Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive59

Aryan Guard
The Aryan Guard is a neo-Nazi group, so it's particularly important not associate anybody with the group, without reliable sources to back up the claim. In this this edit a user labelled a picture with the caption "Members of the Aryan Guard at an anti-Israel rally on January 10, 2009.". The problem is most people, including the person at the front, were not members of the group. They were marching in a common protest, but weren't members. The intent of the editor is to make all protesters appear to be Nazis or friends of Nazis. --Rob (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the image and the caption as being an unverified and unverifiable negative allegation contrary to WP:BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm opposing your action, but how does WP:BLP apply to the Aryan Guard? Does it apply to corporations, groups and other group entities as well? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bradley Schlozman
We are having a bit of discussion about this article concerning its political neutrality. I've started to have enough concerns about the article that I thought I would bring it to attention here. In addition to concerns about the political spin of some of the recent edits, with a revert war lurking in the wings, I'm concerned about the overall political neutrality of the article. By most accounts, Schlotzman's behavior at the U.S. Department of Justice was outrageous - how exactly do we go about discussing that while retaining NPOV? Perhaps we might have an objective look at the situation by disinterested editors. (I find myself contemplating the amazing Conservapedia and the fluidity of truth.) Bdushaw (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We've reached a suitably ludicrous phase with the article; I will stand aside. I've concluded that  is a single purpose account with an agenda for this article.   Bdushaw (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott
There is a lot of history to this one, which needs careful attention for a full understanding of what's now taking place. Way back when, the article was slowly but surely inflated and degraded with an unduly large "criticism" section, most of which was poorly sourced and negatively biased. I joined Wikipedia last month to help put things right, declaring a personal interest in the subject and my intention to help bring the article back into line with Wikipedia standards, instead of it looking like a "debunking" as one editor had said of the huge criticism section. There was one editor in particular who kept soapboxing his own original research and poorly sourced/unsourced negative criticism of the subject on both the talk page and his own and at least one other editor's talk page. I took my initial concern to WP:3O but to no avail, since which another editor has also joined the first in attempting to negatively bias the article and several talk pages with blatant misuse of such spaces.

There is no doubt that Talbott's ideas are contentious, however they deserve nothing more than accurate portrayal in his biography. Being acutely aware of my own potential COI I have not tried to paint a "rosy picture" of him, but it is not Wikipedia's place to take the place of Usenet groups and forums in debating the value or otherwise of his ideas, only to report that they exist, are notable, and have recieved a mixed reception amongst scholars.

My understaning of WP:BLP is that, in particular, poorly sourced or unsourced negative criticism has no place on either the article proper or indeed on the talk page thereof nor even on user talk pages. A short discussion about sources relating directly to the article is one thing, but long and derrogatory/defamatory diatribes are another beast entirely. There is a considerable amount of the latter existing both on the talk page and the user pages of several editors, some of which contains derrogatory/defamatory remarks not only about Talbott but also about other living persons. I have made attempts to point out various policies and guidelines to these editors but they totally disregard same and continue with their disruptive behavior. Once I had clear evidence of their COI issues I stated same to them, and both have denied any "particular" COI with the subject, though I have first-hand knowledge that this is not the case. Interestingly, neither of them accused me of not assuming good faith, a reaction one would expect from someone accused of a COI which they don't have.

Anyhow, I would like some advice on where to go from here, especially regarding the abuse of Wikipedia space as a forum or Usenet group. It is not only detracting from the formation of a well-worded encyclopedia article, but also bringing Wikipedia into disrepute should something not be done about the blatant abuse thereof. I have looked through the dispute resolution process, and as these editors are breaking nearly all of the rules, the BLPN seemed the only appropriate place to air my concerns. Davesmith au (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific about what you think in the article breaks our BLP policy. As for the talkpage, it's an interesting question -- is calling Talbott or Z Sitchin a crackpot, charges levied publicly against both many times, against our BLP rules for a talkpage? I honestly don't know but I'm sure both of them are inured to it. - disclosure, I've discussed Talbott myself many years ago and think he's wrong. Very wrong. And that criticism of him needs to be in the article. And I note that you've mentioned possible offline conversations with other editors who don't use their real names, please stop that as anything that might reveal an editor's real name is very much frowned upon and can lead to being blocked. dougweller (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply Dougweller, though not very helpful in the main. I have already specifically spelled out many of the breaches of BLP on the talk page to which I've referred (here for instance, and elsewhere), I don't think snotting up this page further will help.


 * "... And that criticism of him needs to be in the article." No, criticism published by reliable sources is OK both for the article and the talk page, however your own thoughts on his theory are irrelevant, as are those already expressed in bucketloads by a couple of other editors. This is a biography of a living person, not a forum for discussing his theory.


 * As to the "real names" or potential 'outing' issue, I'm well aware of the rules regarding same, and have no intention of revealing them. I will however continue to assert a COI until they both admit (or refute) same, and start acting accordingly.  On the forum where I had experience with ScienceApologist, he used the same pseudonym, and appeared happy to drag Wikipedia's name through the mud in the process.  As for Phaedrus7, the communications I speak of are not in the public domain, in that they are on private email lists where he seems quite proud of his abuse of Wikipedia to further his own apparent obsession with attempting to discredit Talbott.  As he has admitted direct communication with Talbott himself, on Wikipedia space, it's hardly a problem to direct people to it to show evidence of his COI. Davesmith au (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a persecution complex and paranoia to me. My advice is to ignore and make sure he doesn't do too much damage to article space. I said as much at WP:FTN. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with SA's advice about what to do here. DGG (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

2009 Enten investor fraud
I moved this artice to the 2009 Enten scandal for BLP reasons, but another user moved it back claiming that "fraud" was NPOV. I'm not getting into an edit war, so someone else should assess. Someone has been arrested, but no one has been convicted, so it seems that scandal is all we can say, rather than asserting as the title and article do that there was a "fraud". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fraud is not NPOV. Article moved to Enten currency investigation. Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good move. Scandal is so clichéd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Not wedded to "scandal", but just couldn't stand "fraud" or "allegations...". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seemed the most logical title at the moment. Enten is a (supposed) currency and there is a current investigation. When it's all resolved we can look at moving it to another title if required. Exxolon (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Levance Fields
Immediately after the lock expired on the article for Levance Fields, the same anonymous account returned to vandalize the article. I think that the lock should be re-implemented to curb this vandalism, perhaps this person will eventually forget. Infamousjre (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MZMcBride/BLPs
If anybody is bored, it would really nice if somebody took a look at this list and cleaned up some of the unsourced info in it. Please mark the completed entries. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Greg Ayres
Should the discussion there be removed under WP:BLP since all of the sources have since removed their reports from their websites? I've already removed the information from the article itself. --Farix (Talk) 02:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aarni Neuvonen
I wrote an article of Aarni Neuvonen, a large-scale fraudster who disappeared and is declared legally dead, but who may still be in fact alive. Does WP:BLP apply in such cases? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that being declared dead by Estonia makes him a pretty poor candidate for BLP. Most of the restrictions on BLPs are for legal and ethical reasons (harming someone's reputation) - if the state says he's dead - well, it's not for us to question it, is it? Just my opinion, though.


 * I'm not sure how you should word the post-mortem sightings, though. You might want to refer to CAMERA articles to see how to use weasel words and twist facts to make it sound plausible. They're a gold mine of examples, if you need to research that style of writing. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The procedure of declaring a person dead due to disappearance is not an easy or brief one in Estonia. According to Tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus (translated roughly as Law of Main Part of the Civil Code) §19, a person must have been missing for five years before a court can declare him dead; in case of Neuvonen, the earliest such time would have been in 1998.   All of the sightings listed in the article predate that time by several years; they are clearly not post-mortem sightings. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:F. William Engdahl
I need an outside opinion to help cool things down at Talk:F. William Engdahl. Another editor has accused me of censorship while making unsourced claims that the subject is "A unique example of the highest level of economic reporting". I have not found good sources for this article in the past, and had to clean out a lot of cruft. NJGW (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time convincing this guy about wp:5p. Could somebody lend a hand.  NJGW (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouter Basson
The BLP of Wouter Basson has been prodded with reason "Virtually unreferenced biography of a living person with very serious allegations listed". The allegations are indeed rather horrendous, as far as I see, Basson has not been condemned for any crime, so perhaps he should be judged innocent unless proven guilty? On the other hand, there are some sources and given the high profile of the case in South Africa, I do not doubt that more sources detailing these allegations can be found. As I have absolutely no expertise in this kind of cases, I thought I should bring it here and would appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable would have a look at this article and either delete it (or parts of it) as BLP violation or deprod and source it. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added some sources, but the article still needs clean up. Much more can be found here and here.  NJGW (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino


An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

This is cross-posted at WP:COIN & WP:NPOVN; please respond at WP:NPOVN to avoid WP:MULTI. THF (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Shawn Feinstein
I have made a couple of reports about this over the past year, but I don't know how to find those old ones, so here goes again.

Alan Shawn Feinstein is repeatedly editing his bio to insert puffery and remove unfavorable material. You can see this by looking at the history of edits by 70.184.13.225. The url below shows that this is Feinstein himself http://webmail.warwickschools.org/Public%20Announcements/FAV1-00016C5B/I00676BD4?ShowInternetHeader=1

Really, can't this be prevented? There are better uses for everyone's time than to keep monitoring and correcting his stuff.

This fellow made a bundle selling "collectibles" of somewhat dubious value, gives money to places with the provision that his name or family members name be prominently attached, runs commercials on local RI television lauding himself for doing so. Often the amounts of money are tiny. For example, a local animal shelter had a notice that he would match a portion of contributions for a month or so, and it turned out the match was like 1% or something. He's been in at least two significant controversies about his self promotion.

"Trudyjh (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)"


 * Agreed. And a SPA account has appeared to try keeping the article puffed up. Unfortunately I can not use "personal knowledge" about some of his philatelic "investments" as I was a stamp dealer for a long time. Collect (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank Trainor

 * - This has been blanked a number of times by, the original author, with edit summaries indicating they may also be the subject of the article, apparently with the aim of seeking deletion. Intervening IP edits and the article's tenure make it difficult to see this as a G7 speedy deletion, and there's at least an assertion of notability, if little sourcing.  I thought I'd ask for input on whether this should or could be deleted if the subject so desires. – The Parting Glass 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it probably could have been deleted before you posted here. The only edit of significance before that time by anyone other than the original author was this one.  On the other hand, while the page is completely unsourced, it does appear to be the sort of person on whom we would like to have an encyclopedic article if we can, but don't have to have one.  I'd say that if sources don't appear soon, send it to AFD.  GRBerry 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vehicular Homicide
A slew of IPs are continually adding a list of living people supposedly convicted of this crime to this article. While I object to the whole list as trivial to the law and possibly a BLP problem even if they people really were convicted, 2 of the names they keep restoring weren't even convicted of this particular crime. They don't seem to care about my objection though. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely trivia unless someone manages to make a full encyclopedic list . Collect (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems resolved for now, but the IP(s) do continually come back over time. --Movingday29 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Privacy violating images
I am not sure this is the right place to discuss this but I do not know a better one. There are four images used in connection with strip tease related articles which show an apparently identifiable naked female dancer. The photos were apparently taken in a private setting (looks like a private party). There is no claim of a "model release" or anything similar from the person pictured indicating that publication has been authorized. The pictures came from flickr and while a person claiming to be the photographer gave permission, that cannot be verified. I believe use of such pictures, without any sign of permission, violates the subject's privacy. And it could expose the Wikipedia to liability. I believe the pictures should be removed. Summarily. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * These are from Commons. Shouldn't this be addressed at source? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunil Abeyesundere
I was one of many victims of a grand theft of $400,000 committed by this person. I occasionally Google his name to see what he might be up to. I found this Wikipedia biography. I did not find in it any mention of his conviction, which is documented in the newspaper South Bay Daily Breeze in a series of 4 articles in 2001. I have attempted to add this to the biography, but it has been speedily deleted now three times (see this difference). A group of editors,, , , and have opposed this edit. The reasons given are that it violates biography of living persons policy. The main objections are that the edit is libelous, that I cite as sources newspaper articles that are not available for free, that the edit is sensational, that the Sunil A. of the Wikipedia article is not the Sunil A. of the newspaper stories, and that I am biased. I have answered all these objections in a long dialog on the various users' talk pages, but we are unable to achieve consensus. Am I, in fact, in violation of the BLP? Thanks for taking a look at this. Spottykitty (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The other editors are all socks. Maybe even the guy himself (even though I'm still not 100% sure you have the right guy, the messages they left on your talk page are very suspicious).  I nominated the article for speedy deletion because it does not assert notability.  NJGW (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative Info from poorly translated foreign sources
Per issue I raised on BLP:talk, the Verifiability policy reads: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages...Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. However the article about the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon uses two long, poorly google-translated articles to include negative opinions (also WP:UNDUE since English sources share same information). (2005 German book reading paragraph and Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism.) People who don't like Atzmon, including someone who insists on including his own barely WP:RS negative article comments about Atzmon, have refused to removed the material. Other opinions? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give us some difs that show which edits you are questioning? These's very little recent activity, and the issues you're talking about all seem to have taken place last week or before.  I also don't see the Swedish source you're talking about in currently in the refs.  NJGW (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The diffs are old ones that have been debated over several months, a few months back. Evidently someone found an English translation of the Swedish source. Here's the German refs: Untranslated German. I guess at the very least they should have the full translate.google translation of relevant material in the footnote? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Telerman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Telerman

"A possible reason for Telerman's defeat in 2007 is his alleged ties with the impeached Aníbal Ibarra."

This last paragraph is only a speculation and is not evidenced by any source. Please remove, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoldita (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been removed. --Tom 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirstie Allsopp and Phil Spencer
and

A new user,, is seeking to add a "controversy" section to this person's article. The gist is that Ms Allsopp makes her living on television property programmes and once, in 2004, she said in passing that she didn't think there would be a property price crash. Four and a half years pass and there has been. So that's a controversy, apparently. The only source for this "controversy" is a YouTube clip of her saying it. The new user and I are both at 3RR-level; they feel, it seems from their edit summaries, that WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE do not apply. Personally, this seems to me to be gossip rather than encyclopedic. I'd like other opinions. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gossip? Kirstie Allsopp has consistently been quoted as being very bullish about the property market, which is currently experiencing its biggest crash in history. Michael Fish's article mentions very prominently his "no hurricane" forecast - a single comment he made that technically was correct (the storms were not a hurricane) but all the same is given top billing on his page.

Kirstie Allsopp has made numerous bullish statements on a market that crashed soon afterwards. Several of these made after the credit crunch impacted.

They are surely relevant to a biography of a person who is in wikipedia on the basis of their status as a "property expert"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Panorama among others have mentioned Location Location Location as having contributed to the housing boom and bust. TonkyWonky (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it's relevant in the Micahel Fish article is that's it's mentioned everytime he's been interviewed in the press ever since. In the case of Allsopp, if there was really a controversy, there would likewise be plenty of third-party media coverage.  Taking a quote from an old interview and amking something of it is original research.  Additinoally the youtube link is almost certainly a copyright violation, and hence not acceptable as a reference in any case.  Find some relevant, verifiable media coverage of this controversy and fine, but you can't make up the controversy yourself.  David Underdown (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove nonsense and block editors for 3RR please! Redvers, you are right on about this. I am sorry some brits are taking it hard, but wiki bios are not the place for retaliation. If multiple reliable sources provide coverage of these folks and there is some resemblemce of balance in respect to the rest of their bio, then MAYBE take it to the talk page and reach consensus amoung a few other editors. If not, leave it out for now, please! Thank you, --Tom 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I added Phil Spencer to top of this, seems like both are getting hit. --Tom 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So an article by Kirstie herself?  "In recent weeks I've been described as a “property porn queen” in the New Statesman, sniped at on the pages of The Guardian and lambasted by Panorama for excessively inflating house prices. "

So the New Statesman, Guardian and Panorama have mentioned her in relation to her part in the bubble, such that she gets an article in the Times to deny the accusations? And its STILL not relevant. Blimey - do you have to murder someone to get a negative note in a wikipeda biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I came to this wikipedia article was for material, having seen many references to Kirstie fuelling the house price boom that caused many of the economic problems we now have. I was looking to get links to such sources - instead I found an article that could have come from the pages of Hello Magazine telling me about her blue blood, kids names and where she was born. Nothing about why she is being mentioned on Panorama, Times, Guardian, Newstatesman etc in relation to the housing slump - which is never far from the news these days. This is the biggest rolling story in the UK at present, Kirstie is often mentioned in relation to it, yet her wikipedia article has not a mention of why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think she actually writes fairly regularly in The Times on property, so it's not really true that the article was specifically to rebut those claims. Now you're actually finding some sources, it might be possible to work something into the article.  However, please read WP:NPOV which suggests that sections shouldn't be labelled in such away as to distort the neutrality of the article, or give undue weight to one aspect.  WP:SOFIXIT, sure the article's not the best, so improve it, but make sure you understand how the article writing process here works first.  Find the source, then add the material, not vice-versa.  David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whats the point in me editing it when someone will just undo it? I genuinely tried to add content to an article that was lacking it. If you read articles for other TV celebs who aren't as newsworthy they are full of trivia, see eg Richard and Judy articles. But those edits stood.

I tried to add something to explain why Kirstie is being requently mentioned in relation to the housing crash - so that a foreigner who did not know who she was would understand why she is being mentioned in Newstatesman, Guardian, Panorama etc in this light.

It appears that the majority of editors seem to want this particular wikipedia article to be more Hello Magazine - just reference to blue blood and kids names, and no mention of why Kirstie is frequently cited in relation to the housing boom. Which is fair enough I guess. But why not go to Hello Magazine website instead?

This article also doesn't mention she was appointed as an advisor to the conservative party either. I won't bother spending the time editing that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 "She and her co-presenters of property shows have been vilified for distorting the market and encouraging people to buy beyond their means.

No accusation could irritate the Tories' adviser on property more. "People had been asking me even before the sub-prime and credit crunch whether I felt I was responsible for the hike in property prices and first time buyers finding it hard to get on the ladder. Absolutely not," she says."

Many articles mention the allegations re the property boom. Shouldn't wikipedia at least MENTION them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What you originally added to the article wasn't an improvemnt, simply taking a comment she made in 2004 with no context and labelling it a controversy was in breach of a number of policies as we've tried to explain. However, if use some of the links you're subsequently found, there should be no problem.  David Underdown (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"if use some of the links you're subsequently found, there should be no problem"

I'm confident someone will have a problem with it. When I look through the history of this article people have tried to amend in this way in the past - and its always been deleted.

I just don't see the point of wikipedia. If I look up someone I don't just want to know where they are born, what their kids are called. I want to know who they are and why they are in the news.

Tell you want David, how about you update using these links - and we'll see how long it lasts? I know as soon as I edit it, it'll be deleted.

TonkyWonky (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 "Want ketchup with that? For Kirstie Allsopp, the TV property presenter who once promised to eat her hat if UK house prices crashed, yesterday’s data from Nationwide will make chewy reading."

Another reference to ignore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of points. Wikipedia is NOT the news. That doesn't mean it doesn't cover contraversey or include criticism. Look at the Bill O'Reilly article. See anything there? Also, just because there are poblems with other articles in not a reason to do so here. Its more about the endless maze of policies and guidelines that need to be aheard to. Also please note WP:3RR. This is used to avoid edit wars which are a big no no. It is probably best to enlist an experienced editor who could possible craft something into the article which covers the material you want included in a WP:NPOV way, that is also a biggie. Anyways, --Tom 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure Wikipedia is not the news. But Kirstie and Phil have been mentioned much in the news in relation to the housing crash. The article is incomplete if it excludes this. It excludes other facts, for example that Kirstie was appointed a housing advisor to the Tories (I'd have thought that merits a mention?) and perhaps more trivial things like her being in FHM's sexist women poll - which I'd say is still worthy of mention despite being a little trivial? At present a foreigner who read the FT, Times, Guardian etc would see her mentioned as she frequently is in relation to the housing crash, and have no background in wikipedia.

If you think an experienced editor could rewrite, then perhaps you can have a go? I'm not trying to put a spin on it or give it an angle - I have no axe to grind - I just find it staggering that the article reads like Hello Magazine rather than the wikipedia articles I've come to expect. As far as UK press coverage is concerned, Kirstie and Phil and their TV show have come to epitomize the housing crash in the same way Lastminute.com and Martha Lane Fox came to epitomize the dotcom crash. Wikipedia is incomplete without such references. The current article is pretty much what her PR company would turn out, except it doesn't include a nice photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another mention in the Telegraph  "Meanwhile, many fireside entrepreneurs, no doubt egged on by the kind of property porn programmes fronted by Kirstie Allsopp and her sister-in-crime, Sarah Beeny, are encouraged to put together a buy-to-let property portfolio.

Why not? Rent it out. Do it up and sell it for a profit. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, as thousands will find out when cheap mortgages run out next year, the days of the buy-to-let property deal as a one-way ticket to the pot at the end of the rainbow are well and truly over.

Can we blame it all on Kirstie Allsopp? Well, it would not be entirely fatuous to suggest that she, and others like her, have a case to answer. Allsopp, a genuinely kind person who has recently been co-opted by the Tory party to give advice on house-buying, does not specialise in the gritty reality of cheap housing rented out to even cheaper clients; those who have no intention of fulfilling their obligations as tenants.

Last year, she was still encouraging pundits to seek buy-to-let properties in Oxford, where a decent rabbit hutch costs a king's ransom. Financial troubles begin when tenants stop paying their rents and arrears mount up, which is the kind of dark side television pundits like to wash over with a tin of magnolia eggshell." TonkyWonky (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is a bona fide controversy about her earlier predictions regarding the housing market you should be able to justify it via significant mentions in multiple reliable third party secondary sources (i.e. a neutrally written news, scholarly, or analysis but not an editorial piece in a major publication that says that a controversy arose over her statements). If there is significant criticism then you should, similarly, be able to find such a publication (not the criticism itself) to verify that there is criticism.  Otherwise the sources are either non-existent (in which case it is a synthesis, personal opinion, or original research problem) or not reliable, and that makes the material unsuitable per BLP.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Obamawatch: Ronald Loui
Something fishy afoot here; text formatting indicates a copypaste, the creator's only contributions are to this article though it uses proper referencing in places. To the point: this is a poorly sourced BLP that needs attention from editors fluent in American politics/academia. Skomorokh 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tagged the page for its issues and started a discussion on the talk page. The article's creator  tried to fix it up and removed the tags, but it still falls short.  Ftohme61 is probably the subject himself.  More eyes would help.  NJGW (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Elkies, religion
Hi, we have a little issue with sourcing and relevance of an article subject's religion going on in Talk:Noam Elkies/Archive1. It's only in the talk page, not the main article (after a few reverted attempts to put it into the lede of the main article) but it's getting a little heated and I'd be tempted to wipe that whole section of the talk page if only I weren't so involved myself. Suggestions (other than the obvious, to back off and let someone else take over)? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And now he's branched out to an article about me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Hey, nothing to do with sourcing.  Eppstein seems convinced being Jewish is totally irrelevant, and I can't understand why.  It's simply an ethnicity, if there's a source...list it.  Big friggin deal.  Do we really need a 4 paragraph life history of a relative who died in the holocaust to justify the inclusion?  You are the one is obsessed, not me.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Mr. Eppstein has accused me of being racist. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be for removing that section from the talk page, maybe remove certain comments if they are considered WP:FORUM but I usually only like to do that for the really "blatant" stuff. I hate seeing ethnicity just "shuved" into articles ,ie the stand alone Joe Blow is Jewish, but most well written articles do cover it, usually in a family/early life section if sources are provided. Anyways, the editors above are also being talked about over at WP:ANI if interested. Cheers, --Tom 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with TDS BLP?
This is very slow but I don't generally go over 1RR so am not going to revert again. The youtube links may or may not be edited or geniune but several editors have explained that they are non-notable, and the same guy has added them 4 times in the last month to Zakir Naik and another four of five times before that. --BozMo talk 12:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office
has been adding information on living persons which is unsourced, sourced to primary sources and poorly sourced to secondary sources (depending on the living person)  at. JRSP (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)



I hate to have to make this report, but an editor is edit-warring to include his synthesis of primary sources about living people into this article. I've tried mentoring him, because I think he's correct that there are a number of unbalanced Venezuela-related articles; if he would just be more careful and conservative about his sourcing and his prose, he could make Wikipedia-compliant edits that provide much of the information he thinks is missing from the encyclopedia. But I'm apparently not a very good mentor. THF (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * additions comply with WP:RS (US DoJ, LA Times, BBC). Individuals cited are in the public record advocating for Chavez, and have been identified as such in sources.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Person featured in Flag desecration
Per Talk:Flag desecration an anonymous contributor claims to be the "guy in the picture" and wants the picture removed. Does BLP policy apply here and should we remove the picture? -- Barrylb (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think that if the person can be identified from the picture then yes, we should remove it if they object. Especially if they're depicted doing something that could potentially harm their reputation. It's kind of a legal gray area, we might not need the release under the letter of the law (a newspaper wouldn't, for example, if they were using the image for editorial purposes). But BLP generally defers to the wishes of the subject in borderline cases, I think. Oh yeah, it would help if they could authenticate it was them. Maybe they should contact OTRS. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Fortunately it seems we have found an acceptable solution by using a different image. Barrylb (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alok Nath
Personal life information about Alok nath is very controversial, and have never heard of. I am from India too. This kind of information harms Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.152.13.67 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to a version prior to an IP adding BLP violations as well as straight vandalism. Might not be a bad idea for a couple of people to add it to their watchlist in case the IP comes back.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Gabriel
In the section, early life:

"Gabriel was born in City of Bilal,, [[in tripura], In India.[1] His father, Ralph Parton Gabriel, was an electrical engineer, and his mother, Edith Irene Allen,[2] from a musical family, taught him to play the clarinet at an early age. He attended Cable House, a private preparatory school in Woking, Surrey, then Charterhouse School from 1963. The President Bilal Bajar proposed to Gabriel but Gabriel said no and Bilal Bajar raped him. Peter Gabriel then got aids. He then changed his name to The Rapist and raped millions of people. He denied every time he was charged. He blew up the police station. And He raped the dead bodies he was caught using a time machine then raping the circuit. He was arrested for life in 2010."

Aids? he was raped? the man, the Rapist was arrested for life in 2010???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaox (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, garden variety vandalism. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

conerns over recent domestic violence reports between Chris Brown and Rihanna
In a nutshell, I'm advocating any information regarding the domestic dispute be removed from both articles until the investigation is over, per WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOT. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an involved editor in regards to this particular part of the Rihanna article. My sole involvement has been noticing the section, rewording and sourcing the information. I don't believe that the small section that has been added to this article violates any Wikipedia policies, including all of the above mentioned. There was discussion on the talk page in regards to the information, and consensus indicated that it should be added. The information added is well-sourced, neutral and does not place undue weight in respect to the rest of the article. --Chasingsol(talk) 10:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to clarify, my objection is not based on the reliability of the sources or the tone of the section, but on the very limited information itself, as the case is three days old. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic has to be covered carefully, if at all. Wikipedia is certainly not news.  Per the RECENTISM page, I am not sure this incident will be notable in 10 days let alone 10 years.  It is, after all, celebrity tabloidism.  If it does become a long term legal issue (trial, etc), then clearly it should be covered.  But sourcing and actual language needs to be impeccable.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, except in the case of Chris Brown, it already appears to be having major impact on his career (advertising cancellations, shows featuring him taken out of circulation, etc). It's unknown that the impact will continue, but I think evidence is strong enough to keep a couple sentences on the incident in Chris Brown (entertainer) (not in Rihanna, though). -kotra (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, better keep the finger in the dike on this one. A brief reliable sourced factual mention is probably okay.  I've shortened the section accordingly in the Rihanna article.  As the victim, assuming she was not seriously hurt this is a lot more notable to the article about Chris Brown (entertainer) where, alas, the detailed use of contradictory sources and unproven criminal charges is also a BLP issue.  Whatever we do for now, sooner or later it will be yesterday's news instead of today's, so the articles will settle back down to an encyclopedic state.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Monica Conyers

 * — Could I ask a couple of people to add this to their watchlists? It doesn't get many edits, but most of the ones it gets are like this.  I protected it for a while, but that seems silly since the edits are so infrequent.  But currently I'm evidently the only one watching it, and I'm not around that much, so I'd be grateful for a couple more eyes.  Thanks! Chick Bowen 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist. Penthamontar (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BDP: Errol Flynn
I direct your attention to Blp and request assistance at Errol Flynn, where an anon is battling to include unverified slander, and when told he must comply with V, has now apparently chosen to limit himself to repeating slander (with POV phrasing) from a thoroughly discredited book, already covered in more than enough detail in the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * NB appears to be sourced. The issue would then be WEIGHT or RS; do you have a source for rejecting the Bret claim out of hand?  (I see a lot of unreferenced criticism in David Bret, which is a BLP, but nothing sourced there.)  You could well be right (I'm skeptical of biographers who make a career out of diagnosing previously-unknown homosexuality) but as an uninvolved editor, I don't have anything to go on. THF (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear me, I will go check Bret article. Yes indeed: the entire freaking book has been thoroughly debunked. The main issue is the persistent IP, whom I've reverted 3 times now. He seems to be a Flynn-hater bent on unbalancing the article against Flynn and in favor of not just homosexuality, but unproven (and in several cases, disproven) homosexual exploits of a ... well, a slutty nature. A bit homophobic, true. Friends of Gays, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was thinking of Erroll Flynn: The Untold Story KillerChihuahua?!? 15:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Flynn-hater is strong; if the claim in Errol Flynn is correct, Bret defends Flynn against charges of Nazism, which is the other lurid allegation against him. THF (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Separately, the same claim appears in Ross Alexander whenever this gets resolved. THF (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which claim? That Flynn was bi? That's been around for years and is unlikely to be "proven" one way or the other. Seems fairly likely he was; however the laundry list of ppl he supposedly had sex with is almost all made up. for example; Capote, when simple who-was-where-when calendar and location checking shows Capote had the ability to be in two places at once, on opposite ends of the continent IIRC. But its one thing to have rumors of his bi-sexuality, and quite another to lenghten the article with lurid details of his supposed affairs with multiple male stars, and/or adding completely unsourced content, or content sourced only to an Amazon book review (by an Amazon customer not the official reviews). KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found that celebrity articles, particularly about deceased actors, tend to become overweighted with salacious material, particularly regarding sexual proclivities. However, Flynn was as much notable for his off-screen behavior as on-screen, so I am not sure there shouldn't be a neutral section on that, one that would explore the books that have appeared and the criticism of them. A more significant problem with Errol Flynn is that it lacks sufficient substantive content on his career, his influence on the profession and on acting. Were that present, a section on his behavior would seem less disproportionate. I have some source materials that may help and I will try to find them and add. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be lovely. I agree Flynn had a rep for sexcapades, but as you say, weighting in favor of salacious gossip over career puts Wikipedia in the category of a trashy tabloid, which I sincerely hope we can avoid. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, WP:Weight has canny sway on these BDPs, but either way, something tells me Flynn would be cracking up over this stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'm a proponent of a strong-hand BLP policy and implementation, even I think stretching BLP in any fashion to someone that died in 1959 is out of bounds for BLP or treating them as recently deceased--that's over two generations ago! But I'd say this was fine to look into and minimize if required under RS, NPOV, and WEIGHT. This just popped out when I saw it on the BLP noticeboard. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. It isn't a BLP issue by any stretch. However, we've got a POV pusher playing with the reputation of someone, with a poor attitude to V RS and NPOV, any help offered here is appreciated. I've reverted twice and demanded good sourcing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And totally good edits by you. I just get twitchy sometimes when I see BLP invoked in non-BLP matters because I don't want it to ever get watered down. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You should consider the possibility that others do not want to further increase the disparity in content standards. — CharlotteWebb 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what we have here mainly is a weight and neutrality issue, one that arises frequently with deceased celebrities, usually minor ones. William Eythe, for instance, at one point was dominated by his arrest on some morals charges in the 1950s. I'm not clear about Flynn, as he received extensive publicity both before and after his death on his off-screen actions. I had hoped to review some books on Flynn that I have but can't find them. They'll turn up. The Flynn article could use expansion. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pancho Pepe Jazz Band

 * - An entry about a schoolboy rock band. Said entry has not adhered to the  Music Notability guidlines. It has no sources apart from a myspace link, and some dubious TV appearances. // HeadTalking (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard; here we are concerned with protecting the reputation of living people against the slings and arrows of poorly sourced contentious claims. If you are concerned about the notability of a topic, I suggest you google for coverage in reliable sources, and if that fails, propose it for deletion or take it to WP:AfD. Sincerely, Skomorokh  21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson
- Article where the majority is sourced to a UK-only magazine whose issues in question is apparently unavailable even to the article's creator. I'm hoping for a second opinion on whether the content is appropriate per WP:BLP. Thanks! --aktsu (t / c) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no controversial content there as far as I can see. The article consists mostly of simple facts about the career of the subject, and is sourced throughout. The sources all seem of acceptable reliability for the claims cited. Fighters Magazine looks to be a quality high street publication (carried by WH Smiths for example, staffed by professionals. With little else to go on, I see no cause for concern with this article. Skomorokh  21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure which revision you saw, but seems like you timed it just right before Theserialcomma removed a bunch of stuff. This was the revision before removal. Him having fought (illegal) bare-knuckle boxing was only sourced to "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)", a source previously brought up at WP:RSN, but only in the context of whether it's suitable to establish that Darren exists (from what I gather) and the conclusion seemed to be that it was barely reliable for that. --aktsu (t / c) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted much of the removed stuff. Bare knuckle boxing is illegal in the UK, so should we require a better source for the claim that he has fought it? --aktsu (t / c) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And the article was now reverted to a revision from a week or so back. I'll just call this resolved and bring the bare-knuckle business to WP:RSN.

Ben Domenech


Gigantic BLP violation here, as the article is a COATRACK for non-RS Daily Kos posts criticizing Domenech. Can someone please clean? THF (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that "coatrack" - the assertions of plagiarism concern the subject, not some 3rd-party. The materials on Daily Kos are excerpts from writings by the subject, comparing them to the published writings by others. If these were used on their own then I could see the problem, but these are the postings that lead to the subject's resignation from the Washington Post. For that reason the blog links appear to qualify as primary source cited by reliable secondary sources, such as Salon.com.   Will Beback    talk    21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not how those postings are used in the article. And there are more than just Daily Kos blog postings there.  I am very disturbed that an editor such as you, who is very conscientious about removing any hint of BLP violation when it involves a center-right blog that is a primary source and meets SPS, is shrugging off unsourced claims and claims sourced only to random blogs and anonymous bloggers when it involves a BLP who is on the right.  THF (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And your second footnote there of "reliable secondary sources" is to Raw Story, yet another SPS that is inappropriate in a BLP. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also has huge problems with WP:WEIGHT. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which person is the self-published writer of Raw Story? It doesn't appear to me to be an SPS. Daily Kos is more than a source for the article, it is a part of the story, and therefore a primary source. Can you be more specific about what problems you see with the article? The tags don't say.   Will Beback    talk    04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, at least some of those Daily Kos posts were after Domenech resigned, so they weren't part of the story. Second of all, they're cited not as "Here are the posts that led to Domenech resigning" but as "Domenech plagiarized story X"--clearly inappropriate in a BLP.  Third of all, it's your own original research that Daily Kos was why Domenech resigned; neither the Salon story nor the Raw Story blog supports that claim--the latter is just a reposting of three blog posts without additional content.  Fourth of all, there are several other SPSs in that article. THF (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your fourth point, please specify the sites you're concerned about rather than playing a game of "guess the problem". The other three issues are simple things to fix.   Will Beback    talk    05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Text supported by footnote 10 violates WEASEL. The whole paragraph has WEASEL problems.  Footnote 16 is all blog.  Footnote 18 is blog.  Footnote 23-26 are blog comments, of questionable relevance.  Footnotes 28-29 are dead links.  Footnote 31 is blog and of questionable relevance.  The entire section violates WEIGHT: cite to the NY Times and the WaPo articles, fairly summarize the events, and be done with it.  The minute-by-minute accounting is not duplicated on any other BLP on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deal links can often be found by searching for the new URL, or by checking the Internet Archive. A similarly detailed analysis is in a biography of another plagiarist, Jason Blair. The Daily Kos postings have alredy been discussed. The "Red State" blog is also part of the story, and may be suitable as an exception. You're right that "Your Logo Here" is also a blog and I don't see any good reason to include it. The Malkin blog is used as a source for her own opinion. Is she relevant? Perhaps not. You left out several links to blogs that aren't formatted as references - those should probably go too. As for the overall weight, what else is he notable for?   Will Beback    talk    07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the Daily Kos posts, other than to assert without any evidence that they are primary sources. If your argument is that Domenech's not notable for anything else, then it's a BLP1E that should be deleted. Blair isn't the right comparison; a better example is Doris Kearns Goodwin, which, once the archetypical example of a WP:SYN violation is removed, is much shorter, barely detailed at all, consists mostly of quotes from her defenders, and certainly none of the blog posts about Goodwin's plagiarism are in her article. THF (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that the Jayson Blair article plagiarism section is hardly BLP-compliant, either; it consists almost entirely of WP:OR. THF (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing the article. You may be right that it should be nominated for deletion, and there's only one way to see how that would go. BLP1E is intended, I believe, to handle smaller "events" than a plagiarism scandal that stretched over years. I'm not sure that a barely notable blogger and a Pulitzer Prize wining journalist have much in common, but the one thing that they do have in common seems to be handled in similar depth. I haven't looked at the Blair article recently, but there are plenty of reliable sources available. The NYT gave a very detailed accounting of events. IIRC our article went into possibly excessive detail.   Will Beback    talk    07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not handled in "similar depth." The Domenech article details every to-and-fro that blogs had about the subject.  Leaving out the last paragraph, which I will delete now as a violation of SYN, the Goodwin article has exactly three sentences putting forward the affirmative case of her plagiarism, two paragraphs defending her, and one and only one footnote detailing the allegations--and that's to Slate, not to blogs.  And the Goodwin plagiarism was much more serious, as it resulted in money changing hands in subsequent litigation, rather than a college newspaper movie review getting puffed. THF (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited the article to remove most blogs as secondary sources, and to trim to material slightly. Some blogs are presumably reliable and relevant, like the NRO blog or WaPo postings from the editors there.   Will Beback    talk    21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added one quote from the NY Times article, and conformed a couple of sentences to cited material, but feel free to revert that if you find it inappropriate. THF (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mary Yang and User:Maryang
has repeatedly blanked much content and the image from. Someone may want to take a closer look.  Doulos Christos   ♥ talk   14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Mary Yang. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice please: Personally identifiable image of teenage girl
I am concerned that File:A Cute Looking New Rochelle High School Cheerleader.jpg could be an infringement on the privacy of the teenage girl who is depicted. This image was contributed in good faith, and I assume that the contributor had the girl's permission to make the photo, but I wonder what protocols need to be followed to ensure that all parties are properly protected in a situation like this. (I know that Commons has policies on this, but I haven't seen anything similar here.)--Orlady (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point to the Commons policy on this for reference. Thanks  --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is Photographs_of_identifiable_people. Skomorokh  16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That standard commons link isn't working. Try this one: --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On-line porn magazines - reliable sources
An editor has been inserting material sourced to an inteview in an online porn magazine, www.xcitement.com, and edit-warring to keep it in. He has justified this on the basis that "Xcitement is an online magazine covering the adult entertainment industry" and that those removing the source (and material) have "puritanical beliefs". Is www.xcitement.com a reliable source for BLPs? Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the claims it is being used to support, the editorial policies of the publication and so on. Can you provide a link to the article/discussion to which you are referring? Skomorokh  17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure why Jayjg is being so coy but it seems to be and this interview. CIreland (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say not - but perhaps not for the reasons typically given. Porn star interviews (whether for actors or directors/producers etc.) are often given completely or partially in character and so are extremely unreliable for material about the individual that has adopted the particular porn persona. This seems doubly likely to be true for porn star interviews in an online porn magazines and appears to be the case for the interview in question. CIreland (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems the goalposts have been moved. The claim in question is that the gent is Jewish. On an interview on his band's official website, he states "I was raised Jewish and that was the biggest hypocritical thing I've ever seen." Seems like an open and shut case. Skomorokh  18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is for the claim is Tera Patrick (i.e. the subject of the interview), not the magazine. The magazine simply relays that she said he was a "nice Jewish boy".  It is reliable enough to stand for the proposition that Patrick commented that Seinfeld is Jewish, i.e. of Jewish heritage, but under the circumstances of its publication it seems unlikely that the comment would undergo the usual things that make reliable sources reliable, e.g. fact checking, editorial control, accountability, etc.  On the other hand she is his wife so she should know.  It is an unremarkable fact that ought to be uncontroversial.  I mean, come on.  Is anyone really questioning that Evan Seinfeld is Jewish?  Facts ought to be challenged only if they are unverifiable and subject to reasonable dispute.  If you want to verify it, you can follow this trail to a more reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if he's Jewish or not, and have no objection to reliable sources being used to support the claim. The question I had was whether www.xcitement.com counted as a reliable source for WP:BLPs. And the answer I'm getting is "no". Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get any feeling that the interpretation CIreland gives applies to this interview. I know nothing about xcitement.com, but I haven't seen anything that says it should never be used as a source.  If that's going to be the case, some sort of wider consensus should be reached, or at least some hard examples should be provided.  NJGW (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an online porn magazine; are they noted for editorial oversight? Rigor in research? Peer-review? Playboy used to have notable interviews, but it was printed, and in any event I would say that it was unique among "adult entertainment" publications. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Text on such websites should be taken as fictional (or riddled through with fiction), like a Hollywood movie, unless quite boldly put forth otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)


 * Check out the sources used at Death Grind and all the associated genres and subgenres. When there are no peer-reviewed research journals with editorial oversight, it's really a moot point to ask for one.  You use what you have to use.  If there's a specific problem you've noticed with the magazine, then that should be raised.  If it's just a gut feeling you have then it doesn't sound like enough to make a blanket injunction.  The interview I read has the artists talking about their real lives, their kids, their entry into the business... and it happened to have some a lot of naked pictures all over it too.  Doesn't mean it's false or not to be trusted.  I haven't made a decision about it yet, I'm just asking what made you make yours.  NJGW (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking just at the first page of news results, some news services consider it quote worthy, and it seems to be mentioned outright as a notable adult industry news source (I don't feel like paying for the full article though). NJGW (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Margaret Moran

 * - Two IP addresses keep deleting well sourced information in the expenses section without giving any justification for doing so. Additionally, their edits generally leave the article in a state that the remaining content doesn't really make sense. I've reverted the changes a few times now and tried to improve the section, but for the latest edit information has been added which is of no relevance at all - i.e. stating that other MPs claim expenses too. It's not the fact she (or other MPs) claim expense that is notable - it's the amounts she has claimed which is the issue as si the items on which it was spent. Would appreciate it if someone could take a look, thanks.  --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The sourcing wasn't so good, as it relied on original research and interpretation of primary sources. The anon IP's edits were also OR.  I've proposed a compromise edit on the page that relies solely on the one secondary source provided. THF (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help and advice. I've found a better source now as well (it is secondary) - it discusses her case in more detail, so will restore some info on postage costs. One final question - in this situation it is also useful to link to the primary source as well or would that be of no use? --Shakehandsman (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of a BLP
I'd like to flag an ongoing debate over semi-protecting a BLP. With one eye on WP:CANVAS, I want to be very clear that I'm not asking that anyone support the position I've taken, just that - given the relevance of the issue to the BLP noticeboard - users take a look and chip in thoughts on either side. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred Shapiro


User:FredShapiro42754 claims that the article is inaccurate, but the material he is removing comes directly from the biographical squibs of articles written by Fred Shapiro. Editor, often editing as an IP, keeps trying to blank the page or delete the offending sentence; other editors, pounding Shapiro with the COI policy, revert and template his page. The man is of marginal notability at best, and I moved for an AFD, but editors are overwhelmingly voting to keep. (Clearly, Shapiro should have taken the other approach to autobiography and turned his article into a hagiography so that editors would be offended and vote to delete.) I'm trying to reach out to Shapiro on his talk page to find out what precisely is inaccurate so we avoid any BLP, but he hasn't responded to me yet. Can a more experienced editor or admin with a fuller understanding of the nuances of the BLP/COI interrelationship provide another set of eyes to this issue? THF (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this article has since been deleted as a result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro. The title has been redirected to my friend Fred R. Shapiro, the Yale librarian and quotations maven.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NB some redirects need G8 treatment. THF (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ismail Ayob
This article really needs to be checked out by someone experienced with BLP. There are alot of counter accusations against living people who conflicted with this guy. Links to news articles are given but the tone is not at all neutral and it need a closer examination than I can give it.-- Birgitte SB  00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out this week if I get time. Makewater (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Schwartz
I am the subject of the biographical entry Stephen Schwartz (journalist). This entry has been subject to incessant vandalism over the years, as is reflected in warnings from Wikipedia responsible people on the talk page. A new series of malicious edits took place in February 2009. I was unable to locate a button for an OTRS complaint and therefore went ahead and attempted to revert the page myself to the form it had before the onset of the malicious edits. The malicious nature of the edits is obvious on the talk and history pages, where the individuals who carried out these edits engage in defamatory speculation about my religious choice, among other unsupportable claims. The latter include, for example, turning a couple of comments snipped from a TV interview into a relationship with the intelligence community, claiming that I am a leading figure in the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, charging that I was a propagandist for the Sandinistas. In addition, material was inserted that was contradictory to the previous content with no attempt to make the entry logical or consistent. I don't care whether there are one or two reference sections but it seems to me unfair to delete almost all references to articles by me, and I strenuously object to the inclusion of material describing me as a "whore" or a link to scurrilous gossip produced in an anarchist magazine. Allowing such vandalism, which is also libel with malicious intent to undermine my professional status and personal security, does not reflect well on Wikipedia. I did not add anything intended to promote me and have no desire to use Wikipedia for self-serving purposes. I object, however, to libelous content about me.SulejmanSchwartz (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Yeah that is not an example of our better work. Kudos for SS bringing it to the attention of the noticeboard rather than just gutting the article, even though that would have been a plausible choice. cleaned OP's link Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you've got fair reason to be annoyed. I'll try to keep the article watched, and encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. Small point, but "references" ought to be for the sources cited by the article - it isn't a place for a list of relevant thinks otherwise, which should be "further reading" or "works published".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example of what's wrong with our BLP policies and their enforcement. All these little-watched biographies have tremendous potential for harm, and should be deleted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been saying that for 2 years now. No one listens. See User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been more IP POV pushing on this (now reverted), can any passing admin please semi-protect it for a long duration.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The conflict is between editors who have had accounts for several months. Semi-protection would achieve nothing.  I also note that there's another side to this coin.  Although KevinOKeeffe does not approach biographies correctly in general, the issue that the subject is not editing with the neutral point of view appears to be legitimate, given that the subject's edits also include undoing edits such as this one (both of whose sources do appear to support the quoted material, and at least one of which, being a book review, is directly about the subject's works).  Notice too that there's no mention of this content on the article's talk page.  It does appear that a legitimate concern about two specific matters has been silently extended to removal of other negative information throughout the entire article, even negative information about the subject's writings on history sourced to accredited experts in the field.  This issue is neither a simple nor a strictly one-sided one. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Where are the "two sides"? If KevinOKeeffe "does not approach biographies correctly in general" then we have absolutely no business allowing the user to edit biographies of living people. Period. He should be banned. The subject is less than neutral? Well, perhaps. Subjects tend to be. But the subject has an absolute right not to be libelled - and if our bio has been libellous or a one-sided hatchet-job we owe the subject an apology and a guarantee that he not have to endure that again. That he will never need to remove bad stuff from his bio, and even if he chooses not to partol it himself he will not need to worry. Fat chance of that though. Sure, ideally we'd not have subjects whitewashing their bios, but once subjects learn that we let libellers and dodgy editors loose on their reputations, who can blame them. We've failed to be neutral, why should we expect them to be? I'm really sick of us viewing COI whitewash by subject in the same way we look at negative BLP bias. A subject spinning his bio to make him look good (which anyone tries to do with the internet persona) is not in the same league of vice as the defamation engine we've created and allow people who "does not approach biographies correctly in general" to edit with almost total impunity.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The two sides are as I stated them. And what KevinOKeeffe does elsewhere is not the issue here, so stop making it the issue.  And stop trying to oversimply an issue that I just said was not simple.  I suggest more than the customary BLP Noticeboard Drive-By.  This article has a long history. Go and read the talk page, the deletion log, the deleted revisions, and the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We have thousands of dreadful articles. If a few bios are maintained by subjects grinding axes, I'm not losing sleep over it. However, no subject, no matter how much they may yield to the whitewashing COI tenancy, should need to put up with editors who are careless with their reputations editing bios. That worries me. The rest I leave others to fret about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Giles Coren and his doggie views
An editor has been editing Times journalist Giles Coren's entry in what appears to be an attempt to show that Coren favours Israel and has promoted that country in this article, notably where Coren used Israel as an example of a country that had banned the Staffordshire breed most responsible for the killings of infants. The editor (whose entire list of contributions appears to be in regard to Giles Coren) inserted a soapbox comment into the 'The Campaign to Ban Dogs' section noting how many children Israel had killed in Gaza. Now he's deleted the entire section - shame, as his first edit improved that section. It's becoming somewhat tiresome to continue reverting; some peer comment would be useful? Little grape (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Globestrobe's edits are clearly inappropriate editorializing and synthesis, and there's some POINTiness going on, also. I've told him so.
 * However, you are edit-warring, which isn't cool, either.
 * The whole paragraph is a primary source. Why pick out this column out of all the ones he's written?  If it's independently notable, cite to the secondary source discussing the column.  WP:NOT, so it's not a tragedy if the encyclopedia doesn't take note of a two-day-old column immediately.  THF (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; fair points. In my rush to write the para I hadn't considered that the original article needed to be noted by other publications, rather than being noteworthy all on its own. Obvious really....Little grape (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Coren appears to be an interesting columnist much in the tradition of Mencken. IMHO, use of single columns to ascribe actual positions seriously held by him is either impossible, or just not possible. A splendid case where WP:RS actually allows really bad material to wend its way into an article. Collect (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello fans. Yes, he's interesting... and this is an interesting quote from Giles Coren, Times Online, Feb 14 2009: "Israel has gone one better, making the breed illegal altogether - and I doubt there are many who flout that little law. You don't go breeding dogs to scare your neighbours when you know that one false snarl and a helicopter gunship's going to whoop into view, flatten your house, your nan's house and your local school, and then blame it on the dog. And don't think for a minute that I would consider such a response disproportionate." Globestrobe (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

David Mytton
The subject of the article is requesting deletion via a prod, this isn't possible though as the article has been kept at AFD twice before. Maybe someone would like to renominate it for AFD. RasterFaAye (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the previous AFD discussions, the article was only just kept. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NIK GOWING
His entry states that he "received a BAFTA in 1981 for his exclusive coverage of the imposition of martial law in Poland and won a medal at the New York Television Festival for his nightly coverage of the 1991 Gulf war"   I have examined the lists of both Bafta and the New York Television Festival online and his name is NOT mentioned in any awards. 89.243.83.169 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Brown NFL Team Owner
This page is wrought with poorly sourced, unsourced, and non-neutral information. A complete mess. I tried to clean it up, but I fear it is beyond my wiki-knowledge to even make a dent. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. (User_talk:Amishlliason) —Preceding undated comment was added on 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Assume you are referring to Mike Brown (football team owner) ? Exxolon (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Amishlliason (talk) 18 February 2009

Feedback requested on a BLP related proposal
Note: don't go vote, read and comment on talk: Search Engine NOCACHE by default proposal or WP:NOCACHE. The point of it all is plainly simple and obvious. rootology ( C )( T ) 07:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Krister Linder
The article was edited today by, this may need some eyes on it for now. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just spotted this in recent changes. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any BLP issue but you may wish to bring this up at the conflict of interest noticeboard. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway
I've always wondered why this one didn't fall under the BLP guidelines. According to the article, she should be assumed to be alive, and yet there is all sort of repeated speculation about her sex life. There is also the question of three individuals named in the article in connection with her disappearance, but whom have never been charged with any crime. Needless to say, all four people are only notable for this one event. Everything is referenced to media reports. I would welcome a second opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably best to ask the owners of that article, they hang out on the talk page and are open to answering questions about most things related to it. --Tom 17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ps Good luck.
 * The owners have already threatened me with a three-on-one revert war if I so much as touch any of the details! This is why I would like an opinion here. Is it really justified to cite the full names of people who are only notable for having been arrested in relation to a supposed crime and then released without charge? Or any of the other personal details included in that article? The owners will say that it passed WP:FAC in that state, but the question of BLP was never discussed during the featured article nomination. Physchim62 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you discuss your concerns, with references and explaination of precisely what you want to change on the talk page rather then engaging in revert wars? Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to have a second opinion, but as nobody here seems to care enough to actually go and read the article and give their opinion… Physchim62 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Sirico
User:VeritasEst, citing documents from "riteofsodomy.com," added potentially controversial claims about a living person, the subject of the article. After removal by myself, user has repeatedly reinserted content despite warnings about the BLP req't for multiple independent sources for such assertions. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The site's personal content is not referenced except for scans of actual documentation that is available in public records. These materials themselves are valid references. The opinions of the person hosting them is incidental and were obviously not used. However, I also used several other references which were deleted en-masse! That was just one source and you deleted them all Mr. Clark!


 * To the Admins, note that by searching the history of this article that the user DickClarkMises has made several deletions to the article anytime someone tries to make progress on it or add content, referenced or not. Notably, anything related to Rev. Sirico's work towards promoting gay rights.  Is this sort of discrimination acceptable on Wikipedia? I think not.  I request an admin add the NPOV dispute and help restore referenced materials to preserve neutrality.  Thank you for everything you do for this wonderful source of free information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasEst (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Primary sources should only be used if they've already been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. See WP:PSTS. There are numerous problems with using primary sources on their own, including misidentification and misinterpretation.   Will Beback    talk    21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Bilderberg attendees
This list was previously mostly unsourced and defamatory (individuals on the list are accused of participating in a global conspiracy to rule the world or something.) I removed all unsourced individuals, and have since been removing any additional unsourced additions. One user has a problem with the removal of living George Pataki from the list, and has now reinserted his name multiple times. This article has external attention from less-than-responsible sources. Assistance would be useful. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The list looks like a WP:COATRACK and does not seem to serve any useful purpose. Is there anything special about going to this particular invite-only event (as opposed to, say, TED (conference) or a party at the Playboy Mansion) that makes it a notable subject on Wikipedia for which we need an article?  I see no reliable source to suggest that the defining criterion for list inclusion, being part of the corps of attendance at the conventions, is a notable in its own right, only that attendance is considered by some conspiracy theorists to be a sign of participation in a world domination cabal.  That makes the entire list article a problem for several reasons.  Why not nominate the article for deletion? Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd happily do so if I believed it had a chance in hell of passing. However, external sites of less than reliable nature would make that nearly impossible. I attempted to PROD the article, hoping that would be more "under the radar" and the prod was featured on a less-than-reliable website as a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's not just an innocent bad article. It looks like the remnant of some tinfoil hat thing, which discredits the project.  It does not matter how many people !vote to keep, they would have to come up with a valid policy reason.  IPs, SPAs, and new accounts would be discounted anyway - but better act fast now that it's here because people are known to make sleeper socks.  If there's evidence of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, external canvassing, and such we can deal with all that.  This wouldn't be the first time.  Maybe I should do it because I've never edited the article, never even heard of this conference before today.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock pupptery? When somebody disagress with hipocrites blatant vandalism hes a sock puppet? Nonsense and its nothing but a ad hominem attack against me User:Butcer
 * Case in point - Butcer is a 2-year old account with a dozen or so edits, most in the past day. Has been warned, comes right here with accusations of bad faith against me just for looking into the issue.  Probably ought to be blocked or topic banned if this keeps up, no?  Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

help at Ray Joseph Cormier
I think some uninvolved admins should take a look at Ray Joseph Cormier. My sense is the subject has annoyed a number of users on-wiki and that resulted in an AfD nom (along with "applause" for that nom from another user). I think the page should perhaps be protected (though of course I think the current version is the Wrong Version) for a bit. 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, is there a BLP violation on that page? I must be missing the uncited information about a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, but I figured this was the right place to bring the issue as it involves editor conduct involving a BLP. ANI seemed like the wrong place.  Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what, exactly, is your concern with the article, other than your constant assumptions of bad faith? Hipocrite (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are editing an article about someone and pulling information out that is not in dispute. Things like where he lives currently and his birth date.  It involves an active on-wiki user.  The talk page is full of back and forth between you and that user.  I think it needs more eyes.  So I came here.   Hobit (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I left in the purported birthdate, we'd have a violation of BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Summers
A few of us are having a dispute over the inclusion of the level of detail necessary and permitted for Lawrence Summers's grandmother. Additional voices and eyeballs would be appreciated. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

how to deal with sources that require a login and password
how do we deal with reliable sources (hollywoodreporter.com) in BLP artciles that require a login and password and require payment to view the article. should this type of source be treated as any other source and just assumed to be accurate even if the material in the source cannot be verified as being accurately represented? Theserialcomma (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not just a summary of free internet sites. Many reliable sources require expenditures of time, money, or energy for verification. For example, most peer-reviewed scholarly papers can't be accessed for free. Editors who add material from such sites can do a courtesy to others by quoting the relevant excerpt in the footnote, but that's not required.    Will Beback    talk    06:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * then how do we verify that the material cited is true if we cannot see it for ourselves? i thought BLP was more sensitive than that in order to prevent someone citing archive.reliablesource.com which requires a $50 fee but claims something that may or may not actually be represented in the source because no one wants to pay $50 to verify it Theserialcomma (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see it for yourself by paying $50 (or whatever the fee is). If the assertion were derogatory, or raised a red flag, then it might be more of an issue, but calling the subject a "gonzo journalist" doesn't seem like an exceptional claim. I did a quick search in a a news archive that I have free access to, and it mentions the subject in the context of gonzo journalism. Does anyone honestly dispute that he might have been called that? As for the article and NPOV, you can attribute the claim. Instead of "Tucker is a gonzo journalist", you can say "Tucker has been called a 'gonzo journalist' by the Hollywood Reporter."    Will Beback    talk    07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * calling someone a gonzo journalist doesn't seem like an exceptional claim to me either, except the fact that it's in the lede. the lede of a BLP is exceptional and should probably be better sourced than just an archive that is inaccessible without paying. isn't that kind of undue weight? one off-hand mention in an article that mentions the word 'gonzo' one time, and that goes in hte lede? there is another source calling him 'gonzo', though. but that is from a variety.com article that quotes tucker's co-worker as saying his style is gonzo, so it's not variety saying it, it's a quote from a friend. are these 2 sources good enough to keep it in the lede? that is what i'm questioning Theserialcomma (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The lede should summarize the article. If a topic is covered fully in the article then it might be touched on in the lede. So the body may say, "Tucker has been called 'X' by Y and Z in source V" while the lede might just say he's been called that and leave the attribution for later. Two sources seem like plenty, unless there are other sources that contradict them. As it happens, the source I mentioned calls his "gonzo" credentials into question, but in a way that just underlines how unexceptional the claim is.   Will Beback    talk    08:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In many cases (I don't know whether this is true of Hollywood Reporter) one can verify the sources by walking into a physical library that carries it or (in the case of scholarly journals and university libraries) that provides electronic access to it. The internet is not the only way to access information, even these days, and we shouldn't restrict ourselves to only the information that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Paysites on BLP - NO
Comment: Since we let anyone edit, our only safeguard against slander is that things can be verified by other users. Now, that a pretty weak safeguard, since it assumes that someone else will check the facts and remove the crap and bias. So, in BLPs with controversial or negative statements verifiability needs to mean ABLE to be VERIFIED NOT JUST IN THEORY, but realistically by wikipedians willing to do it. For that reason, disparaging information sourced only from paysites, or obscure publications is unacceptable, since it defeats any chance of quality control. My further point would be that allowig such sourcing is bad for bios anyway. If someone referred to someone as a "gonzo journalist" and the only web-reference to that is a paysite, then it is highly unlikely that the remark is notable, substantial or significant, and lacking any evidence of such it should be excluded. Paysite would be fine if it were a case of saying "x called y this, which caused a media debate". --Scott Mac (Doc) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott, suppose that I put some information into a BLP, and cite a book. You don't know anyone who owns the book, and your local library doesn't have the book, although you can order the book on Amazon for $50. In that situation, you are ABLE to verify the source, you're just not WILLING to pay $50 to buy the book. Why is that any different to citing an otherwise reliable paid website that requires a $50 registration fee? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a book or periodical of sufficient note to be a reliable source can be consulted at a library through interlibrary loan. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't you also do the same with The Hollywood Reporter? --NE2 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the information in the book is negative, concerns a living person, and there is no mention of it anywhere on the internet, and no allusion to it in any online source (including the thousands of international newspapers available on line) then, if challenged, it would be correct to exclude it. Until and unless a second independent person collaborates the claim. Otherwise I can put any libel on any BLP and reference a big expensive book on Amazon, and unless someone order the book to call my bluff, the libel remains.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I once had to pay $10 to research an interlibrary loan and would have had to pay more if they were able to find a library that had the book, which they couldn't. If the BLP material was seriously libellous, and if the editor was active and refused to quote the relevant excerpt, then that could be handled differently. Every rule has exceptions and there's even WP:IAR. But I don't think we want to go down the road of saying that only free internet sites are suitable sources.   Will Beback    talk    17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also remember one can request that a direct quote from the source be inserted in the footnote to make sure that the source is not being misused. For example: "There are a lot of gonzo journalists out there. SOme people think Mr. X is one, others don't." Obviously that would be an different interpretation than one described above.  People usually don't fabricate things, but often misinterpret them, sometimes out of excess enthusiasm or sloppiness. So this is a good check.  And discussed under WP:V or WP:RS or both; I forget which. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll stick with excluding all such material as practically unverifiable by our systems and, in any case, violating WP:WEIGHT. It is highly unlikely that a salacious quote, unavailable on any mainstream internet source belongs on a BLP. Until we have a better system for avoiding libels, insisting that the ordinary reader can verify everything is the least we can do. I find any other suggestion unacceptable. We don't have an absolute need to include any information (or to have a bio at all) we do have an absolute duty to avoid libelling people.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this in reference to any particular article?   Will Beback    talk    22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * for me, the importance of BLP is that we get it right. if we can't verify what the source actually says, how do we know we're getting it right? some random editor might come forward and claim that they verified the source in the library, but is that really good enough for a BLP? how do we know they are telling the truth, or that they verified it accurately? it seems very risky. people make honest mistakes in synthesizing sources, or claiming sources said things they actually didn't say, even when the source is available for everyone to view. when only a single person or small group is able to verify it for themselves, we can get into dangerous territory involving the potential for plenty of errors. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is keeping you from verifying the source? Research takes time, money, and energy. If an editor is unwilling to devote what it required, does that give them veto over other editors who have spent their time, energy, or money to find the sources? That seems a way of lowering the quality of the encyclopedia rather than improving it.   Will Beback    talk    00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I am strongly opposed to limiting "what we can verify" to mean only "what we can verify without charge from the comfort of our own homes". This is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the web, but a full encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FUTON bias is a bad thing for Wikipedia. It's FUTON bias that usually gets us into trouble in the first place, especially in this particular corner of the encyclopaedia. Ironically, the sources that one might have to pull one's finger out and put some effort into reading are usually the sources that are best for biographies of living persons. The last thing that we want is a foolish bias against such sources simply because it requires lifting more than just one finger to read them. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we have no other effective method of quality control for potentially libellous material. The only other way is to trust the writer, which we cannot afford to do when the writer could be anyone. Point-an-click verification is the only thing protecting victims from libels. If you've got a better idea fine. (We are here only talking out negative material on living persons.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of "potentially libellous" "salacious quote" are we talking about here? Is this all hypothetical or are we talking about an actual case?   Will Beback    talk    05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * who are we to judge what is potentially libelous or not? either it's verifiable through third party, reliable sources, which would make it not libelous; or it's hypothetically verifiable (visit to the library, pay for access to a journal/magazine archive) but also potentially misrepresented from the source. if it's misrepresented from the source, whether we consider it libel or not, it's up to the person suing to decide if they think it's libel. anything not true that is construed as negative to someone's career/reputation can be libel, right? someone could literally sue for wikipedia claiming they were born in kansas when they were born in california. isn't it better not to take any chance and just stick to eminently verifiable sources so there is no possibility of libel whatsoever? in this litigious society, what's not libel to you might be libel to a sensitive person... if we stick to reliable sources that are verifiable and adequately represented, there is no problem there. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * in the efforts of doing no harm, i really think we shouldn't take the word of a single or an elite group of editors. at least for BLPs. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask a third time. Is this in regard to an actual biography or are we just shooting the breeze?   Will Beback    talk    06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've received a reply elsewhere, to the effect that this is inspired by the Max Tucker discussion above, but that it's mostly hypothetical. This is not the best place to discuss policy changes, but there's obviously opposition for changing the policy to require free websites for sources. Specific, legitimate disputes over problematic material that appears to be properly sourced yet can't be verified are best handled on a case-by-case basis, on this noticeboard if need be. Uninvolved editors may have suggestions or even access to additional sources.   Will Beback    talk    10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've referring to avoiding libels on 300,000 articles, which is hardly "shooting the breeze". We have a piss-poor system for preventing libels as it is: removing all poorly sourced and practically unverifiable negative allegations is the best we've got for now. I've no intention that we weaken that policy. A negative allegation based solely on a paysite will always be removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can choose to ignore all rules if you choose, but you should be prepared to defend your individual decisions. If there is an actual libel, then we can do something. But right now there isn't any libel that you've identified that is only sourced to a pay site or, God help us, a book.   Will Beback    talk    11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm applying the rules. When we've "got an actual libel" it is too late. We need systems that realistically minimise and prevent them. The problem with your "show me a problem and I'll fix it in that case" approach is that it simply doesn't upscale. We can't maintain any realistic quality control if we relax sourcing rules - we need to tighten them - much much tighter. Anything else is ethically and systemically irresponsible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Check WP:V and WP:BLP. I don't think you'll find anything that says books and magazines that require time or money to verify are not reliable sources. This isn't the place to propose policy changes. If I come across someone removing material with citations to what appear to be reliable sources I'll generally revert the change unless there's a good explanation. Removing sourced material is a form of vandalism, so if you're going to do it make sure that you are ready to defend you action. I don't believe your view is in sync with the rest of the community, as shown in this thread.   Will Beback    talk    19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to differ. I find your interpretation of policy erroneous, unethical and harmful. But I don't expect that to dissuade you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with not online sources that anyone can verify. The fact that they cost money to obtain isn't relevant to WP:V. Moreover, attempting to make such a distinction damages neutral point of view by making things unduly sympathetic and massively increases systemic bias but focusing on internet sources. When a source is not online or costs money to obtain unless we have a reason to think that the user in question is lying (such as they have made up sources in the past, or the claim is particularly unlikely given the context), there's no reason to remove them. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Glenn
A young boy allegedly made a YouTube video of himself abusing a cat. (More info available here and elsewhere on the Web.)

I preemptively create-protected Kenny Glenn and a few variations. It was brought to my attention that somebody had bypassed this protection by using the title Timmy (animal abuse suspect). I have subsequently deleted this article and create-protected it and its redirect as well.

I invite review of my actions by other admins. This is a sensitive situation involving serious accusations, video evidence, and the biography of a minor.

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good on both actions. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not break out the backslappings yet; this edit was just made to the Anonymous (group) article; more are likely at 4chan, and the local area articles. Skomorokh  10:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably need to do a better job of comunicateing with the editor involved though.Geni 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * more reliable sources are starting to appear . May need to rethink at some point.Geni 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Percival Davis
Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against myself, as I disagreed with her about a separate article. Orlady has now followed me to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. In addition, she has enlisted 'friends' to help her continue to alter the page. This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer. As with Lawrence Summers' grandmother, "Additional voices and eyeballs would be appreciated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Audreetucker. Since the initial post, dissenting users who are attempting to minimalize the information are being blocked or repeatedly reversed. Until the situation is resolved, there needs to be a LOCK on this posting, with minimal information published. The game-playing in here is ridiculous. Advocate4us (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Craig Phillips
This article has extensive parts of personal details that are unsourced. Seems to be a new user who has worked on this and so in the interests of WP:BITE, I thought I'd leave this one for those users with experience and tact in this area. --Jza84 | Talk  13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography of Subhash Kak
Biography of Subhash Kak has been hijacked and libelous material posted on both the biography page as well as disparaging comments about this person has been made on the Talk page of the same article.

The editor has also changed the page to protected status, preventing further edits, while refusing to engage in a discussion on the merits/demerits of his editorial hatchet job on the article itself.

I view Wikipedia as an unbiased repository of information, compiled for public good. I bring this article to the noticeboard, so that the concerned panel can review this page and decide whether some of the material on this page isn't borderline libelous.

If you cannot represent someone in a fair manner, without the editor's personal bias getting in the way, delete the page. It is better that people don't get to read the biography, instead of reading someone's politically motivated diatribe against a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlahiri (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris Buttars

 * - An editor is repeatedly calling Buttars a racist and homophobe in the intro. While this may be true, it is in violation of NPOV and BLP policies. -R. fiend (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino


An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

This is cross-posted at WP:COIN & WP:NPOVN; please respond at WP:NPOVN to avoid WP:MULTI. THF (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reposting, since still not resolved. I apparently need to bump this every three days. THF (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bumping to avoid bot archive. Still not resolved. THF (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Shaidle

 * – Several editors, mostly anon IPs, have repeatedly added material that is in violation of WP:SYNTH, using selective quotes to demonstrate that Shaidle has "controversial" views. It's pretty clear that she does, but the way these editors are going about presenting this is a WP:BLP violation, I believe. I thought of going right to WP:RFPP but thought I'd better get some other opinions about whether I'm seeing this with clear eyes. I'm also wondering whether a particular remark ought to be removed from the Talk page. Thanks very much in advance. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite right to remove the quotes. Unless some reliable independent source has commented on a particular controversy, it's original research to introduce such content into the article. As far as the talkpage goes, I'm in the "as long as it's aimed at improving the article and does not break any laws in Florida, it should stay" camp. I think the article could benefit from semi-protection. 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now this is a case where semi-protection would be appropriate. However, I observe that the edit war ceased 2 days ago, when discussion on the talk page began.  If discussion ceases and edit warring recommences, please let us know.  You're right that any personal analyses of Wikipedia editors offered as, effectively, "Here are the raw data.  Tell me that my own personal analysis of and opinion based upon those data are wrong!" are clearly in violation of our No original research policy, by the way.  Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. For the time being, semi-protection does not appear to be necessary, since the edit war stopped. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Neal Sher
Please someone has an eye on Neal Sher article. A libelous section has been repeatedly inserted, and my removal has been labeled as vandalism. Only one source for the claim in the article is given, and apparently, according to google news this is the only source. I could not find any reports in mainstream newspaper. Furthermore, the section does not faithfully presents what the source says, if anyone would care to read the article completely instead of just the first paragraph one would clearly see this (in a nutshell, nothing is official as all parties agreed not to disclose any details, thus all claims must be treated as speculative or alleged). I am also worried that the article seems to concentrate on negative aspects of his career, completely ignoring what he is more known for, ie is job as the head of the USJD Nazi prosecution unit. I removed already some other parts, to restore at least some balance, but still this article seems to be edited mostly by peopel who are more interested in adding negative information than in writing an encyclopaedic article. So please someone has an eye on this article, thanks.

two IPs (from whom one or the other could have a conflict of interest) continue to delete passages from the neal sher article. one has already been warned, afterwards another IP assumed the job. although only one source for relevant passage is stated one can find more in the IT (which i don't consider necessary as this one source can be considered reliable).the passage was depicted almost literally from the source. the IPs problem with the edit is revealed on the end of his above comment: that something "negative" about this person is depicted. someone sholuld have an eye on the article,indeed.--Severino (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the article with more extensive sourcing and detail. The previous version of the article was unbalanced; the DC bar spat was not the most significant event in Sher's life. THF (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Murray / Centre for Social Cohesion
I'm not very experienced with BLP, but I'm expecting that this isn't ok: A new SPA has included on the page for Douglas Murray (Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion Civitas-owned think tank) praise from the British National Party. Is this trying to force guilt by association? I tried to find a guideline with an express instruction about this, but failed. I'm a bit out of my depth, to be honest  almost - instinct 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget guidelines and go with your instinct. If something smell bad on a BLP, remove it. If you meet opposition, come here. The SPA needs blocking in this case. We don't need a policy to stop hatchet-jobs - although I'm sure there is one somewhere.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it twice now today. I'll link to this conversation on the talk page. I'm not going to be on WP for the next 24 hours though, so if someone else could keep on an eye on it that would be great. The edits were made by
 * Bye for now  almost - instinct 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bye for now  almost - instinct 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted a well-referenced hatchet-job by the same editor on Centre for Social Cohesion. Please watch.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to accept helpful factual corrections (as already done today) or to address issues of perceived bias in edits. I will, however, continue to engage with wholescale revisions to previous versions which lack unsubstantiated evidence. I will also continue to work within the Wikipedia guidelines to address any application of double standards as regards what may constitute an authoritative source and address content that lacks adequate references in support of the claims made.


 * Well that sounds like we're all singing from the same hymnsheet now :-) so I guess this is now  almost - instinct  12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Thanks. AdamMarchmant (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Marlo Morgan
This article seems to have suffered a hatchet job last year, and needs some serious help. I don;t have time to do much at the moment, so extra hands would be welcome. Kevin (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been stubbed by someone else, and I'll put it on my watchlist. THF (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Byrd no longer longest serving member of the house
John Dingell, D Michigan, became the longest serving member of the house on feb 11 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.135.241 (talk • contribs)


 * Robert Byrd is not in the House, and this isn't really a BLP issue. THF (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady Victoria Hervey
Is FamousHookups.com a reliable source for Lady Victoria Harvey's relationships? Also, is The Daily Telegraph's Top 50 dumb blonde quotes a reliable source, if this is a living person? In fact, I wonder about most if not all of the information in this article, if the standards for BLP are applied. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Daily Telegraph is a RS. FamousHookups is not, I've sourced three of the four claims, and deleted the other.  The article could use some more scrubbing, but it seems consistent with press coverage, though whether the article survives WP:BIO given the WP:NOT rule is another question.  I'd delete it, but I'd imagine it would survive an AFD. THF (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would survive afd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt
Since the Denis Rancourt article survived a deletion review, it has been under continuous attack by two single-purpose accounts (User:FeetsDontFailMeNow and User:Letsgoridebikes) determined to make him look like a nutcase. Here you can see Letsgoridebikes tacitly admitting that he believes Rancourt is a "nutcase" and all he's doing is making that fact clear to people. Letsgoridebikes edits just three articles, and literally the only article FeetsDontFailMeNow has edited is Denis Rancourt. Between the two of them, they have removed 90%+ of the original content of the article -- the very article which survived deletion -- and replaced it with material which they've cherry-picked to make Rancourt look mentally unstable. This is clearly unacceptable in a biography of a living person, especially their most recent hobbyhorse, which is using Rancourt's criticism of Zionism as a rationalization for implying in the first paragraph of the article that he's an anti-semite.

I have been hoping that the two of them would lose interest and move on so that I could revert everything they've done in one go, but they seem to be sticking around. In the mean time, Rancourt was just featured in a New York Times editorial, and people coming to Wikipedia to find out about him are treated to what may be libelous material about him. -- SmashTheState (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Wikipedia. Posting a request for assistance in removing libelous material has had the result of simply attracting one more person pushing the same bias.  Suddenly I'm becoming much more sympathic to Daniel Brandt. -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have been predictable - this noticeboard reads like a roll-call for anti-BLP activists. Suggest you e-mail a sympathetic Arbcom member directly (JoshuaZ ffs?!! - that's wolves guarding the sheep if ever there was an instance).  Try Newyorkbrad or Cool Hand Luke. Even Jimbo would be a decided improvement than this shower.220.236.235.163 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see joshua Z's latest edit, as totally appropriate. DGG (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shelby
Left-wing blogs are encouraging vandalism of this article, and the RPP request has gone unnoticed for half a day, so please look out for violations by IP editors (and experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better). THF (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville
I semi-protected this page a while back after various IPs repeatedly added links to an inappropriate blog. I've just taken the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page as well, as the links have been added there a couple of times by different IPs. I'd be grateful for some other watchers on this page, as the links have now twice been reinserted during periods when I've been away from my computer for a few days. Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Real name at Nug (graffiti artist)
Swedish graffiti artist Nug has been in the Swedish news in the past weeks and now has an article. All the Swedish news only mention his artist name, Nug, but one American news blog writes his real name and people are using that as a source to add it to the article. I have removed it several times per WP:BLP, but there are now two people reverting me. The same issue at the Swedish wp, but I don't know if you can help put there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's an issue of whether or not the source meets RS. While it's technically a blog, since it's attached to the Chronicle of Higher Education it might be an acceptable source, which I think would make the name ok.  Also, this google search turned up a few Swedish pages that do give his real name (I don't read Swedish, though, so no guarantee they're not just translations of the Chronicle one)&mdash;you just have to be careful not to confuse him with the tennis player of the same name. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably is a (mostly) reliable source, same as most newspaper blogs. Still, all Swedish media withhold the name. That American news blog is the only exception. Are we suppose to publish name if any single reliable source does it? The Google hits are private blogs, webforums and the like. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If only one source uses the real name, I would not consider that "widely disseminated", so one could cite BLP for removing it. However, I think the issue in this case is does the individual wish to remain anonymous? I can't read Swedish, so I don't know if that is the case here. If there are sources that make it clear that he does wish to only be known by the name "Nug", I'd support its removal, but otherwise, I think it's useful information and should be included. This is a pretty borderline case either way. -kotra (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

 * - I have a few reservations about the controversy section in this profile. The references to the News of the World website do not work anymore and were removed very shortly after the publication of the article. This was also the case for the previous allegations made against the Duke. On the Biographies of living persons within the "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" section it reads:

"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced."

The controversy section does not have any sources which back up what it is claiming, subsequently, it is my opinion that this section be removed.

I had already changed the section, however, other users are still reverting the edits. Could an administrator please have a look at this situation to assess the next step forward.// Londonfella (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal photo caption
Caption above his photo has been given a derogatory nickname, offensive to those of Indian heritage. Unable to locate phrase in document for correction to proper nickname "Bobby". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.203.1 (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragons of Summer Flame

 * - An administrator has placed a BLP violating slur on the author in an edit summary and I'm not sure how to get it out. Could someone with skills please remove the BLP violation. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oversight isn't used to remove BLP violations from the history of an article unless the subject has asked the content be removed (also dependent on other reasons) or Wikimedia counsel tells us to. Generally speaking, the history of an article is kept intact so the article's evolution can be retained. The edit summary in question was a bad idea and in poor taste, but it's not a particularly egregious BLP violation, and buried as it is in the edit history of a low-traffic article, I doubt more than a handful of people will ever notice it. -kotra (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not realize it would require oversight to remove his ill-thought out slur on this best-selling author. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a slur. I can't imagine that BLP prevents me from saying that Stephenie Meyer is not a very good author and that Jimmy Breslin is a pretty damn good one.  If I want to use some more descriptive language than that to say that Stephanie Meyer writes boring books filled with Mary Sues and plot holes, I suspect that BLP would afford that as well.  Also, if someone has noted that the author is "schlocky", then it isn't even remotely close to a BLP violation.  I don't suspect this is the case, but it doesn't really help to get worked up over that level of commentary. Protonk (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Worked up?" Seriously, I asked for a simple removal of a one line BLP vio, not for AMiB's head on a platter. I thought this was a simple press of a button, but I was wrong about that. No need to escalate this to drama Protonk. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, and here I was slaving over a hot stove for AMIB brains under glass for you, Kyaa. Way to disappoint me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I guess BLP is a joke. Wait, I misquoted you: Silly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing the 'resolved' -- as there is no consensus it's a BLP violation, the resolved notice shouldn't say it was. And I agree that it wasn't a BLP violation. dougweller (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there more to be done here? No. Resolved. Closed. Completed. Making libelous statements about authors in history is a-ok. 11:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After being told by two people that the edit summary wasn't a BLP violation, what makes you think that it is libelous? Please just drop it. Protonk (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I discount you completely as one of AMiB's buddies Protonk. I see what you did over on his "conspire" link, ya know. The original responder agreed that the edit summary was a bad idea and a BLP violation, although not an egregious one. I'm not the one who didn't quit, I marked this as resolved stating that we don't remove BLP vios from history cause its apparenly too much of a pain in the ass. You wandered over to protect AMiB and decided to toss out a personal attack on me to boot. I defended myself humorously, but hey, look, Dougweller didn't realize that OMG shows over, go home already. And then you come back for more. Who isn't letting this die? Oh yes, that would be Protonk and Dougweller. Why don't you go try to improve the wiki instead of playing schoolyard politics cause your buddy made a dumb move? Oh yes, cause you're too busy fighting inclusionist windmills. Have a nice day! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What a pleasant and collegial reply. Protonk (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Murad Gumen (Gümen) page is libelous. tallarmeniantale site does not belong in this biography.

even if he were "holdwater", if the author wishes to remain anonymous, it's his business. (By the way, ı have looked at the site: It is against labelling of "armenian genocide" not against Armenians. and Holdwater does not call Armenians "rats" anywhere as discussionists say.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.148.203 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Allen
(among others). The user continues to add improperly referenced defamatory commentary to a number of BLP articles. They have been warned a significant number of times to no avail. Thanks in advance ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 21:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and again (reverted by someone else) It happens at least once a day, sometimes more.  I won't keep updating this though.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 07:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edits of User Friendly making unsourced contentious statements about its author J. D. Frazer
There's a bit of a fuss about his copying of one-liners off another internet site; this will probably continue for a while. The unsourced controversial statements, unverifiable statements and OR will probably continue for a while yet:



--Rogerb67 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * and leaves the article in a pretty dodgy state possibly just short of WP:BLP, but hinting Frazer has published plagiarised material in print, something not suported by a reliable source. Can someone else take a look? Thanks. --Rogerb67 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Matt the Knife
Entry contains various unsourced claims that Matt the Knife is a con-artist. --Pleasantville (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the bio from his official site, which is given as an EL, claims that he as a "colorful grifting background". I don't endeavor to consider whether that means that "con man" should be given as one of his occupations [or even as a past avocation] in the lead sentence, on which question I haven't spent any time; I mean only to suggest that the claim, without an inline citation, is not as egregious as otherwise it might be.  Joe 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Either it's libel or "MTK" is trying to upgrade his background from Rhode Island law student to Dangerous Ex-Criminal. I've improved the article a little. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Parodies of Sarah Palin
- Questions have been raised as to whether the contents of this article violate WP:BLP, specifically the section summarizing Who's Nailin' Paylin?, and whether the sources are reliable or the porn flick notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It refers to a "living person" hence must conform to the BLP guidelines which specificially include all such articles. Collect (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also feel the BLP applies to Parodies of Sarah Palin. If 'parodies' were a subsection of Sarah Palin then BLP would clearly apply to that subsection, I dont see why splitting the article absolves us of the responsibilities in BLP.  Further, BLP says ""This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages."  In my opinion, Parodies of Sarah Palin qualifies as the latter, biographical material about living persons on other pages.  Readers can examine my line of reasoning further at  Porn flick redux section of the talk page. Bonewah (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ay caramba! Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Comment is my reaction upon reading the plot summary. Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

William Timmons and Lennon and Declassification delays
A cite is used to insert material apparently linking Timmons to the Lennon deportation attempt with an assertion that this was linked to the 1972 election campaign and that it took the ACLU many years to get the memo. Alas - there is nothing whatever in the cite linking Timmons with any political mtives about Lennon, nor any connection between Timmons and the usual delays in getting material declassified. I felt it was irrelevant and so tagged it, while another editor has repetedly deleted the relevance tages. Now that I found the claims made in the sentence for the cite do not jibe with anything at all connected with Timmons, I deleted that as well. The neutral question, moreover, is: Is the 1972 Election Campaign a relevant issue with regard to Timmons ansering a Senator's memo? And is the fact that it was not declassified for some years relevant to a Timmons BLP? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also -- the book has no text material about Timmons at all -- only a copy of a memo with his name on it. Collect (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The following cite from thenation.com is being used to prove Timmons played a "central role" in attempting to deport John Lennon for political reasons. . I consider that this source is highly editorial in anture, and does not meet BLP standards for making that particular claim (the only "evidence" is that Timmons actually answered a memo from a Senator.) Is this source RS in and of itself? Does it meet BLP standards? Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rajmohan Pillai
This is a BLP about an Indian businessman who has been convicted of fraud, and the sentence suspended until his appeal is heard. The businessman has emailed to ask that we remove the section heading "Fraud conviction" and the category "Indian fraudsters" - basically on the grounds that until the appeal is decided, these are (or could be considered) overly pejorative terms.

These matters were considered before ( link to discussion #1 and link to discussion #2, both short). Due to the seriousness of the matter, the subject's request, and the fact the discussions before were quite brief with few contributors, I'm relisting this BLP issue to double check whether we have made the right decision. For example would "Fraud case" be a better section heading than "Fraud conviction", until the case is decided? Or do we describe the subject as a "convicted fraudster" (which technically of course he is) and change that only if the appeal is successful? (This was the prior reasoning.)

The exact wording of the appeal ruling is on the article's talk page. FT2 (Talk 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the section to the neutral "Legal issues". Slightly edited some wording and removed the Indian Fraudster category. (It can be replaced if the conviction is upheld). Exxolon (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

James Dobson
Does this policy apply to talk pages?

I tried asking a question about James Dobson's article in his talk page, and my comment was removed because it included a link to a website. --Silvestris (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not only the articles. CIreland (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The exorcism of Bobby Jindal
, all intermediate edits by the same oddly named single-purpose account User:TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (damned if this isn't a sarcastic reference to Essjay) adding what may be an inappropriate amount of verbatim quotation and lurid detail. — CharlotteWebb 21:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fortunately it runs directly afoul of including BLP about third parties. Not even a close call IMHO. Collect (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE comes into play, also. THF (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich
I'm not sure this person meets Wikipedia notability standards until and unless he wins the election, but the article itself feels pretty anti-Trutanich, even though it has reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Wines
Michael Wines is a New York Times journalist who spent many years stationed in Russia. In 2001, Rolling Stone journalist and author Matt Taibbi threw a pie allegedly made from horse semen into his face. This incident has been confirmed by the New York Times, and there is documentary material extant (photographs) showing Wines with pie on his face. The incident is outlined in detail in the Wiki entry on The eXile, Taibbi's Russian newspaper. Attempts to give this incident its due weight in Wines's own entry are being deleted on spurious grounds (which also keep changing): weight, NPOV, BLP etc. The article is a stub, and the incident has been widely reported - don't see how weight is an issue. There's no reason why a factual event that occurs elsewhere in Wiki should contravene the NPOV, nor is it defamatory if it is true (it is), and reliably sourced (it is). What are other editor's thoughts on this? The discussion page on the Michael Wines article gives a fuller account of the issues here.Richard Cooke (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The due weight for this in the article on Wines is zero. The due weight for this on the eXile is either zero or very close to zero. BLP applies on all pages, not just the bio of the subject. DGG (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, I'm trying to understand your tersely worded argument but not having much success. The only mention in WP policy I can find about "due weight" is the section entitled "Undue weight" on the page WP:NPOV, which is also the redirect destination from WP:due weight. This section asserts that minority viewpoints in some controversy (e.g. evolution, the death of Napoleon, etc.) should not be given undue weight. But in the present case, there is no minority viewpoint. Neither Wines nor any other party has ever disputed any facts that were being inserted into the article; in fact his publication (NYT) actually confirmed it.


 * Consequently, I don't understand what relevance the due weight argument has here, or what quantity is supposed to be "zero." If the 5(!) sources available on this subject from other WP pages are added, there is clearly no surfeit of reliable sources and no violation of NPOV, BLP, or any other policy. Please correct me if there's something I've missed.... dsol (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DCG, what is the basis for your claim that this material has "zero weight" or contravenes the BLP? Matt Taibbi is a signficant figure, as is Michael Wines. Surely one throwing a pie in the face of the other constitutes a significant event. At present, your argument seems to be "because I say so". Richard Cooke (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It rises to the level of inclusion if it is noteworthy, ie it has been covered by multiple RS and has some relevance to the article and is not undue weight, ie its 90% of the article. Is this the case? I have no idea. Just my 2 cents. --Tom 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just took a quick look at the bio. Still not sure. Wines went to school, works for the times, has wife and kids, and some reporter threw a pie in his face?? His current bio is tiny so this "factoid" would sort of stick out awkwardly. Again, not arguing for or against inclusion, just thinking out loud.--Tom 15:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) After looking at what RC wanted to add, I would be against it. imho, it does give undue weight to eXile and their "award" and to the pie thrower. As pointed out, maybe, maybe, include a breif mention in eXile article or the pie throwers but not needed in the Wine article. Cheers, --Tom 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom - I agree with you that the current inclusion is far from optimum, and that a line or two would suffice. That was the original addition I made to the stub. However, one editor, Idlewild101, seems to be demanding an absurd "burden of proof" involving multiple references and an NPOV provided by putting it in a "XYZ reported" phrasing. He is now claiming that any reference to the event is "scatalogical". Apart from needing a dictionary (he presumably means it is offensive or obscene, rather than pertaining to faeces) this is irrelevant with respect to WP. Is it tasteless? Definitely. Is it noteworthy? Ditto. I would be more than happy to have this pie section pared down to a single line reference in Wines's bio, which seems appropriate given the noteworthiness of the incident in question. Something along the lines of "In 2001, author and journalist Matt Taibbi threw a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen into Wines's face, supposedly to protest the nature of Wines's reporting from Moscow." (referenced using the three links from the three Wiki quality sources on the eXile page). What are other editors thoughts? Thanks Richard Cooke (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing - I've scoured the WP for any reference to "scatalogical material", and can't find anything. Is this a recognized reason for removal of verified content? Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. Richard Cooke (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scatological material as well as childish pranks are subcategories of non-notable events of no encyclopædic value. That's what you should be looking for when perusing the policy. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Idlewild101 asked me to give my opinion. My view is that the our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If something is reliably reported and is relevent to the subject then we should summarize it. As for weight, that's a major issue because the article is so short. I believe the most significant element of this story is that the suibject was voted the worst journalist in Russia. If we report positive awards we should also report negative awards. The fact that the "prize" was getting hit with a pie is less important, and the contents of the pie are trivial (and can't be confirmed by photograph). I'd think that a very short version is acceptable, something like, "In March 2001, The eXile declared Wines, at the time the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, the worst journalist in Russia. A pie was thrown at him as his reward." We should be doubly sure that we are also reporting any positive honors he's received as well.    Will Beback    talk    19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Will, but is the eXile award noteable? I sure wouldn't use them as a citation. Has a 3rd party reported on the award? It seems like a fake/attack type of award, but others hopefully know better. Sorry for not knowing but just repling to your response. I will admitt that I am getting annoyed with the project by the number of times that I hear material should be included for whatever reason, probably since I am serious deletionist/minimalist. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ps, to reply to Ricahrd Cooke, you keep on insisting that this event was noteworthy and I am still not convienced. How widely was this covered? What do others think. If it isn't noteworthy, then don't include it at all, even if its a line or two. Anyways, when I first read this, I thought it said a pie made of horse feces, and I was like wow,nasstttie...--Tom 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, I would encourage you to go ahead and read the disputed material and the relevant footnotes. Coverage in the secondary sources, such as Media life magazine, the NY Post, and Salon.com establish notability for this content. dsol (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this material was also previously debated at the BLP noticeboard, with the final decision: "The section has been rewritten and now has adequate sourcing; it does not appear to violate WP:BLP policy." dsol (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Will BeBack. I think your concerns (and Tom's) have been dealt with in the previous discussion and resolution of this material on the BLPN with regard to The eXile article, which deals with the above concerns (there are 5 verified secondary sources discuss both the event and the contents of the pie). The only question remaining is one of weight in the context of Michael Wines's article, where consensus is now falling on the side of inclusion. I would encourage you to look at the material mooted for inclusion, and suggest any amendments there. If there are no objections, I will then restore the material. I'm also not sure why Idlewild couldn't contribute to this page himself. Richard Cooke (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that editors on this page actually go to the Michael Wines and the eXile page to edit them in line with the discussion on BLPN.

User:Richard Cooke and User:dsol simply revert each of my attempts to implement the ideas here. Cooke is clearly misleading people above when he says that what he's putting in the eXile article is consistent with what editors have said here. I don't agree with Dsol's suggestion that because the eXile matter has been discussed before on this page that anything said 2 years ago is final. Dsol has an ownership problem with the eXile and related articles. And please remember that Richard Cooke, not me, brought up this matter here, after inserting clearly inappropriate material in the Micheal Wines article.

As I read it, DGG and Tom say that the material should not be in the Michael Wines article, and that only a minimal mention in the eXile article would be permisable. User:Will Beback, is somewhat more lenient, saying that a fairly minimal one sentence summary might be acceptable (in either article?).

Please also note that User:Richard Cooke and User:Russavia who are both editing the Wines article and the eXile article are almost certainly sockpuppets, based upon their common attack style of writing, and edits such as.

Please also note that the eXile's editorial policy, as quoted by The Independent: "We shit on everybody equally." and that it was a tabloid in all senses, but is now defunct. The question repeated above "What do you mean by scatological material?" is clearly not posed in good faith.

The reason that I do not engage in discussion with these people is that from experience, I've found that they simply do not discuss matters in good faith.

This shouldn't distract us from the basic question: How is the following

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. In each issue, they paired up the previous week's survivors, who were then compared and analysed. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. Jonathan Shainin of Salon.com confirmed the incident, after seeing photographs of the attack. "

consistent with basic Wikipedia policy?

Blp "Basic human dignity Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Whereas, the version I've proposed based on discussions at the current WP:BLPN discussion is not considered acceptable?

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had pie flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. "

I'd personally leave out Wine's name, but in line with Will Bebacks more lenient approach I've left it in.

I'll ask that you consider this basic question and edit based upon your consideration. I will limit any further discussion here to "Have the eXile editors answered the basic question above, or do they simply bluster and avoid it."

Idlewild101 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, pleace file an WP:SPI. If not -- well, such accusations are not to be made lightly. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Idlewild101, I would, at this point defer to your version or decision. You seem to be acting in good faith and want to do what is best so that would be fine by me. You have obviously spent more time and thought on this "matter" and seem to know the "players" involved. I admitt that I "patrol" this board to help with "obvious" easily fixed problems and add my 2 cents for what it is worth. If you would like more imput or help just let me know and good luck :) --Tom 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All the objections to this material have been emotionally based, as opposed to an appeal to actual WP policies. The article should report what secondary sources have found notable about its subject. No secondary source has ever denied that this incident involving a public figure happened, and at least 6 sources, several of them highly reliable, have confirmed it. It has appeared in the lead paragraph of several secondary sources on the eXile and Matt Taibbi. Clearly these numerous secondary sources find the information to be relevant and true. Therefore I don't see what possible reason there could be for censoring the material. dsol (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I am ok with a very abbreviated version on Wines' page, so long as what the secondary sources have to say is available on the eXile or Taibbi's page. dsol (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. WP:IDONTLIKEIT it not a reason for deletion of material. I am actually beginning to question whether Idlewild is in fact the subject, or related to the subject, of this article. As evidenced at Commons:Deletion requests/File:I don't travel to eSStonia.jpg, several editors here are commenting based purely upon their own biases, Idlewild included. WP:BLP does not say anything that would warrant removal. So long as it is sourced reliably, and is written in an NPOV fashion, it is valid for inclusion. As I have stated on the talk page, if one were to remove it, there is nothing notable about this person, and should/will be put up at AfD. Tom has now removed the information again, and Tom, I should point out that Idlewild is a brand new editor, who wouldn't have a clue on the "players" involved, unless of course he is a banned sockpuppet, as he seems to know about policies, even if he does misquote and mispresent them. Wikipedia is not censored and for this reason, so long as it complies with policies, just because we don't like it, that doesn't mean we can exclude it. --Russavia Dialogue 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Russavia and Dsol have avoided the basic question. "How is the material inserted consistent with Blp" I've bolded the quotation of the policy above just in case they haven't seen it. The most obvious prohibition is Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly, but each of the 5 sentences quoted prohibit this nonsense.

Russavia has nominated the Michael Wines article for deletion because on "non-notability." I think many people might consider Wines borderline notable, but ... I'll suggest that everybody involved support this deletion, subject - as always is the case - that if anything more notable happens to the guy, that the article can be recreated. The section in the eXile, which the large majority of people here has said should be minimal or totally eliminated, should also be deleted. This will be especially true because the Basic Human Dignity section of BLP says "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions."

So it comes down to "let's just get rid of everything related to this." I hope everybody will support this. Idlewild101 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also voted delete on the Wines article. I don't agree however that his notability arise only from his victimization -- even he'd just been some random guy hit with a pie that would be the case, but it was his very broadly published work as a public figure that made the incident notable to the secondary sources that covered it. Not writing the article in a mocking tone is not the same as censoring any information that may reflect poorly on anyone. If you can rewrite the section in a way you feel is less mocking/more npov without removing information then I suggest you do so, other than that I would agree with Will BeBack that the secondary sources should be faithfully followed. dsol (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a pleasure to see you've stopped accusing me of sock-puppeting Idlewild - you must be feeling a bit sheepish, as Russavia and I have disagreed on several significant issues. I won't await an apology for this disgraceful and absurd imputation. Your argument about Basic Human Dignity isn't any more convincing in bold type, but I will "highlight" my objection to it as well. In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.


 * As the foreign correspondent of one of the world's premier newspapers, Wines is a public figure. To suggest his notability rests solely on a pie being thrown in his face is manifestly untrue. He is not famous for being the victim of a "crime", he is famous for his station. Wines's own reaction to the pie incident was that an award from The eXile for poor journalism was something of an honour considering its source, and as such felt neither mocked nor disparaged by it.


 * The key word in the Huamn Dignity section is "primarily". Even if you accept that a report of the event in some way mocks or disparages Wines (which I don't) to the extent that his basic human dignity was contravened (which is a stretch), neither his own article nor The eXile article serve to *primarily* mock or disparage him, any more than they are *primarily* about his wife and daughter, or *primarily* about Pavel Bure. Such an extreme interpretation of the human dignity clause means that no negative information relating to public persons could be included in BLPs, no matter how notable and verified (and if this contravenes human dignity, no matter how tepid). On the balance of the basic human dignity clause and the significant public figures clause, given the number of highly reliable sources reporting on the incident, the due weight given to the material, the NPOV and adherence to all other relavent WP, there's simply no reason for it not to be included.


 * If I can agree with Russavia without Idlewild accusing him of being me again (or is it me of being him?) it does seem that Idlewild's objection, when it boils down to it, is that he finds this personally offensive. In fact he has foolishly admitted as much on his own talk page. "Thanks for your support, and sorry to get you involved in any way with people who I consider to be very nasty. Hitting somebody with a sperm-filled pie just because you don't like his journalism - I can't imagine why anybody would consider that acceptable behavior. Bragging about it on Wikipedia - again, I can't imagine how anybody can do this. Not removing it when it's brought up at BLPN - impossible! Well obviously, there's something about this that just gets to me." In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT.


 * Idlewild, in your telling, there's a very revealing conflation between the people responsible for the event, and the people trying to add it to Wikipedia. You seem to believe that myself or other editors had something to do with throwing a sperm filled pie in Michael Wines's face, if your use of the word "bragging" is any indication. This might be hard for you to understand, but I don't have feelings about the sperm pie one way or another. I just believe it is noteworthy, and not in contravention of WP to include it in Wikipedia. For doing so, and having a good faith discussion about Wikipedia policy, you have accused me of being "a very nasty person", suggested I was sock puppeting, accused me or misrepresentation, and repeatedly said, on the basis of no evidence, that I was acting in bad faith. Let me be clear again: I didn't have anything to do with the original incident. I would be surprised if any of the other editors here did either. If you find this pie so upsetting as to make the kind of baseless accusations above, perhaps you should take your considerable WP lawyering skills to articles in which you are less emotionally invested. In the meantime, your "let's just get rid of everything related to this" conclusion bears as much relation to the discussion as I do to Russavia.


 * You've now tried to have this information removed on the grounds of notability, NPOV, unspecified BLP violations, a "large majority" consensus that doesn't exist, a "scatalogical material" grounds which appears nowhere in WP (and even if it did, would not apply to this article) and now because it offends human dignity. Anything else you'd like to try? Richard Cooke (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Richard Cooke has finally responded to my question on how the insertion of material on the pie attack on Michael Wines in his article and the eXile article is consistent with the Basic Human Dignity (BHD) section in WP:BLP. He just questions the applicability of one of the 5 sentences in BHD – based upon a strained interpretation of one word – without considering the meaning of the other 4 sentences, and then states the WP:BLP section on Public Figures (that says negative information on BLPs may be included if certain conditions are met) must be balanced against BHD. In other words in some situations, according to Cooke WP:Well-Known overrules BHD.

Cooke doesn’t like the 3rd sentence in the BHD section – if other editors can follow his objection, I think they’ll agree that his interpretation of the word “primarily” is rather strained. But let’s consider the first sentence “Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects.” A fair reading of that sentence is “Material that insults the basic human dignity of a person should be removed.”  A fair reading of the next sentence is “Tabloid-style material should be removed.”  And so on for 3 more sentences. Disputing 1 sentence simply does not remove the applicability of BHD.

Then Cooke says that BHD must be balanced against Well-Known. But BHD and Well-Known each stand on their own. BHD says that mockery or disparagement must be removed from Wikipedia articles. Well-Known says that negative information may, with some conditions, be included. “Mockery” and “information” have very different meanings. There is no conflict between BHD and Well-Known. WP:BLP simply does not say that Well-Known can over-rule BHD.

Well-Known is about Public figures  – e.g.  politicians, celebrities, or leading businessmen – who constitute a very small subset of people who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If there is any question whether a person is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, then he is not a public figure. At the AfD Articles for deletion/Michael Wines just finished the opinions are about evenly split: 7 say he is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, 8 say keep, he is notable enough. That total includes a “weak keep” from User:Richard Cooke. Surprisingly User:Russavia nominated the article for deletion based on notability considerations, and User:Dsol voted “weak delete.” The folks who are arguing that Wines is a public figure are also arguing that he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (or in Cooke’s case, barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article). It’s clear that Wines is not a public figure in the usual sense of the word.

WP:Well-Known also says that if 3 more conditions are all met then an incident “belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.” These additional conditions are 1) the incident is notable, 2) relevant, and 3) well-documented by reliable published sources.  If any of these conditions are not met, this section does not apply.  None of these conditions apply, especially  3) it is not documented in reliable sources. Russavia and Cooke have not asserted notability of the incident or relevance, except by saying that it has appeared in reliable sources, so that it must be notable, therefore it must be relevant. Actually verifiablility, notability, and relevance are different concepts and different policies, but disproving 3) also disproves the Cooke’s contention of notability and relevance. There are currently 6 sources in the eXile’s section on Wines:

29. Matt Taibbi (2001-04-05). "HACK Eat's Horse Sperm Surprise". the eXile. http://web.archive.org/web/20030625022811/http://www.exile.ru/113/lead.php. 30. a b Matthew Fleischer (2007-12-13). "Matt Taibbi on How the US is Like Ike Turner". LA Weekly. http://www.laweekly.com/2007-12-13/art-books/matt-taibbi-on-how-the-u-s-is-like-ike-turner/.

31. Richard Johnson (2005-03-08). "Editor Out Over Pope Parody". Page Six (NY Post, syndicated by Yahoo News). http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/ps/20050308/111027927700.html.

32. Jonathan Shainin (2005-05-12). "Politics-a-palooza". Salon.com. http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2005/05/12/taibbi/index.html.

33. "NY Times Moscow chief gets a nasty faceful". Media Life Magazine. 2001-04-11. http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr09/3_wed/news7wednesday.html.

34. Renita Steeley (July 1990). "The Year of Dangerous Reporting". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1523.

None of these are news stories, but rather opinion pieces (or book reviews), except perhaps for 31) which is now a broken link. If I remember correctly, it is not reporting about Wines, but on how Matt Taibbi (the pie thrower) and his editor at a New York weekly tabloid were fired after the tabloid published Taibbi’s mocking of Pope John Paul II, while the Pope was on his deathbed.  29 is not a reliable source by any stretch – it’s stated goal is to “shit on everybody equally.”

30 LA Weekly is a tabloid, the article is a book review, and it mentions Wines in 1 paragraph. 32 is similar, but does not mention Wines. 35 is from 11 years before the incident, and is used only as a justification for the pie throwing. Which leaves only 34, a fairly chatty 2 paragraph piece, and at least they did some fact checking … but it certainly ain’t the Washington Post, or even the Dubuque Herald Telegraph.

Let’s check what reliable sources are in terms of BLP. From Reliable_sources

News organizations

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. Some caveats:
 * News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. (my bolding)

In short, all the sources fail miserably according to this definition.

To summarize: Please note that unless you agree with Cooke on all of the last 4 points, Well-Known does not apply, and the logic of User:Richard Cooke’s position collapses.
 * Cooke doesn’t dispute BHD’s applicability – only the applicability of one sentence.
 * He says that Well-Known can over-rule BHD, but that is not in the WP:BLP policy
 * He asserts that Wines is a public figure, when he obviously is not
 * He doesn’t even bother to assert that the material is relevant and notable
 * He asserts that various tabloids and questionable sources are in fact reliable in terms of WP:BLP.

Idlewild101 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the above comment rambling and full of copy-pasted text from policy pages to the point that it is difficult to follow, but I will try to respond.
 * You are interpreting BHD so broadly as to mean that nothing reflecting poorly on anyone could ever be covered. We need to just follow the secondary sources and summarize in a neutral way; see Will Beback's comment above. We should not write the material in a mocking way, but rather report the facts as other sources have done.
 * Obviously, Wines is a public figure. He puts his name on his articles and editorials, published his own biography in a "meet a reporter" type piece in the NYT, and goes on TV to speak as an expert. The reason I voted delete on the AfD is because he was not covered in secondary sources apart from this incident and by FAIR, not because he wasn't a public figure.
 * LA weekly is a fairly reliable source, it is tabloid sized but not exactly the Sun -- It hasn't published anything false and according to its WP article there seem to have been Pulitzers awarded to its writers.
 * The fact that a link is dead is irrelevant, print sources don't have to be available online to be cited. The dead link's material was in the NY post.
 * The fact that something was asserted in a reliable source is not changed by it being a book review or whatever. We are interested in secondary sources for their reliability and assertions of facts; this is not exclusively news articles. Also, it is not unheard of for a journalist to do some interviewing/fact gathering when reviewing a nonfiction book about contemporary events.
 * The notability of the material doesn't have to be asserted by Cooke, because it's established by the coverage in secondary sources.
 * Source 32 is from salon.com, definitely a RS. It doesn't mention Wines by name, but does describe the incident, so it's relevant to the section.
 * You are grossly mischarecterizing Cooke's position; he is not asserting that any non-RS are RS. You are the only editor among many who have commented on this to ever suggest that sourcing is insufficient, in fact another editor questioned why we need so many. As Cooke notes above, you have only done this after your other arguments, edit-warring, and direct pleas to administrators have failed to work.
 * dsol (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Wines break 1
When I asked Idlewild if there was anything else he would like to try, having now exhausted a series of progressively less convincing arguments to remove this material, the last thing I expected was for him to deny that Salon.com, the New York Post and Media Life Magazine were reliable sources, or to yet again deliberately misrepresent my position. But seeing he has...


 * "Cooke doesn’t dispute BHD’s applicability – only the applicability of one sentence".

This makes no sense. BHD is of course applicable to all articles, properly understood. Like any policy, it's best understood as a whole, not when it is quoted selectively. You seem to imply that I'm disputing that one sentence in the policy is not applicable, when in fact I'm arguing that it is especially applicable in this case. You can see above that I have quite clearly said that I don't accept that a report of this incident violates BHD, and that accepting that it does would mean countless other pieces of factual information would have to be removed from Wikipedia. What I did say is that even if a person does stretch the definition to accept a pie in the face violates BHD ["(which I don't)" you'll notice I said above], the articles in question still don't serve to *primarily* mock or disparage the subject, and therefore don't contravene BHD. So even in your twisted interpretation of BHD, is correct, which it isn't, there still aren't ground for removal.


 * "He says that Well-Known can over-rule BHD, but that is not in the WP:BLP policy"

There's clearly a tension between these clauses (a tension being exploited by you now), when a piece of factual, verified information *may* be interpretated as being mocking or disparaging. The Well-Known clause allows for "negative" material, every piece of which could be interpreted, by those taking an extreme position, as having the power to "mock or disparage". As long as this negative information is sourced, notable, and written in a NPOV, it doesn't contravene WP; otherwise, all sourced negative information in BLP could be removed on these grounds. Idlewild is right when he says that "mockery" and "information" have different meanings. Is he disputing that the incident took place? "Michael Wines should have/deserved to have a semen pie thrown in his face" is mockery. "Michael Wines did have a semen pie thrown in his face" is information. I don't think that piece of factual information mocks or disparages Wines, in fact neither does Wines himself, but someone disingenuously searching for grounds on which to remove factual information from Wikipedia might make that argument. As noted aboved, that still wouldn't be grounds for removal under BHD unless the articles primarily served to mock or disparage, and the Well Known clause offers a double protection specifically designed to preserve material like this.


 * "He asserts that Wines is a public figure, when he obviously is not"

You are now arguing that someone who regularly appears on television as an expert, and is a NYT bureau chief is not a public figure. There was no consensus for removal when the article was mooted for deletion - so what? If anything, that speaks to the fact that he is a public figure. The burden of proof you seem to be using is this: "Well-Known is about Public figures  – e.g.  politicians, celebrities, or leading businessmen – who constitute a very small subset of people who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article." Can you show me where it says this in WP? Of course you can't. It's just something you made up.
 * "He doesn’t even bother to assert that the material is relevant and notable"

I don't need to - that's a job for secondary sources - but I have done so previously, and I will do so again. "Relevance" seems to be a bizarre thing to take issue with. Are you saying this has nothing to do with The eXile or Michael Wines? Notability has been established by a large number of RS (which, as you'll see below are about to become larger), but I will make the argument myself anyway. Another editor, Digwaren, made the point that Bill Gates had a pie thrown in his face by a protestor, and that "prank" isn't mentioned in Gates's Wikipedia entry. That's a very pertinent point. Now ask yourself - if that protestor was a published author, Rolling Stone columnist, and National Magazine Award Winner, who was himself the subject of numerous interviews and profile pieces in the Washington Post and elsewhere, and had an extensive Wikipedia entry, independent of his pie-throwing action, would that incident be notable? The answer is clearly "yes". The fact that here the protest was by another prominent journalist, as criticism of Wines's own journalism, makes it doubly notable. And as you're about to see below, the incident has been verified and found notable by The New York Post, Salon.com, The Age, The National Journal, LA Weekly, Media Life Magazine and The Russia Journal, among other RS.


 * "He asserts that various tabloids and questionable sources are in fact reliable in terms of WP:BLP".

Of all your assertions, this is the most fatuous. A link is broken? Very well, let's make it an offline source, along with "TIMESMAN NAILED WITH PUTRID PIE", p6, 10 April 2001, New York Post, in which Wines himself is asked about the incident and the contents of the pie, and disputes neither, and "Moscow horse pie surprise", Backpage, Edited By John Mangan With Olivia Hill-Douglas, The Age 25 April 2001; or "PEOPLE - PRESS PASS: REALLY GROSS STORY ABOUT Times MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF", The Hotline, National Journal, 10 April 2001; along with several mentions in The Russia Journal, a Factiva-indexed web report and magazine which also has a Wikipedia entry, and a mention in the St Petersburg Times. Are you saying that these publications aren't RS? Or seriously, that the LA Weekly, whose writers have won Pulizters, is not an RS? Or Media Life Magazine, which published this as a news item verified by the NYT itself, is not an RS? The New York Post has already been found to be a RS - you're free to take all the others to task at the sources noticeboard if you feel they are "tabloid and questionable sources". Good luck. If any other editor would like me to reference the articles with these offline sources, I would be happy to do so. They cost me 12 bucks on Factiva. Seeing other editors have suggested too many RS are the problem, rather than too few, and that Idlewild is alone in pursuing this line of argument, I will assume there is no consensus to do so.

Idlewild, I'm not the first editor to think that your editing is so unusual that you may have a conflict of interest. I don't think you're Michael Wines - I doubt he'd waste his time like this, and I'm sure he'd argue his case more convincingly. But do you have a personal or professional relationship with him? Wines's article is part of a Columbia University project, "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Columbia University on Wikipedia." Do you have a professional or personal affilitation with Columbia University? Are you part of this project? Is this why you're removing extensively sourced material about a prominent alumnus? I'm not suggesting that it precludes you from editing if you do. Frankly, I'm just trying to make your behaviour explicable. Richard Cooke (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It will take me awhile to address all of this, but Ill answer a couple of questions RC asked: I have no connection with Columbia University and RC´s story about a University project looks rather imaginative. Do I plan to challenge Salon.com as a Reliable Source?  Yes, its own editor described it as a "Smart Tabloid."  Does the New York Post Page Six column qualify as a Reliable Source? No, it describes itself as a gossip page.  All in all, it just looks like RC is saying something like "black is white." Please be more serious in your replies. Idlewild101 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Imaginitive? The Columbia Project is there, on the page. Are you saying that it doesn't exist? I also asked you if you have a personal or professional affiliation with Michael Wines, a question that you have conspicuously not answered. Do you, or don't you? If you're going to take issue with all of these sources, it's not enough to do it here, as that may have ramifications elsewhere in Wikipedia. You have to do it on the sources noticeboard, and seeing you are now taking issue with more than five sources, I suggest you get under way now - this may take some time. I'm not saying "black is white" - I'm saying that you are alone among editors in taking issue with RS here.


 * If I have tried to inject some humour into my replies, it's because the alternative is vitriol. You've made no attempt to apologise for publicly accusing me of sock-puppeting, the "evidence" for which was that several editors had objected independently to your edit warring, failure to use talk pages, and repeated removal of sourced material on the flimsiest grounds imaginable, a process you continued until you were banned. You are wasting more and more time on less and less convincing attempts to challenge this, in a quite deliberate attempt to have something removed for the sole reason that you find it personally objectionable. If you insist on wasting yet more time, I'm happy to argue for the veracity of any of these sources on the relevant noticeboard. Incidentally, consensus shows that the NY Post is already considered a reliable source there, as is Salon.com. Are you suggesting that the Post fraudulently attributed quotes to Michael Wines, after speaking to him in a phone interview? This is becoming absurd. Ultimately, RS is decided by consensus, with the editors' discretion, on a case by case basis. At present, you are a consensus of one.


 * Are there any other editors here who believe the sources currently on Michael Wines's page, and the page for The eXile, do not constitute RS? If so, let's take the debate to the other noticeboard. If not, I see no grounds on which to challenge the consensus reached two years ago. Richard Cooke (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection, professional or personal or otherwise, with either Columbia University or Michael Wines. You write "The Columbia Project is there, on the page." What are you talking about, what page? For the New York Post Page Six please see its dedicated page http://www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip.htm I dont think anybody could consider this an appropriate source for a BLP. Idlewild101 (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion page for Michael Wines carries this tag: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Columbia University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Columbia University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks." As I said, if you were involved in it that wouldn't have precluded you from editing, but you're not, so it's irrelevant. The use of Page 6 is dependent on the context. In this context, Wines is quoted directly, in an interview conducted by a reporter from the Post. That's very different to gossip, unattributed or otherwise. The reliability of Page 6 might be called into question under certain circumstances (such as where supposition or unattributed quotes are involved) but the question here is "Would the NY Post falsify or otherwise present in an inaccurate context direct quotes from an original interview?" and the answer is no. When it comes to journalistic ethics, it's the reliability of the publication in general that should be the determining factor. The Page 6 story was also repeated in broadsheet news publications, where it presumably underwent further scrutiny, so if you reject the Page 6 report, The Age report or National Journal report can be susbstituted. Even if you reject all of these, the LA Weekly and Salon.com sources are more than sufficient. Richard Cooke (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)