next time. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.228.182 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Hendra
A series of users whom I suspect are sock puppets for the subject of the article (or someone close to him) have been making a long-running series of edits to Tony Hendra that are problematic from a POV standpoint. It's tricky, though, in that one of the main points of contention is the media coverage that appeared a few years ago when the subject's daughter alleged that he had sexually abused her as a child.

I'm interested in others' views on this. See Talk:Tony Hendra for more detail. Thanks. --John Callender (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes
User:Rawal80 added two BLP violations to the Daniel Pipes article, which I reverted, but at least one has been restored to the article. Some administrative attention may be necessary.   Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverted them again and warned them. Utterly unacceptable edits. Exxolon (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah X Dylan
So far, I have twice reverted changes by User:Muppet5150 to this biography of a living person. I have discussed the reversions I made in the article's talk page and Muppet5150's talk page in great detail regarding concerns for their repeated inclusion of information that violates both the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of Living Persons Wikipedia Policy, but they keep re-introducing their additions without further discussion.

Specifically, this person has included seemingly tabloid-esque comments about the article's subject and sensitive information about the notable person's relatives (full names, location, myspace, employers) that are in no way relevative to the actual notability of the person. Despite the request to discuss this on the talk page and the editor's user account talk page, they continue to revert the article to include their inappropriate edits.

I took the liberty of reaching out to the subject of the article who also shared concerns for the information in question and was grateful for Wikipedia's actions in removing them as per wikipedia BLP policy (but the editor User::Muppet5150 keeps returning them anyway).

I should also note that the article seems to note that "Muppet" is the name of the subject's frequently discussed pet. And as per wikipedia, 5150 is California code for "involuntary psychiatric incarceration". It is VERY disconcerting that someone making these edits (even if the information is "on record" in some way through the radio show's archives and other sources) has a username that combines these two elements. Cordell (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave Albo
- Davealbo has made 15 edits to this article over 3.5 months. He refers to it as "my site entry," and reverts any modifications that are critical of him as "vandalism," sometimes replacing the whole article with the content of his campaign webpage. He's been warned by several users over several months that his modifications violate COI standards. I've been trying to clean up the entry, but I fear I'm making it worse with the ping-pong edits. (I have my own COI: I'm a Democrat, and Del. Albo is a Republican. FWIW.) I don't think that I should continue to work with Del. Albo on this problem, since clearly I'm not doing a very good job.

N.B.: I posted about this problem 27 days ago to the COI noticeboard, but unfortunately nothing came of it. The edits continue. --WaldoJ (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Holly Ann Collins
(possibly Holly Ann Collins herself) makes several unsourced and very serious allegations against the former husband of Holly Ann Collins, such as child abuse. The user subpage is the userfied version of an article that has been merged into Right of asylum following Articles for deletion/Holly Ann Collins. I'm not sure whether WP:BLP covers user subpages though. Also given my prior involvement in the AFD, I prefer not to be bold. Aecis·(away) talk 13:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP covers all pages. See WP:BLP. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming the assertions above are accurate and true, I recommend sending the userpage to AFD. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the assertions in my initial post here? They are accurate and true. The userpage says that Holly Ann Collins fled the US "in order to escape her husband,[1] He was abusing her two children" (sic). It says that Collins and her children "were betrayed when a local neighbor, who recognized them from a FBI wanted posters" (sic), another unsourced very serious accusation against a living person. Aecis·(away) talk 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't really care about the allegations. If this is not an article under development, and based on what I've seen its not then it shouldn't really be in userspace. Userfiying a deleted article may be acceptable in some instances but it should be avoided with BLPs unless there is need to keep the article around Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del
In the past few days several removal and readditions ( original addition, removal, +, -(with a warning), +, -(with warning), +, -(second warning), + have occured around a rumor that the articles author became inapropriate with underaged individuals. This sort of addition of material has previously been removed and purged from the talk page by user:Sarcasticidealist, but I would now like to bring this up to the noticeboard so this sort of blp violation can be stopped hopefully once and for all (although the red and green on my watchlist is quite appropriate for this time of year). Knowledgeum : <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#CD0000;"> Talk 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue still needs attention. User: Nilzy continues to re-add the matter for discussion, though there are no sources or need for discussion. Myself and several other editors/administrators have removed the rumor and asked him to stop/advised him on WP:BLP.--<font color=#866fc2>Thrindel <font style="color:#beaee7"> Talk 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Curtis_Conway
Unreferenced and not notable??? One of the policies said to bring it up here.Ariconte (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You saw an article without source citations. So, per longstanding verifiability policy, you should have looked for sources yourself as the next step.  What efforts did you make to do so? Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None. After feeling bitten; I won't bother you again. Ariconte (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Mirles
Information is completely incorrect and untrue, unreferenced and not notable 26 December —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.24.189 (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor is referring to Shannon Mirels, which has been nominated for deletion after a spate of page blanking drew attention to it. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy theory
User:Lute88 brands several living Russian authors as anti-semitic conspiracy theorists and proponents of blood libel, providing no references or fake reference to Simon Reznik article. This is very serious and unsubstantiated allegations about living persons. Please take notice.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues on the Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez page
I am the subject of the living persons biography on this page. It has been repeatedly and regularly vandalized, notably by someone using the login Omownyc. I have reason to believe this person is either an ex-boyfriend, or someone who wants me to think it is my ex-boyfriend, from college, because the login name is the same as the backward spelling of Mowo, the nickname for Mocean Worker, the ex who is now a well-known electronica DJ who lives in NYC, his favorite city. If it is Mowo, that would mean he has held a nearly 20-year grudge against me for breaking up with him when I was 22. If it is not Mowo, it is someone with a sick obsession with me who is trying to "frame" him. Either way, it is pathetic and time-consuming, and you do wonder how anyone has that sort of time to waste on a daily basis. Then you wonder just what sort of person has that sort of time to waste, and you wonder if you ought to get a restraining order. Anyway.

Regardless of who it is, the vandalism must stop. Libelous information continues to be added to my profile, in spite of my attempts to remove them. I have also written a statement and published it on my personal blog, at alisavaldesrodriguez.com, to set the record straight on all of the issues that continue to be inserted into the biography. Among the untrue statements are: that I am bisexual (I'm not, I am straight); that I suffer from bipolar disorder (I do not); that I was born into a middle-class family (I was born into a poor family); that I was "blacklisted" by a resignation letter I supposedly wrote to the LA Times (both facts untrue). Some of this information has appeared, either because of wikipedia or because of the "editor"'s relationship to certain bloggers, on the Internet, but this does not make it "sourced". I am the source, and I am setting the record straight here. The libel and attempts to defame my character must stop.

I understand the preference on wikipedia NOT to have the subject of an article correct that article, and I admire this policy. But in the case of these continued assaults upon my character, I have no choice but to continue to undo the nearly daily hack job by omownyc and whatever other name this same person (I believe it to be only one person) decides to create for their efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.186.62 (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to other editor's attention. Though I haven't had a chance to look too deeply into it, so far it looks like your edits were valid. One thing to keep in mind is that we don't know who you are. Though you say you are Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, we can't take your word for it. If you do want to establish your identity, you can go through [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org], and they have a process to verify that with you. Of course, at the moment, I'm not seeing much reason for that.
 * Of note, I've removed the real name you've given for Mowo for the same reason you've removed personal information from the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs experienced BLP attention, and I am about to go out of town and do not want to involve myself in it. I am not a usual editor of the page, so I have no horse in this race. This is the problem: the subject, on at least two occasions, has made unequivocal, declarative and emotive statements about herself that she later retracted. AVR feels this clears up the matter, but these statements were heavily reported, and in the context of her work. Here are two examples: An IP claiming to be AVR is making legal threats all over the talk page if these topics are covered. I have e-mailed privately with AVR, who contacted me first, explaining all of these issues, but it wasn't particularly productive. I don't have time or desire to involve myself in figuring out how to handle this. In my opinion, this is an article subject whitewashing heavily reported issues, and if they are incorrect, at the very least making such claims as bipolar and bisexuality in such contexts itself deserves mention, as I'm sure Wikipedia editors can't be the only ones confused. --<font color="navy" size="2">David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) In her "Farewell to David Foster Wallace" written September 2008 that has since been taken down (it remains in Google's cache), Valdes-Rodriguez wrote, "To me, that sounds like the manic phase of bipolar disorder, something I am quite familiar with. Spurred by David's death, I am, today, here, going to go public with my own struggles with the disorder, which I have finally begun to treat and get a handle on. I have bipolar disorder/depression. I don't like it, and I'm not proud of it. But this very same monster that spurs me to ridiculous behavior in my personal or professional life (up to and including bulimia, and serious thoughts of suicide now and then) has also enabled me to pen entire novels in six days."  On the same blog in August 2008, she wrote "I do not suffer from bipolar disorder and have never been diagnosed with such a disorder. I sympathize greatly with those who do, and have family members who do. But I do not.".  Foster Wallace's surprise suicide at the hands of his depression greatly, deeply affected the writing community, and that she identified with his problem so clearly at a very sensitive time in her profession is notable.  She has since retracted this, with no explanation.
 * 2) In a written, e-mailed interview published September 2008, Valdes-Rodriguez told AfterEllen.com, "As a bisexual woman (who, as it happens, is faithfully married to a man and therefore living a “straight” life) I feel it is important to include homosexual or bisexual characters in my work. I am living proof that such things are not “choices,” but innate." On her blog in August 2008, she wrote, "I do not identify as bisexual, but as straight. I have been married to a man for 12 years, and have a son. Nonetheless, I believe most people are somewhere on the Kinsey Scale of human sexuality, and I make an effort to include fully-realized GLBT characters in my work.".  She made this statement to AfterEllen.com, one of the premiere LGBT websites that was asking about a book she was promoting, which has LGBT characters.  On the Talk:Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez page, an IP claiming to be AVR said that AfterEllen made it up; but the website said this was a written, e-mailed interview - so that would be Libel if they did.  AE.com hasn't taken it down, so they are standing by it.
 * I also suggest anyone who wishes to take this on contact AfterEllen.com and explain the situation, and ask them. In my experience, writers and websites are very willing to answer questions about the veracity of their work.  --<font color="navy" size="2">David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  21:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the bi-polar issue: if the only source we have for this claim is the "Farewell to David Foster Wallace" post, there is absolutely no question that it does not belong in the article. The requirements at WP:SPS are clear, and BLP's are held to an even higher standard; removing the post effectively withdraws the author's endorsement of the claim. If there are other sources for the bi-polar claim, let's see them.


 * On to the bisexuality issue. Biographies_of_living_persons instructs us as follows:

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth."


 * Valdes-Rodriguez has contested the disputed content (on her blog, and perhaps above), and it's evident that she feels the material would be harmful to her if published by Wikipedia. I think the case that the repudiated After Ellen interview constitutes a highly reliable source is yet to be made. Until there is consensus that these claims satisfy the BLP policy, they have no place in the article. The legal threats, inexperience and tactics used by the subject are a matter of user conduct, and have no bearing on the encyclopedic value of the claims. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Skomorokh  21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the merit of your argument on the bipolar question, but the bisexuality question is different. She may not be bisexual, but AfterEllen.com is not a blog, and that she "came out" was reported upon across the Internet.  It is still out there.  The correct thing to do, in my opinion, is to report that in an interview she made the statement and then later retracted it, with links to both.  She doesn't need to be categorized LGBT.  Her written, e-mailed interview with a mainstream LGBT website did not contain a passing, half-hearted mention of bisexuality.  It was a stand, she discussed it in the context of her growing up, and in the context of how her bisexuality informed how she wrote a character in her most well-known work.  It was done promoting that book to the very community she was making a claim to be a part of.  Michael Richards "I'm a Jew" claim and retraction is covered, I don't see how this is different.  It merits one plainly-worded sentence.  It's the sort of thing people who are Googling her will come across, expect to have explained on Wikipedia, and will thus continue to be edit-warred over because it stands out that it is unaddressed.  --<font color="navy" size="2">David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  21:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Campeau

 * Some dubious clams in this article. I've removed a few but it definitely needs more eyes. --Ryan Delaney talk 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the unsourced negative claims; the article may still contain dubious claims but I am not familiar enough witht he subject to tell. Skomorokh  17:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bio page being changed
My Bio is becoming a mess with people adding to and subtracting my post.

and since I am the person in question I'd like this stopped.

It was and always was a simple Bio not a day to day play by play of post by anyone and everyone.

Thanks

Paul Shanklin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankintank (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that the article is not "your post". Anyone may edit Wikipedia articles, and are in fact encouraged to do so. If you are Mr. Shanklin, you have a conflict of interest here. First, I'd suggest you contact [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org] if you want to verify your identity with us; we can't just take your word for it.
 * Second, you'll have to explain what you want "stopped." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 09:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Paul, I have had a look at the article and removed the parts which did not seem to be relevant, and those which were negative and inadequately sourced. I hope this helps, and let us know if you have any further concerns with the article (rather than editing it yourself). Regards, Skomorokh  16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Hubbard
We previously went through this on Dec. 1. The subject has reportedly been in poor health. I'm seeing "confirmed" reports on the internet (email, message boards) yet none of these actualy cite an obituary, press release, article etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone has since cited a source. Thanks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar
Can others take a look at 2008 Israel–Hezbollah prisoner swap and its recent editing history? Kuntar was convicted for murders in an Israeli military court, yet edits noting the top-secret nature of his conviction and the lack of forensic evidence for his conviction have been repeatedly silenced by "Rami R." And this is so in an article that makes repeated references to Kuntar's guilt, even to the point of impugning the reception he received in the Arab world ("Mona Charen wrote: 'What can you say about a people who welcome a child murderer as a hero?'"). Such selective editing is not libelous, but incendiary and contributes to cross-cultural misunderstandings, rather than efforts to bridge differences. Slandering Kuntar in a medium in which he cannot respond does not help. -- 71.204.151.224 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner
Is coverage of Eric Lerner's political activities a violation of NPF? Recently it came up because it turns out he belonged to an organization headed by Lyndon LaRouche. There is a thread on WP:RSN about whether we've reliably sourced this to a Dennis King book (I believe we have), but the BLP issue may trump this. However, I'm of the opinion that if we remove the LaRouche association, we probably should remove all political activity because Lerner simply isn't known for this.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A violation of WikiProject Non-League Football? I'm sorry, I probably should be able to guess what you're referring to, but it isn't coming to me. Biographical articles should generally speaking include material of biographical note - so the content doesn't necessarily need to be limited to the area of the subjects notability or expertise. I'll comment further on the talkpage I think. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure he meant WP:NPF Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the question is to be answered, it must be in the light of NPF, whether Eric Lerner is a relatively unknown "Non public figure" (NPF). Fred Talk 15:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the material in question:"In the 1970s, Lerner became involved in the National Caucus of Labor Committees, an offshoot of the Columbia University Students for a Democratic Society.""Lerner has been involved in political activism. He has sought civil rights protection for immigrants as a member and spokesman for the New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee. According to investigative journalist Dennis King, Lerner is a 'former LaRouchian'."

Standards for Content: William Timmons Biography
Edits made to the biography of William Timmons appear to be in violation of WP:BLP guidelines, and a subsequent content dispute requires outside intervention. The current profile references a recent Huffington Post online article which alleges that Timmons lobbied on behalf of Saddam Hussein alongside Samir Vincent, and Tongsun Park, both of whom were tried and convicted in the Oil-for-Food scandal during the Gulf War in the 1990's (Timmons' was not involved in the trial, much less convicted) . The genesis of the current controversy was an article “McCain taps Lobbyist for Transition” by Michael Scherer in Time on September 12 which seems to have been designed to embarrass John McCain by linking him to Timmons, a lobbyist with former client Freddie Mac. Scherer did, however, write that Timmons was not heading the transition effort, despite rumors (John Lehman was named to lead the transition, not Timmons). The following day the Democratic National Committee picked up the story about the lobbyist, transition, and Freddie Mac. On September 14 the Barack Obama campaign issued a public memorandum “Lobbyist-Run White House” which grossly corrupted Scherer’s story. On September 17 the Obama campaign ran a 30-second television advertisement with the same charges. Jonathan Salant of Bloomberg.com had an article on September 23 claiming Timmons was planning the McCain transition and again linked him to Freddie Mac. Mr. Salant admitted that the campaign wouldn’t confirm Timmons’ role, however. Murray Waas then wrote in the Huffington Post of October 14 “McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort.”

Waas, a freelance online journalist, stated that Timmons told authorities that he was unaware of particular activities, and “investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim.” The implication is that Timmons was aware but the government just couldn’t prove it. Regarding illegal profit from oil-for-food contracts Mr. Waas wrote, “in which Timmons was not involved.” Federal prosecutors, FBI, and United Nations investigators certainly would have charged Mr. Timmons with violations if there was any hint of illegality. But there was none! Perhaps the most telling argument for any objective observer is that neither the prosecutors or defendants called Timmons to testify in either one of the two trials or even required him to give depositions. It also is instructive that no mainstream media mentioned Timmons in their coverage of the trials.

Reliable source concerns aside, the free encyclopedia’s guidance is that biographies of living persons “must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject’s privacy…it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives” and “Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used.”

So Wikipedia editors should ask themselves what is the purpose of the Huffington Post article alleging illegal activities almost fifteen years ago? Is it a neutral point of view and does it meet standards of verifiability? Is it contentious material and poorly sourced? What is the motive of those who continue to insist that false information be included in the biography? In short, does it deserve to be in a personal biography? I suggest this entry does not come close to meeting the standards of Wikipedia, defames a living person, and therefore should be removed.

References (1)“McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam in Lobbying Effort (2)McCain taps Lobbyist for Transition (3)White House (4)Transition Head Lobbied for Freddie Mac Before Takeover

Rtally3 (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Poorly sourced accusation vs. Yasmin Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown alleges certain inflammatory comments allegedly made by Ms. Ablibhai-Brown to Mr. Gabb, using as a source a (edited??) download of a BBC article on Gabb's organizations web site. The second paragraph is critical comments by Gabb about her which are published only on Gabb's group's website. I opined on poor referencing when I put in a tag, but I do have a bit of a conflict of interest being a libertarian who has edited their wikipedia article, so I may be a tad less reluctant to just delete whole section per BLP as I would be in other cases, not to mention get in a debate about it. If someone else could take a look and appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it - if it's an notable incident in her life, RS would have reported on it, so someone can provide it. As for the Libertarian alliance - reads more like a neo-nazi site and doesn't seem to be a RS. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Though your comment does sound like you went a little to other extreme of POV; we have to be careful what we say about subjects of articles as well as other editors, for civility and legal reasons. That said, a lot of libertarians do get exercised about the state imposing any kind of view, speech or behavior on them, but the way they express it, rationally or bigoted sounding, is the nub.  And that entry certainly was questionable to me.  I haven't studied their site to see if they really are more libertarian neocons than real libertarians. (Hmm, probably could get sued for saying that too :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's back, with a different anonymous IP putting it back. It would be helpful if others opine, including on the talk page, about this. Reading it again it does look like he was trying to incite her, instead of having a rational discussion, so that makes their web site comments being included on the page particularly obnoxious; but I said they can always bring it to WP:RS/noticeboard.  Talk:Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't mess around with BLP articles - if they can't provide a reliable source, it's not going in - it's that simple, as you rightly point out, we have no way of knowing if and how that tape was edited (it could be entirely true but we don't care about "truth" we care about verification) Remove on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman Polanski
1 editor feels strongly that the lead sentence needs to end in "film producer, and convicted child rapist." rather than simply at "film producer." Another has decided to restore the content as well.

I fear this is excessive, as this important event is covered both in the lead-in and the body, but I am in NO WAY an expert on BLP... but I fear them. I would like much more knowledgeable editors to give the addition a look over. I would also appreciate any feedback on this submission. I learn.

I "have no dog in this fight", only a concern, and thank whoever looks this over for their work.sinneed (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is being dealt with. It would be completely inappropriate to have "convicted rapist" in the first sentence of the lede, not least because its factually inaccurate. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The main proponent of the change is on 24 hour edit vacation.  I am hopeful the editor can take a step back and either see the consensus against, or change the consensus.sinneed (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cornelius Plantinga


Allegations of sex discrimination by a disgruntled former employee are being repeatedly added to this article and/or its accompanying Talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornelius_Plantinga&diff=261130575&oldid=261003727

At BLP it says "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The accusations are clearly intended to damage the reputation of Plantinga. These have been posted by two usernames: Hungaryson and Katharineamy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.148.55 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina


This is by no means the most serious violation of WP:BLP or of the spirit of WP:3RR. However, the persistent disruptive attempts by a single IP editor to insert a piece of unsourced information into the article, while ignoring requests, whether in the edit summary, or in the talk page of the said user, was annoying to start with, but is beginning to get tiring. Any suggestions would be welcome on what can be done about this... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It look like your back and forth with the IP has been going on for at least a month. Jossi's 16 December 2008 protection seems to have had an impact on the problem while the protection lasted. Once the anon disruption protection expired on 21 December, the same games were started again. Since Jossi's now is retired, perhaps post at Requests for page protection. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect the reason why there is not more vicious warring is that we are operating from different time zones. I just wake up to find my changes have been reverted, click undo; the IP user does the same when xhe wakes up. As the disruption is coming from a single IP, would it not be more focussed to target that address? The offending IP address seems to be static, so a permanent block may do the trick. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions
The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

name as per birth certificate
On the above article, I wish to include his original name - it is correctly cited - it is not OR, it is to me the same as including a maiden name for a married woman, or including an original name for a celebrity who uses a stage name. Are there any issues for using the original name in the lead (seeing that most wikipedia articles do so)

oh and as the president of south korea, he is a highly notable individual with information such as this being far from hidden from the public view

똥침 Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * People who don't speak Korean will have no way of verifying that the source given is sufficient, but it doesn't seem to be a BLP issue on the face of things. Perhaps you want RSN? How/why did his name change, if you don't mind explaining? <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * omits a lot of his own behaviors. Talk:Lee Myung-bak has more info on this. Thanks.--Caspian blue 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I used an online translator which was enough to verify the name (the name was already in the article with a citation and had been for a while - I just put it where it should be - in the lead) despite the source being in Korean, the name was not in Korean.


 * He was born in Japan, had a Japanese name/birth certificate.


 * To be honest, I get the feeling that there might be some political reasons for editors not wanting to have his (Japanese) name in the lead, seeing as he is the president of South Korea - just the same as some Japanese editors might love to see his Japanese name in the lead - I just see it as the obvious choice, even when ignoring all political motivations.


 * Also in response to Caspian Blue, I don't really see him only using the name for 3 years to be grounds for not using it, it is not as if the use of the name is in dispute, or as if there are any privacy issues with the usage カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like this is something where there ought to be a Manual of Style determination - whether and how to use the Japanese name of a Korean citizen born in Japan, if its a common occurrence with a political background. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks melonbarmonster, I agree this was never a BLP issue - I think one editor just used BLP as a reason to revert. That was the only reason I put this here, I could not see any BLP issues, but when an editor is whining about my edit and screaming BLP, it seems sensible to cover all bases. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a BLP issue provided the 'birth name' is adequetly sourced. If it is not, then yes, it is a BLP issue. We shouldn't be adding alleged birth names of people which are not already widespread. And yes, this applies even if that name is probably correct. This is the same as the perennial issue that comes up a lot particularly with porn stars. In this case, I think it's even more clear cut. This guy is the goddamn President of a South Korea for heavensakes. If his birth name can't be sourced to a dozen reliable sources (Korean or not doesn't matter although you would assume there are some English sources) it seems highly unlikely the birth name is of any relevance or interest. If it's not sourced to a reliable secondary source at all, then it most definitely is a BLP concern and should be removed ASAP. In other words, if the only source is a primary source like a birth certificate then yes it's a most definite BLP issue. Editors may be interested in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns where this was discussed extensively Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a BLP issue. Of course, Lee_Myung-bak was born in Japan, and the Japanese authorities issued a birth certificate with a Japanese name written in it. This is stated in his autobiography and at the beginning of the article. The BLP problem, as I see it, is an WP:UNDUE weight that edits of Sennen Goroshi place on this fact. There is no evidence that Lee_Myung-bak has been ever known as Akihiro Tsukiyama. By not ever known I mean that nobody has ever called him by his Japanese name. I am pretty sure that in his Korean family he has always been known as Lee_Myung-bak. Continuous addition of phrases like known as Akihiro Tsukiyama or formerly Akihiro Tsukiyama into the lead by Sennen Goroshi misleads readers, and places an undue weight to this minor fact from Lee_Myung-bak's biography. Ruslik (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really a BLP issue but, I agree it is an UNDUE issue in the lede. There's no reason to include it there; it's appropriately included in the Early Life section of the article, where it's relevant. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SG seems to have been blocked regarding this issue and does seem to be pretty aggressive. As I understand the BLP issue, it has to do with Japanese nationalism/colonialism and the forced use of Japanese names on non-Japanese.  I can see where including this in the article would be considered a type of humiliation of the subject, and thus a real BLP issue.  Smallbones (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Eric Wone


I've put a speedy deletion tag on this article, but I'd like second opinions. This article is one huge BLP violation, by listing several people who have not been charged with a crime, and for writing an article which violates WP:BLP1E. If he wasn't notable before his death, and just being general counsel for Radio Free Asia doesn't seem to make that notability standard, then he isn't notable after his death. <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This murder is the topic of numerous articles in the Washington Post and DC Blade. Every article and news broadcast on the topic mentions not only Wone, but the three housemates Price, Ward and Zaborsky. As the Washington post article states "The document was filed to support the obstruction-of-justice charge filed against Dylan Ward, one of the housemates who have drawn much scrutiny from police" The three have been charged and arrested for obstruction of justice, and are the subject of a civil lawsuit by the man's surviving wife. The article does not include any information not already published by notable news sources. The Vincent Chin case is another notable civil rights case even if the person would not have been notable before the incident. Bachcell (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is likely to be deleted at AfD if it cannot be significantly improved. Much more information needs to be included about the subject, if it can be found, in order to survive a deletion discussion. On the other hand, it is not a CSD candidate. The BLP issues should probably be dealt with by removing the other names, although they will still be available via the given references. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should the names be removed? They're covered in major media, as Bachcell pointed out above. If the Washington Post is not a reliable source for negative BLP information, what is? Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with the sourcing, really. Not all well sourced negative information about even the subject of the article belongs in the article itself, and in this case BLP applies to people other than the subject. The object of BLP1E is to prevent damning people for a single bad event, particularly when it relates to criminal complaints that have not been concluded. That applies to tangentially related people as much as it does article subjects. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 01:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So other than renaming the article to Murder of Robert Eric Wone I'm not seeing anything in WP:BLP1E that would discourage linking the names of defendants to the case, nor from naming them in the case's article. I'm welcome to admit I'm missing something... show me! :-)  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm not explaining it very well, I'd like to see some other people weigh in on it. My point is that linking them to the murder in the way we do, and including their names, risks doing them unnecessary harm. Naming them is not crucial to the article, they haven't been convicted of anything, and even though reliable sources choose to name them we have our own set of policies that govern negative / potentially damaging information about living people. (Realise that sounds argumentative, perhaps I'm a bit too tired to be debating this...). What I try to do on BLPs is balance the usefulness of given information with the likelihood that the subject will be harmed by including it. In this case, including the names with the text we have is highly suggestive of their involvement in the murder. If they were convicted, certainly we'd include their names - but in this case, only one has been charged with anything and it is simply obstruction of justice (and that guy was far away at the time). Given all of that, it makes more sense to me to leave their names out until events progress. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 02:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, all three were charged with obstruction of justice, one was extradited from Florida, and they are all the subject of a civil lawsuit from Mrs. Wone. I'd generally draw the line at indictment or charges being filed. I agree that we should be clear that they've only been charged with obstruction, and if they'd merely been arrested and released the case for excluding their names would be much stronger.  Using the "do no harm" standard, I don't see how Wikipedia can possibly harm the reputations of these three defendents by truthfully recording what RS's have reported: The Washington Post all but calls them murder suspects. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Media Coverage
It's pretty clear to me after looking at this, that it's receiving substantial RS coverage: That's all in addition to what's in the article currently. I don't normally go to "attack pages for speedy deletion" looking to get involved in an article rescue, but it's become clear to me that this is reasonably well sourced already, including the defendants' names, and has received significant RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gay defendants blast officials in Wone case
 * Robert Wone Case: Two Possible Gaps in Police Work
 * New Charges Filed in Death of D.C. Attorney
 * Break in D.C. Lawyer Murder Case
 * It's still a WP:BLP1E violation. He wasn't notable before he died, his manner of death is not notable, either.  <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  08:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the article for deletion. <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  08:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the specific BLP violation you're alleging? If it's that Wone himself wasn't particularly notable before his murder, fine. I've already agreed that the article should be renamed to "murder of..." because the murder and its aftermath is most certainly notable.  That is, it passes the WP:GNG as having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the men arrested and charged with crimes in connection with his murder shouldn't have redirects pointing to the article and/or shouldn't be named in the article, that's a separate issue and about the only one which might have some merit. Jclemens (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that Wone was not notable prior to his death, his death itself is not notable, and the other people involved are not notable, and the use of their names in this article is an egregious BLP violation. <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1) Could you please explain how an event which has received coverage in multiple articles in the Washington Post, Washington Blade, Asian Week, Richmond Times Dispatch, and Washington City Paper is somehow not notable? (note: there's more RS coverage beyond that--that's just the print sources which are currently referenced in the article) 2) Please provide some current documentation (policy, guideline, or even essay) from en.wikipedia that supports your contention that including the names of people (when those names appear in multiple reliable sources, as these do) charged with multiple crimes in connection with a notable event is a BLP violation at all, let alone an "egregious BLP violation". Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1- Could you please explain how an event which has received coverage in multiple articles in the Washington Post, Washington Blade, Asian Week, Richmond Times Dispatch, and Washington City Paper is somehow not notable? - murders always make it into the local papers. That doesn't mean there should be an article on every murder that gets reported on.  2- The fact that this is not a notable event, as I have indicated, explains my answer to your second question.  <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's been reported nationwide by multiple outlets. Since your argument entirely rests on your spurious and unsupportable notions of the event's notability, there remain no unique BLP issues: If it's notable, it's not a BLP issue, and if it's non-notable, it is. I'm marking this thread resolved, we can continue to discuss at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, it's not acceptable for a person with an axe to grind in the discussion to close it as resolved. <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's someone with an axe to grind here, it's certainly not me, and that's not a particularly civil thing to imply--AGF warning posted to your talk page. Two key facts demonstrate this thread should be marked resolved: 1) you have not chosen to cite a particular policy, guideline, or essay aside from general notability concerns which can be addressed in the AfD which support your assertion that the inclusion of reliably-sourced names of persons charged with a crime is a BLP issue.  If there's nothing but notability to discuss, then this BLP/N thread is WP:FORUMSHOPping. 2) No other editor has recently weighed in saying that they believe your position deserves further consideration.  The only other editor who thought your position might have merit hasn't commented in 40 hours, during which time the article has expanded by 10k characters and 15 RS references.  For both those reasons, this discussion is pointless and fruitless, and should be closed in favor of the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

More data points:
 * Googling for "joseph price" "robert wone" yields 762 hits, all of the first page's hits reference this event.
 * Google NEWS search for the same string yields 15 hits.
 * Google NEWS search for "joe price" "robert wone" yields 7 more hits.
 * Google web search for the above string yeilds 335 hits.
 * Google web search for the above string plus "arent fox" (Price's employer) yields 179 hits.

Thus, it's abundantly clear that Price's name, and even his employer's name has been dragged through the mud already, by virtue of being the owner and resident of the house where Wone was found murdered, and over the last 2-3 months as he's faced criminal charges and a civil lawsuit in the matter. In all fairness, a small number of these hits are primarily in relation to a later burglary at the same residence, which bring up the murder. If that's not a clear case of an event which has traveled beyond the borders of WP:BLP1E, I'm not sure what is. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do have an axe to grind here, as do you, which is why I wouldn't even think of closing the discussion. Especially since you actually told me on my Talk page to come here to discuss this, and then you immediately attempt to close the discussion.  <font family="Arial"> Little Red Riding Hood  talk  07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability has never been my chief complaint, and although I think this particular article is perhaps not going to stick around for the long haul I have no quarrel with it remaining today. I would prefer that the names of the three men be excluded from the article, for reasons I've explained above. While the article has certainly gained an enormous amount of detail, due to the industrious efforts of Jclemens, the issue relative to including the names of murder suspects has not changed.


 * I'm hopeful that we can get one or two more people involved in discussing this issue. If none happen by, I'll ping some people over the weekend. The subject of this thread is separate from the issues being examined in the AfD, and I don't think we need to be hasty about closing this. Threads on BLP/N are archived when they become inactive, and more aggressive attempts to close things down are generally unnecessary. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Should add this: If it turns out that Eric Holder is in fact the attorney for Wone's widow, and he is appointed attorney general in a couple of weeks, that could make the whole issue a bit more high profile. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for revisiting this. Two points: first, the three housemates are not murder suspects at this point, and I have gone to some lengths to mirror the RS' careful efforts to avoid naming them as such.  All they are accused of at this point is obstruction and conspiracy, with a hint that evidence tampering charges will be forthcoming.  Mrs. Wone's wrongful death suit doesn't accuse them of murdering Wone, either, but of simply failure to render appropriate aid (of course, that's a layman's summary of a journalist's take on a lawsuit).  Secondly, Holder's involvement is sourced to multiple different RS over multiple years--Google "holder wone murder" for a smattering beyond what's in the article.  I agree that that's a rather interesting twist to the case, and I used that as the DYK hook for the article.
 * One final question, however... can you point me to any policy, guideline, or essay discouraging the use of RS'ed names of criminally charged defendants in a notable case? Prior relevant precedent from discussions on this board would be great, too. Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the article is (ostensibly) about Robert Wone. BLP applies to naming the accused in this article, mostly because they haven't been convicted yet. Secondly, the article, it turns out, isn't about Wode; it's about the criminal charges against the accused, and the lawsuit filed by the victim's family.
 * Can you please point me to a policy, guideline, essay, or normative discussion from this board or elsewhere, which discourages Wikipedia repeated the reliably-sourced names of those indicted for a crime in relation to a notable event? I've yet to have anyone explain this to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be able to rewrite and rename the article to be primarily about the murder, but then it'd still need some edits for BLP (namely focusing on the accused, who are not convicted). I really think this is another flash-in-the-pan news filler that won't prove to be notable in a week, though. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Griffin


There are a lot of people inserting references that Griffin made a profane remark on television (example). Right now the text of the remark is in the lead of the article. I'm not sure the incident is notable enough to be included at all. Kelly hi! 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tanthalas39 changed the protection level at 17:14, 2 January 2009, which expires 2 February 2009. Griffin using that profane remark on TV doesn't seem to be a major detail and doesn't seem to be needed to place the subject in context. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Horrible privacy violation, oversight or other action needed on Ona Zee
There has been an unsourced claim in this article identifying the subject as a realtor of similar name/appearance. It was originally added by an SPA. The account's only edit. The edit included a link giving the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc. A few weeks ago, User:Epbr123 changed the article to make the privacy violating information more prominent and the workplace link more conspicuous. Although he did remove other unsourced statements. The named realtor whether or not she is this porn star has no notability as a realtor. There is no justification for including personal information like this. Either the bad edits should be oversighted or the article should be deleted and recreated to make this violation inaccessible. I deleted the info and link but it still sits in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I must be missing something here. Maybe the history has already been deleted?  All I know is that I can't find anything about a realtor anywhere and that User:Epbr123 is a pretty good editor.  There was some very direct material that I'd guess is standard for porn stars.  Does  Wilhelmina modeling agency have anything to do with this.  "the subject's (supposedly) current workplace address, workplace phone, cell phone, etc." should of course be removed, but I can't find that material anywhere.  If somebody sent this info into the ultimate deletion bin, please let us know here. In short, please explain this a bit better.  Smallbones (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, the talk page now explains a bit more, and watch out for the 1 year gap if you are trying to figure out dates. Note that the escort service stuff is still linked to in one of the "porn industry" links.  How do you judge reliable sources in this industry?  Also when somebody formerly xed on film for a living, is it really that big of a mistake to say that she xes for $'s now?  I'll leave this for others.  Smallbones (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Epbr123 used AWB to clean up the article on 27 December 2007. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz appears to have removed any offending info on 2 January 2009. Lucasbfr protected the article on 3 January 2009. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez


Biography on Jennifer Lopez is well written except for the fact that she comes from an area in the Bronx, Castle Hill area considered to be a middle class neighborhood for most Puerto Ricans. Castle Hill area is NOT considered the "South Bronx." I know that to be true because I come from the South Bronx myself. Therefore, Jennifer Lopez did NOT come from the South Bronx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickylizf (talk • contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is more of an issue for the article talk page. In any event, Google books seems to have sources related to Jennifer Lopez and South Bronx. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

James David Manning
He is a clergyman in New York who is said to have called Oprah Winfrey a "Babylonian whore." People who know at least a little about the New Testament will understand that he was refering to the Whore of Babylon, not a literal whore, not Babylonian, and probably not even a woman. I don't know how to deal with this BLP-wise, especially since the source seemed to have not understood what he was talking about. (Note: Calling someone the Whore of Babylon is probably protected religious speech. Calling someone a whore could be slander.) Steve Dufour (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the wording of the sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries here; although Whore of Babylon should be used disquotationally as it's not the phrase Manning used. Skomorokh  18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect. Changing the wording is, strictly speaking, original research by me. But clearly the source made a mistake which seems like a BLP problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dame Ruth Runciman
This biography needs attention. I would gladly fix it if I knew what it was trying to express, but the grammar is so mangled that I do not understand it. Also, at least one fact is woefully out of date (chairmanship of an organisation). I have corrected that, but suspect other facts may similarly need correction MMGarth (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave it a copyedit, but I don't think there is too muh to worry about from a WP:BLP perspective as there is no negative info in the article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Skomorokh  20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss Tourism World


There's a long-running edit war over accusations of living people committing crimes that has been just under the boil in this article since September 2008. More eyes are needed. Let's proactively head off the otherwise inevitable OTRS complaints. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised the article with nineteen references. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  23:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it was reverted and now more BLP issues are being inserted into the article along with the prior problems. If someone is looking to protect the page, this is a decent version lacking BLP issues. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Repeated posting of Defamatory Material


Gentlemen:

An individual named Robert Boser, who purports to be an editor of Wikipedia, has posted, and continues to re-post, clearly defamatory material on the biography of John J. Nance, who, I can assure you, is very much alive. I am preparing for legal action against this individual but need Wikipedia's assistance in immediately halting the use of Wikipedia as the "publication" medium under the law. Please contact me at as soon as possible.

John J. Nance —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNCOM (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See ANI. Skomorokh  02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: has been blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT following the discussion at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to legal threats by, could someone more familiar with the WP:BLP requirements take a look at the John J. Nance article, and help ensure that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for BLP articles? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No problems now. I really think it was a mistake to block him. He was not trying to be an editor, but just send us a message. He was a bit heavy-handed it's true. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think JJNCOM should be blocked here. See Don't overlook legal threats.  It's biting a newby, who has a BLP case.  I don't see where it was stated that JJN was dead, but if this was indeed the case, it was a BLP violation.  Please let JJNCOM state his case.
 * That said he could be a bit more polite in his statements, but do also please remember that for an outsider coming into Wikipedia for the first time, the rules and procedures can be quite daunting. (edit conflict with the above - but same message) Smallbones (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case, it was different than Don't overlook legal threats in a key respect: the disputed content was not in the article and was not being re-added to the article. Neither the original editor nor anyone else re-inserted the content to the article after it was removed.  It was the talk page, where JJNCOM's edits removed the attempts to discuss the content, and his repeated legal threats to sue anyone who restored the discussion on the talk page was clearly intended to prevent further discussion of it.  Should JJNCOM request to be unblocked, I would recommend to any reviewing admins that they permit it with the one restriction that he not blank discussions and not continue legal threats.  I understand that Wikipedia can be daunting to newcomers; but he chose to ignore all attempts at discussion in this case - at the very least, a short term block was needed so that a discussion could proceed.
 * Once JJNCOM was blocked, so that conversation could take place, I replied to the posted discussion that I agree with the removal of the disputed content from the article, as it was effectively original research and lacked reliable sources, so had no business being in a BLP article.
 * I hadn't seen until now the comments that had been added by to the talk page.  I agree that those comments should not have been removed - it appears on ANI that they were considered a meat/sockpuppet writing an essay; but it appears to me to be a non-legal threat reply to the disputed content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the comments by "Nobelhouse5" (which appears to be more comments by John Nance, using a different handle) should be restored to the talk page. I think his opinions should be displayed equally with mine, or any others who desire to discuss the issue.  EditorASC (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding removal of portions which violates BLP
The sources mentioned here are website news and only say that Rajmohan Pillai was convicted by a Special CBI Court. According to the law in India, he was eligible to appeal to a Superior_court and had done it already. This information was not available in the websites shown as references 3 including former bank official get jail but was present on the print editions of regional newspapers Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhoomi dated 12 December 2008. So at this point of time, we cannot conclude him as convicted as the case is still under consideration of a Superior_court. Doing so will be a violation of Biographies of living persons and also will be a personal harassment to Mr. Pillai. Request you to remove the defamatory portion from the page as early as possible. Please take a look at the diff in versions --Z16bsr2 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that's wrong and there is no BLP issue - once convicted, his status is that of a criminal until cleared by a higher court or some other means - he *has* been convicted. As long as we are simply reporting the facts, and those appear in a reliable source, there is no BLP issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a statement that he has appealed, relying on sources indicated above by Z16bsr2. This seems to be sufficient. I will hold off from adding the article to . - Fayenatic (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has enough other text so that the article is not "The conviction of Rajmohan Pillai." The statement that he has appealed seems sufficient. The article could use some more bio info between his birth and when he became a author. The matter doesn't seem to require outside intervention. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)