Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive66

user:Morbid Fairy - article Dabinderjit Singh
Cannot or will not stop a number of bad practices. Editor considers Dabinderjit Singh a terrorist and continues to restore content linking the subject to terrorism information sites, articles, including single-source tabloid speculation. Additional editor history under previous account user:Satanoid. This is not a sock, editor appears to have lost the [Satanoid password]. // - sinneed (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article to Sikh Federation (UK), which seems a much better focus. Needs expanding and improving. Disembrangler (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have recreated the article. The move was not appropriate, and was not discussed.  I support the creation of the new article.- sinneed (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry to say that Sinneed has produced a version of Sikh Federation (UK) which can only be described as censored. (diff) Other disinterested editors (I have no interest in the topic) please comment. I propose merging Dabinderjit Singh into Sikh Federation (UK) (because his notability is so strongly linked with them) and undoing Sinneed's removal of sourced information. Disembrangler (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it can be described in other ways. As I said in the single case of content removal, where I cut down the coverage of Singh, "easily" reverted.  I did cut the lead usage "associated with radical Sikhism" and the word "widely".  Sorry we don't agree.- sinneed (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * diff - a diff with more of the edits actually done.
 * Back to the subject. user:Morbid Fairy is presently blocked for 31 hours, but this editor might profit from hearing from uninvolved editors.  I feel MF has much to contribute to Wikipedia.  The editor has provided many useful sources, and some good content, and I think can provide more.- sinneed (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well progress seems to be made. Let's see if that changes if/when the editor mentioned originally returns. Disembrangler (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see the new article, and have updated Dabinderjit Singh, Sikh Extremism, International Sikh Youth Federation to reference it. I hope you will rejoin the talk page, and let me know anything else you would like to see changed, but choose not to do.  I don't think any of this is going to have much effect on the Singh article, though.- sinneed (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Guy Burnet
- An anonymous user,, has been removing well-sourced information about Guy's Jewish origin. On my talk page, the IP claims that they are Guy Burnet, and are removing the information because it is incorrect. I'm unsure of how to proceed with this issue, and have (for the time being), requested full protection of the article until a decision/consensus is formed on the issue. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 07:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored his version per OTRS #2009061210007096. The IP was the subject of the article, and thus is a better authority of his own origins than the source. It's not overly necessary to keep that information anyway. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine then. Obviously it is difficult for me to judge the comments made by an IP as being the actual subject or just an overzealous fan trying to remove information from the article under the guise of the actual subject.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jay Bybee
Jay Bybee is the signer of the "Bybee Memo" aka the "Torture Memo". I've been working on his article for some time, and NPOV is incredibly difficult given the amount of negative publicity surrounding this man. However, one of our founding principles is "innocent until proven guilty". I'd like to believe that.

I am having a problem with a specific editor. A few days ago, an article appeared in the NYT which was very favorable to Bybee's position, namely that the methods discussed in the memo did not constitute torture under relevant U.S. Code statutes. (Whether or not waterboarding and the like equals torture in the public mind is irrelevant; what matters here is whether or not the law defined these methods as torture, since the sole task of the lawyers in question was to interpret the law as then codified.) I put this lone scrap of good information into the Bybee article (a lone scrap which was so strong that it is indicative that the ruling will ultimately be favorable for the lawyers) and this editor persists not only in rewording it to soften the impact, but also in burying it under a deluge of negative (and older) material.

Shouldn't more recent information be of greater import?

And, to balance NPOV, isn't there a rule (particularly in the case of living persons) that balanced information needs to be somehow equal, not one part good to five parts bad?

I could really use some help with this. Attempts at compromise have been unsuccessful. Samantha1961 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism
I deleted some defamatory and potentially libelous material about an Estonian government official inserted into the article Neo-Nazism here as it appears to be based upon hearsay by a dubious character. However PasswordUsername has reverted me twice, here and here. I've mentioned in the edit comments the potential WP:BLP issue but he has responded by saying BLP does not apply. --Martintg (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * by
 * BLP requires that sources should be of the highest quality per BLP, if in doubt it is better to remove material from main space and continue discussion about that source on talk page, as outline by Arbitration committee - Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 ("In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."). Also burden of evidence lay on editor's, who restores such info, shoulders.  M.K. (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Southern Poverty Law Center seems like the highest-quality source on reporting alleged ties to neo-Nazism – this is a legally-oriented group specializing in cases of racist and neo-Nazi extremism and hate crimes. For clarification, this is what Martintg is bringing into question right here. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the Southern Poverty Law Center making the claim, but saying a Estonian newspaper said this person Cobb identified the person in question as a neo-Nazi. This is highly dubious hearsay. --Martintg (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While it may possible the info is removable because it is too detailed for such a large topic (WP:UNDUE), just what is the problem with reporting hearsay as hearsay, once it is discussed by a reliable source? With attribution and neutral wording, it reports verifiable info, not the truth - the former we strive for, the latter is not our concern (WP:V). Dahn (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because BLP has a higher standard regarding potentially libelous material? As the policy states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Martintg (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that's very well, Martin. If we'll just identify him as "a former Ministry of Justice official" according to X there's going to be no WP:BLP issue at all. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would be very careful with particular material, witch is based on another newspaper report (rather then SPLC itself) there is recorded neo-Nazi individual claim on another person. I also have to agree with Dahn comment part about UNDUE, but this issue should be discussed on appropriate article's talk page. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

André Schneider
This article was already deleted from German Wiki in 2006, because it is faked. The "actor" himself wrote most of the parts using different accounts and IPs. All the books are Book On Demand. He never stared in Basic Instinct II for example and he never played Puck in Talbot's Midsummernight's Dream as stated in the article. His comedy shows have never been performed. The information on his IMDB-profile according to several newspaper interviews cannot be found. Because of this the article contains wrong information as well as it is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikanda (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search would appear to support what you are saying. Anyone want to take this to Afd? – ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know how cause I'm quite new here. So I would appreciate if someone else did and join the discussion. --Dikanda (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - Articles for deletion/André Schneider. Disembrangler (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

David Bain
David Bain is a New Zealender who was convicted of murdering his family in 1995, a convicted which was overturned in 2007 and after a retrial which recently ended, he was found not guilty. The cases had extremely widespread coverage in New Zealand. We currently have a biography article on the person, which is largely about the killings and the trials (there is no seperate article and suggestions for a split were opposed) which is to be expected since David Bain would be not-noteable were it not for the trials (on the other hand, there is probably enough interest in him now that he is notable enough for an article). Now that the saga is reaching an end, there is some discussion about how to handle the article such as length and ordering so any comments from someone dealing with BLPs of this sort is welcome. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems a tremendous amount of detail which could reasonably be left to a reader to determine from the references.  I, personally, would delete almost all the minutiae and leave the kep parts in (non-human blood on a firearm which was left to the first jury as being possibly human) and the like.  Collect (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed
Syed Ahmed is heating up again. The worry is WP:UNDUE over an arrest for financial irregularities which was never followed by a conviction. I must recuse from this article as an admin watching over BLP worries because there could be claims I have an involvement or some conflict with one of the editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't recuse yourself on my account. I'm quite happy for you to do your admin thing as you see fit. I won't hold that against you, just the rather weak argument for its non-inclusion ;) -- Web H amster  17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks WH :) but I'm still worried, I truly don't want to cause you woe, my take on BLP is stern, moreover on weighting which we don't agree on and since we may have had disagreements elsewhere I can't bring myself (nor do I want) to wield the bit on something about which you are both involved as an editor and don't share my outlook. This is why I didn't even undo your undo. No hard feelings or anything and we can talk about it more but that's where I'm at for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I just wanted to make it clear that I don't have a problem with you or you doing your 'thang'! -- Web H amster  18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh and I want to keep it that way ;) I've asked for renewed full protection at Requests for page protection, owing to the renewed edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What edit warring. If you'd bothered to ask you would see that it's being discussed both on the article talk page and on my talk page. There is no edit war. Not only that, one of the biggest detractors of the arrest entry has now agreed that the wording is neutral and agrees that it should be included. So where's the edit war? It was protected 20 mins after the last revert and all it's succeeded in doing is not allowing the citation that was the reason for the last revert. Would someone please get their act together so Amicaveritas can add the information that had been asked for. Sheesh, talk about hair-triggers. It's one thing recusing yourself Gwen but quite another to go ask someone else to do what you wanted to do. That's just plain sneaky. -- Web H amster  20:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another admin, not me, protected the page after reviewing my request on WP:RFP, a wide open project page, hardly sneaky. Your response was foreseen and is spot on why I recused from any admin action on this article. Had y'all not started up edit warring I'd not have asked for protection. You or any other editor can make a request for unprotection on the same project page, or ask the protecting admin, who has had no other contact with me at all about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Recusing yourself means walking away, not going to ask for another admin to do what you wanted in the first place. In my book that's sneaky, and in this instance totally unnecessary. There was no edit war and certainly no need to ask for protection. At least if you'd done it my way your actions would have been open and above board. You really are showing some really bad decision-making skills over the last few days and it's a real shame. -- Web H amster  23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's starting to sound to me like when you say "bad decision-making skills" it means anything you don't agree with. I didn't protect the article. I requested protection at WP:RFP, an open project page, for independent review by any admin and another admin protected the article. I had no other contact of any kind with anyone about this. If you think there is little likelihood of edit warring now, please either request unprotection at WP:RFP or ask the protecting admin, who independently reviewed the contribution history and protected the article to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What it sounds like to you means you're on the defensive. The page is currently protected because you asked for it to be. If you hadn't asked it wouldn't be protected. Simple enough concept I would have thought. So there's one bad decision right there. recusing yourself then in the next breath you toddle off to ask for the protection. Strange definition you have of "recusing". You decided there was an edit war going on. Wrong, there wasn't. 2 reverts of 2 totally separate parts of the article does not an edit war make. Unless of course one of the edits was yours. Yet another bad decision. "Likely to be a BLP problem". "Likely"? Guessing now are we? You take action when it is, not when it might be but you aren't sure. I don't know if you'd noticed but there is currently a consensus to include the arrest paragraph. So yet another example of your propensity to take an action based on your view of the consensus only to find out afterwards that you were wrong. A bit like the other day. So yet another bad decision. This isn't based on my opinion, it's based on circumstances, facts and your words. Now given that you asked for the protection, I feel it should be you asking for it to be removed as currently you are the only one wanting it, which so happens to be out of consensus. A finger on the pulse of consensus seems to be to be your bête noir at the moment Gwen. -- Web H amster  00:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I cite consensus on this? Diff? I recused myself from any admin action on the article, but felt a responsibility to report the edit warring. Reporting edit warring at WP:RFP is not an admin action and I neither cited nor claimed any consensus: A report at RFP is a request for independent review. I had not a clue which admin might look at it. You claimed (wrongly) on the talk page that I have my "thumb on the scale," I recused from admin actions on the article, then you come here claiming "sneakiness" and "hair-triggers" over a non-admin report I made at RFP which was acted on by an independent admin and when I take the time to answer all this, you say I'm "on the defensive"? Further input, I'll leave to others. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about Gwen? I haven't said you have cited anything about consensus. I said there was a consensus from the involved editors, not that you cited it. Also, I didn't claim that you had your thumb on the scale, I asked in a joking fashion because of the weight issue. It's a joke about how market traders in the UK would sometimes put their thumb on the scales to make something heavier than it was. "Weight", "scales", Geddit now? So what is the difference between you protecting the page but not doing so because you're recused, and running to another admin to do it for you? The article gets protected because you instigated it. Who clicks the button is irrelevant. It's just an indicator or your skewed view of things that prevents you from seeing that. Meanwhile thanks to your valiant efforts we can no longer edit the article to sort out other minor BLP concerns, the reason you wanted the article prevented, i.e. the paragraph about his arrest, has been locked in place. Gwen, you aren't making things better by your efforts, you are making them worse. Meanwhile, as Amica has stated below, the editors that were primarily involved are now on the same page as to its inclusion and its wording. What do you think you were hoping to achieve by your actions? If you had left well alone the whole thing would have been sorted without all this brouhaha. It might help if you could distinguish an edit war from a minor disagreement, or is it because you don't like being reverted? -- Web H amster  17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Gwen, I appreciate your prompt action to maintain order and uphold BLP, but I should point out the editors involved are me, WebHamster and Bengali71 - I believe we are broadly in consensus and actively working together to improve the article. I agree with the points you and other editors make regarding BLP and Weight in principle but personally feel the current edit addresses this with regard to the Afted Ahmed incident.  However, if you and the others continue to have concerns then please let's discuss them with Web & Bengali as well.  I should point out ironically you have protected the article with the content you consider contentious locked in it.  The default position is clearly that it should be removed pending consensus if it is contentious and giving BLP / Weight concerns.  I think we are all in agreement that we want a well written neutral article that covers the facts, is not a whitewash, but will not cause or be likely to cause undue harm.  I see no reason to believe any current editor is not acting in good faith on this principle.  Amicaveritas (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't protect the article. You might want to carry on your discussion with the protecting admin at User_talk:Tanthalas39. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PeterMandelson
Regarding this edit, which I have taken out, and called an unnecessary tabloid slur, [] and is it really needed to add 6 or 7 cites to help push it? I don't think it belongs in the lede of a leading politician on a encyclopedia. Please comment, I have been wrong b4.. it seems to me like a infant playground...liar liar liar.... It was inserted by [] who I had a talk page chat.. and he didn't replace it ..and then it was replaced by..[] who called it well cited, which it is, but I feel it doesn't belong in the lede of a BLP or even in the article anywhere.(Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment... Nothing helpful at all about this question. The wikipedia processes for dispute resolution or comments are mostly broken and a good faith user who is sinking in the quagmire that is wikipedia guidelines has nowhere worthwhile  to go for assistance. And that reflects all the way through wikipedia. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Give it a bit more time, mate! Anyway, removed the "liar" bit as a clear violation of WP:NPOV and also (as 6+ refs indicates) WP:SYNTHESIS. Disembrangler (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look. Sorry about the rush, when your a bit stressed a minute can seem like an eternity. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Harisu

 * -- Another user has removed mention of the birth name from both the lead and infobox, on the basis that this constitutes a BLP violation; this stems from discussions held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The name is verifiable by reliable sources and does not in itself (so far as I can see) pose any BLP concerns, and inclusion in the lead is consistant with MOS:BIO. However, the argument seems to be that since the subject was not publically known by her birth name (a notion which is itself disputable), repeating the name out of context in the lead asserts an undue level of importance and merely serves to satisfy a "prurient curiosity"; this apparently does not extend to the subject's legal name, which remains in the lead. Since we are dealing with basic factual information I refute this explanation as nonsense, but I would appreciate some input from someone more familiar with the ins and outs of BLP policy. PC78 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Inger Lorre / The Nymphs
It would be helpful if folks kept an eye on these two articles, which were riddled with flagrant BLP violations and undue weight given to drunken behavior (which, although sourced, was not really encyclopedic). I've cleaned them up, but I expect at least some of the material to be quickly reinserted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hank Green
Any input, tips, and criticisms on my proposed replacement article on Hank Green (which can be viewed at User:Madithekilljoy/Sandbox) would be helpful and greatly appreciated. Madithekilljoy (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Bozzio
I've noticed that the recent edits to the bio appear to possibly be the subject himself. It looks like he's putting his own "official" biography as the article. I didn't want to intervene because I know the sensitivity of these sometimes. I just wanted to bring attention to this. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano


See Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano, an editor is saying that we can't cite a certain document because it's not clear enough for WP:BLP if it's the same person. However, seeing this evidence I find that it's clear that it's the same person way beyond reasonable doubt. Comments are welcome. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It does appear quite clear that the subject of the source and the subject of our article are one and the same. You might also consider wp:rs/n, as the folks there might be more experienced in determining that this is indeed a completely reliable source, for this article, for our purposes.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The ref is about a John di Stefano who does not get mentioned in the article. How is that fulfilling blp on an article which the subject clearly objects to (ie one of the sensitive blps). There is no dispute about whether the ref is reliable (it is reliable) so no need for wp:rs/n, the dispute is about the fact that the reference refers to an individual who is not called Giovanni di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are saying the source is not relevant to the context it is to be used in, then I think it certainly would be a question of the reliability of the source (again, in this context, which wp:rs does address). Nevertheless, I was simply offering an additional potential avenue where you could raise your concerns and potentially get other relevant opinions specific to the sourcing issue, as it does appear that a consensus is forming on the talk page for that article that supports using the source.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Without resolving the issue of whether they are one and the same it is very difficult to see how we can add it, and blp demands more than just a consensus of a small number of editors re blp in a case like this; but actually I am not sure there is consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange as it may seem there are no BLP issues about adding well cited material to an article. We have also long since established that they are the same person and indeed use sources that mention that fact such as this one. Now stop wasteing people's time with claims you cannot credibly pretend are true.Geni 12:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your establishing such an allegation is pure original research on your part and there is no mention of this John di Stefano in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 03:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I swear, if SqueakBox reverts my addition of this source to the article then I'm gonna head directly to ANI and ask that he is topic banned from the article for repeatedly working against consensus. (it's not the first time that he pulls this sort of stubborn resistance to accept good sources, and this time he's bringing the wikilawyering way too far) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoosadism
See this news report; it's still in early stages and consider the appropriateness of the following new redirects to Zoosadism Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZDCdN3Okj3MFxUnnvgzL4DJD38QD98QVNJ80
 * 


 * The redirects appear to have been created in good faith, but I have nonetheless deleted them as "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone...." CIreland (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that was my thinking. I have no idea where that story is going to go or if I'll ever notice it again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I created those because I don't want the scumbag to have his own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist) RfC - a request for participation
I fear a recently filed RfC is already off the tracks and in danger of getting lost in the ongoing bickering and rock throwing that seems to engulf almost every discussion on this page. The RfC is a fairly straight forward query about including information about a lawsuit and includes proposed edits and sourcing. The editor asked for more uninvolved editors, and I'm hoping more editor participation will keep the discussion on the edits as I really don't know what to do. Suggestions here for other boards to ask for participation or comments on the Rfc is also appreciated. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 15:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Psychic Twins biography
The Psychic Twins, Linda and Terry Jamison have an incomplete quote their biography on Wikipedia, which unfortunately appears like a fabricated claim.

The correct, actual quote is this:

"We are seeing terrorist attacks on federal government. Particularly South Carolina or Georgia, by July 2002. And also the New York Trade Center, the World Trade Center by 2002."

The N.Y. trade center was bombed in the 90s when they worked in the building as performers. They knew very well there was a fair risk for more attacks when they stated the above in 1999.

Also, this other claim of theirs is false: "The Psychic Twins also predicted the 2000 stock market crash to the week (Art Bell Coast to Coast Radio, Nov. 2, 1999)."

Listen to the full audio and you won't hear them say anything about a specific week.

Folks, anyone can state hundreds of predictions, and only list the hits. Notice they don't list any of their misses on their site, such as predicting Hillary would win in 2008 and saying in June 2008 that "the economy looks good now" ?

It's unfortunate you allow this nonsense to transpire--you're only helping them fabricate their claims, thus mislead the public. Radio and TV shows who have them as guests don't do their due dilligence and all they care about is ratings.

I suggest you contact them and request the full audios of any predictions listed in their bio before allowing it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.139.99 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced lists of people, part II
WhisperToMe continues to wholesale-blank lists. Here's a discussion I've had with him on the subject. I'd appreciate help on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Woburn,_Massachusetts#Form_of_citation_required_for_.22Notable_residents.22_list (72.70.68.39)
 * I have made my positions clear on this talk page and in a previous noticeboard discussion. The initial removal, and demands for the restorers/creators to begin citing these lists, are justified. I have asked 72.70.68.39 to begin referencing the list. Yes, I am removing long, totally unreferenced lists of people from geography articles that I happen to encounter (if there is a suspicion that they contain living people). For a reference see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_21 - I must reiterate: I have asked 72.70.68.39 to initiate sourcing of the unreferenced list, and I would like for him to put an effort to do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto
There is a puppetmaster account (User:Dr90s) that has been removing references to Shigeru Miyamoto and generally downplaying his involvement on many if not all articles that he is credited with being involved with. This user has been reported to SPI many times and has been blocked/banned many times yet he continued to return. I know this is a matter for SPI but I had a few tangential questions which I believe would best be answered here.
 * 1) Are these kinds of edits considered "defamatory edits" as proscribed under WP:BLP? From what I read there and elsewhere, defamation in the form of Libel and Slander consists of adding material that is derogatory in nature. I have been arguing that the deletion/removal/downplay of achievements that are attributed to a living person by reliable and verifiable sources constitutes "defamation" in violation of WP:BLP. Am I right?
 * 2) Since this editor is making vandalism related to Mr. Miyamoto on all articles related to him, the monitoring of just the article on Mr. Miyamoto isn't effective against this vandal's edits. Can anyone think of a better way to monitor all of the articles related to this living person?
 * 3) Are there any sorts of "special enforcement" sanctions that BLP/N can issue to help curb this editor's vandalism? There is currently one active sockpuppet of Dr90s that I still know about. He is currently using the name User:Akane7000. I have already filed all of the appropriate reports with AN/I and SP/I, and I don't wish to take up your time as I see you are quite busy here. Brief answers to just these 3 questions would be a great help. Thank you for your time. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: User:Akane7000 has now been banned by ArbCom for sockpuppetry and so I am striking this portion of my question #3. I am still anxious to know the answer to these questions (especially question #1). Perhaps to clarify my question #3, I should ask generally: "What tools are available in terms of sanctions that BLP/N can levy?" Thanks for any guidance that can be supplied. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) and Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
Is the George Tiller murder really notable enough for its own section and/or more than a couple of lines on the main page (if that) when it is covered by so far only one MSM source (a NYT article that details the blogosphere's reaction) and a bunch of liberal blogs and sites? If the answer to that is yes, should the critics be labeled liberal, as they have been by all of the sources provided? Soxwon (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It is not notable enough for more than a brief mention in any BLP. The desire to make WP into a tabloid is pernicious. And this applies to all BLPs, period. Collect (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Having read the section, I find it adequately sourced and germane to the topic. O'Reilly mentioned this doctor 28+ times on his show before his killing, calling not-so-subtly for him to be punished, so he is involved in his death, even if only peripherally. We cannot have public commentators pillorying private citizens in this way, and it needs to be mentioned on wikipedia. As for the liberal tag, why? The wikilinks explain their political leanings. ► RATEL ◄ 00:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not go so far as to call O'Reilly "involved in his death" but I do think that this issue is relevant and that appropriate sourcing is provided: The New York Times identifies O'Reilly specifically as having been Tiller's foremost critic and as having been subjected to extensive criticism for this. I do think it's appropriate to characterize the critics as "liberal" if that's what the sources say.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * However, why not put it on his show, where he made the accusations, rather than in his biography? (and should it stay in criticisms?). Soxwon (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be repeated everywhere. It needs to go in one place. I hate duplication. ► RATEL ◄ 01:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Gwen Gale said about this at Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): it doesn't seem to fit well in The O'Reilly Factor. Given the existence of a "Criticism" article, that's where it fits best. Indeed, this is just the sort of thing "Criticism of" spinoffs are for--they permit more rigorous discussion of a critique (and answers thereto) without triggering undue weight concerns to the same extent as when mixed in with the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have misgivings about "Criticism of ..." articles. They tend to be POV forks. See WP:POVFORK, and especially the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content forking.  I just ran into this issue at another article, and developed some statistics. There are about 84 "Criticism of ..." articles in Wikipedia.. Of those, 31 are redirects back to the main article. See, for example, Criticism of McDonald's, which started as a POV fork but was eventually merged back into the main article. Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement is currently being considered for a merge back into the main article. The separate "criticism" articles that stick tend to be on broad subjects, like Criticisms of communism.  I'd suggest that "Criticism of ..." articles for individuals and organizations are probably not a good idea. --John Nagle (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say Criticism of BLPX worries can be a worry most of the time, but O'Reilly is a political talk show host who stirs up lots of published criticism. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Criticism pages probably exist because of the many rules oppositional and exclusionist-leaning editors can bring to bear on BLP pages. The cry "we're talking about a living person!!!" frequently goes up in an attempt to exclude anything that has any slightly negative connotation from BLP pages. On pages that are not specifically BLPs, the rules are more relaxed. ► RATEL ◄ 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, criticism sections and pages sprout up as a way to keep the main text of a topic from becoming a fake-Socratic, bickering back and forth on sundry PoVs (another way of saying that the way information is carried, its organization, has canny sway upon its meaning and pith). BLP is something else altogether, criticism sub-pages may indeed not be helpful for most BLPs but I believe the BLP topic of O'Reilly happens to be one of the very few for which a subpage may be fitting, if it's still handled with the great heed called for on any BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Beth Smith
Not sure she even meets notability, let alone the trivia that makes up the majority of this article. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. So: Articles for deletion/Beth Smith. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I was not sure as I have not heard of her before yesterday. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Averre-Beeson
Editing comments to give a distorted self presentation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.63.106 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given the IP above a final warning about defamatory comments in a BLP - and reverted their last edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anzor Astemirov
about Chechen Rebel leader Anzor Astemirov misses qoutation and sources of his very importrant Statements mentioned in this article.

Especially the Statement: "Astemirov made clear he did not support a global jihad against countries such as the United States, and even asked them for assistance."

In his Interview at http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2008/01/01/9264.shtml he says: "of course we must rely on Allah, not on England, not on America, not on the West, not on anyone except Allah, and we must get rid of all these delusions".

Please mark this Artikle as "sources needed" or delete this Statement, because without source this Statemant appears to be at least very questionable.

--Sheepdog85 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba
This article needs serious attention. It is currently indefinitely protected due to edit warring and lack of consensus on virtually every topic within the article. Article violates WP:BLP due to 1)undue weight on criticism as criticism overwhelms the article. 2)The nature of the minority view and majority view is in question.3) The article is under constant attack from those inimical to Sai Baba.It has already been through two arbitrations. The Article needs more than one admin to keep order as well as a complete overhaul.Sbs108 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Watts - Are there any disambiguation guidelines for BLP's
Are there any guidelines for disambiguating people? The meteorologist Anthony Watts has had a BPL page for about 2 years. (Since August 2007) As a result, many internal and external pages link directly to it. Recently, several editors who openly dislike the work Anthony Watts has done have decided to rename his page, breaking most of the existing links. Some of the internal Wikipedia links were fixed, but those on talk pages and archived talk pages were not.

It is my opinion that the original link should continue to go to the 2-year old page (which would then contain a disambiguation hatnote) and not to the disambiguation page. However, I could not find a guideline for this.

In addition, rather than refer to him as a meteorologist, they have decided that he should be called a blogger. Normally, this would be a nit. However, in the Wikipedia Global Warming area, the term blogger is commonly used as an ad hominem attack to attempt to discredit those on the "wrong" side of the issue. The relevant discussion is here, though many of the more negative comments are in other sections of the talk page and in the general tone of the main article edits. Since this is a BLP issue, I have come here for a second opinion. Q Science (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard guideline is WP:DAB. The question is whether the blogger/meterologist is much more notable than other people by the same name. I don't think so - he is fairly prominent in certain circles and has a large online presence, but the other people by the same name also are quite notable. The broken links should be fixed - easiest by going to Special:WhatLinksHere/Anthony_Watts and working down the list.
 * Actually, a simple Google search indicates that he is more notable. Q Science (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Watts is mainly notable for Blogging and his websites, so it is no wonder he gets higher ratings on google searches than other people of the same name, who are mainly notable for things outside the internet. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a search of news stories in google shows a very different picture. For notability I would rather go on how often someone is mentioned in the news, rather than simple web hits. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. It appears to be almost a tie with the top few hits on google news being for the meteorologist. (Oh, and all the news stories use the term meteorologist.) Q Science (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A person as to be very much more notable than the homonyms to be the main article target: if it's a close run thing (as this appears to be), everybody gets DABbed! It's only fair, and I think we should be particularly careful about this when there are BLPs involved. Physchim62 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In most parts of the world, a "meterologist" is a scientist with a degree in meterology or a related field who works in meterology. The use of the term "meterologist" to refer to a media weatherman is a USianism, and is misleading in this case. I don't have a strong opinion if "blogger" is the best disambiguation term, but it is fairly uncotroversial and what he is best known for. "Climate change skeptic" would be more problematic.
 * --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at the list of broken links, none of them seems to be in article space, and most are in archived discussions. Given the low level of usage those tend to get, and the fairly high wiki-sophistication of likely users, I don't think they need to be fixed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can hardly see that Anthony Watts (blogger) is disparaging in itself: if people at WP Climate Change want to disparage bloggers, that's their business. Physchim62 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

President of Gustavus Adolphus College
There has been significant controversy about the actions of Jack Ohle, current president of Gustavus Adolphus College. While there are certainly many legitimate complaints about and issues with him, I fear that the college's article is becoming a coatrack for criticism of him. A few neutral voices would be most welcome! --ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did a lot of cleanup, but had to dump a lot of stuff in Jack Ohle, which now needs a lot of work to avoid WP:BLP issues, and to expand, wikify, categorise etc. But at least it isn't so obviously WP:UNDUE by being in the wrong place. Disembrangler (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack Ohle now seems OK too. Disembrangler (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

David Letterman
I'm having a situation with an IP on this article and talk page. I'd like at least a second set of eyes to make sure I'm on correct footing before I get into an edit warring situation. The situation is in regards to the Letterman/Palin incident. This IP is advancing the idea that since no paper has printed a photo of Willow at the Yankee game, there's "no proof" that she was at the game, and is inserting the word "alleged" to a sentance about the incident. Countless reliable sources have printed that Willow was at the game, and no reliable sources have challenged the fact. Apparently though it's become a talking point on some messageboards and threads. I believe this is fringe and the change is nonsense. Here's the talkpage thread Talk:David_Letterman, and the latest diff. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lavender marriage
has a section with "reported or rumored" lavender marriages. Many of the entries are unsourced accusations referencing living persons, accompanied by speculation about their sexuality or personal lives. I removed this section a few weeks ago, but user reverted me. I checked his talk page and history and he apparently has been a frequent vandal, and has repeatedly re-added this section despite numerous editors removing it. I've removed the BLP violations once again, but I'm also reporting it so we can get some closure (preferably on his account). Wellspring (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ida Ljungqvist
There's somewhat of an edit war goin on at Ida Ljungqvist regarding accusations and a current lawsuit. I tried to remove the information because we are not a news site and shouldn't publish unconfirmed rumours about living people, but as information is cited from Fox News, I could understand the rationale for keeping it in. I'm requesting input from people more familiar with BLP policy on whether this information should stay or not.  Them From  Space  18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Artie Lange
Article was described by an anon as a "trainwreck" and I have to agree. It's loaded with unsourced nonsense and I don't know where to begin. I'd like someone more seasoned to have a look at it. Henrymrx (t·c) 06:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Stocken
To the editors of Wikipedia,

The article about me in Wikipedia (Frederick Stocken) has recently been re-written and I want to suggest changes, please. A straightforward update of what was in my article until the beginning of May would be perfectly acceptable, and might be an easy solution to my various concerns – in which case, a lot of what I am talking about below would simply be deleted in any case: my much preferred solution.

In general, I am unhappy with the article because it gives undue prominence to the so-called Hecklers protest that I organised way back in 1994. Of course, this protest is a matter of historical fact and I do not repudiate what I did – however, I believe that it is a distortion of the truth, in view of everything else that I have done, including some high-profile commissions, professional performances and broadcasts of my music, to give such emphasis to it.

Now let me run through things more specifically:

Please delete the second introductory sentence beginning: ‘He is also known for…’ In actual fact, the Heckler’s protest was on one night over 15 years ago – articles that suggest ‘several public stances he has taken against the dominance of atonalism’ have certainly been written but only very occasionally, and each separated by a number of years – for further details, see www.frederickstocken.com I do not see why this second sentence should overload this introductory statement.

Education: please delete the whole of the second paragraph starting ‘Stocken claims to have been rejected….’ In fact this was a garbled piece of information from a very unreliably written article about me – this rejection was from another institution, not from the Royal Academy of Music. Please just delete the whole sentence up to ‘We do not use perspective here at the Slade.’

Under work as composer, please delete the word ‘allegedly’ in paragraph 3: the work was also number one at the end of 1993, not 1994. I can see why you might want to put ‘allegedly’ if you can’t find proof on the internet to back it up – but, in fact, there is plenty here that also does not have proof – for instance, you might put that Frederick’s mother ‘allegedly’ died in Auschwitz, or that my Scale Shapes is ‘allegedly’ a popular teaching tool. As it stands, it makes it look as if I am possibly lying, which is not the case!

In the same paragraph – I did not ‘later reveal’ that it was dedicated to my grandmother – it is clear in the sleeve notes to the CD that this is the case.

Please delete the last paragraph in the section of work as a composer. Like many creative artists, I have received both good and bad reviews (and ones in between). Positive reviews can be found on my website. To have me quoted as simply reacting to ‘withering criticism’ is distorting of how my music has been received in the round. I know there are some prominent bad reviews that come up about my music in a google search but, overall, I would say that I have had more positive coverage, word-for- word over the years than negative. I would suggest just keeping things more neutral and sticking to the facts.

Change the title of ‘Academic Work’ to ‘musicology’ – you can summarise my work in this area by looking at the section ‘writing’ on my website.

Change (and preferably severely cut down or delete) the whole long section with the title beginning ‘Stance against Modernism in Music….’. If it has to remain, change the title to ‘Musical Philosophy’. As already mentioned, the article in the Idler, from which wiki heavily quotes from is inaccurate in many details, and I will not now trawl through the inaccuracies re-quoted in this lengthy part of the wikipedia article, because I would hope that this whole section would be significantly re-jigged or deleted.

Whilst I appreciate that you will probably only want to quote from articles that are free online, you will understand, I am sure, how frustrating it is, in the light of all the other articles I have written, that you only quote from such a limited number of sources. However, ‘Music as a Christian Art’ is available online, and this is not quoted from at all. Overall, in this section, unless someone has read more of what I have written, it does not seem fair to attempt a summary, simply by re-quoting at length from isolated sources.

Please amend my worklist to reflect what is on my website.

Discography – please add the recording of Bagatelle as listed as being released in 2009 in my Music page of my website.

References - as discussed earlier, the article ‘I write notes…’, which appears as first in my references, is often inaccurate as well as being very out of date – I would be grateful if you would delete it.

Please also add a reference to my website – www.frederickstocken.com.

I do very much hope that you will be able to deal with this, and that you will find my suggestions legitimate and reasonable. As I say, simply to update the more straightforward account of me that was there before would be an easy solution.

With thanks,

Frederick Stocken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novisti (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up teh first part.Martinlc (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen
Sorry to bring this back here, but we have Kim D. Petersen insisting now on including a link to a very biased, negative, defamatory, and factually incorrect op-ed piece that states that the scientist Richard S. Lindzen was an "active...denialist" of a link between smoking and cancer. This is quite simply not true, end of story, i.e. there is no way in heaven that he was ever an activist for this cause(!!). The journalist who wrote the article has not given sources, thus it is likely the said journalist's primary source is the Wikipedia article itself as well as other internet folklore on Richard Lindzen. Further, inclusion of this link is gratuitous, in that the point it is allegedly establishing is already allegedly established more clearly with a more serious reference. The inclusion of the material on smoking in the first place has not, in the opinion of most, been established and many editors are trying to remove it altogether, although Petersen is reverting all of their edits and has been for a number of years. This is a second issue, unresolved from the last time I escalated this issue to here. More in the discussion page, can Kim D. Petersen please be asked to respect BLP policy... Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are my 2 cents. Most of Alex's comment above is purely his opinion (and quite frankly wrong). I suggest that people instead look at the section Richard_Lindzen where the reference is used as one of 2 references given, and consider them both in context, as sources, and for their individual reliability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nb: talk page discussion is here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would ask someone to take a look at this article from a BLP point of view. Currently, a whole top level section, roughly equal in length to the "career" section of the article, is devoted to this smoking issue.  There are only two sources presented to justify this section, one being an unreliable op-ed that bundles Lindzen with another individual in a parenthetical statement, and the other being based on a single sentence in an interview (which doesn't even mention passive smoking).  I'd rather not revert war about this, and talk has been unfruitful thus far, so I'd appreciate some neutral eyes having a look. Oren0 (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian Williams liberal bias
I have an IP edit-warring on this article to include a highly-POV section about Williams alleged liberal bias, cited only to one (unreliable) source, no examples, no RS. -- >David  Shankbone  20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nerissa Corazon Soon-Ruiz

 * - persistent addition of what to me looks like tendentious and unsourced material. The two main contributors (one registered redlink and one IP) have already been blocked once. Some more eyes (and comments) would be welcome. // Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken out all but the firmest info.Martinlc (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After blckng one IP there's two more doing the same. I've requesetd semi-protection.Martinlc (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Himbs
As this article is an orphan, I tried to fill it with quotations and secondary sources about his movies, the actors starring in it etc, but I couldn't find any except other poorly researched (or already deleted) entries on wikipedia and imdb.com. // Dikanda (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aron Bielski
As raised previously and (I thought) resolved: does WP:NPF allow inclusion of details on late life legal trobules of Aron Bielski, who has an article because of his activities as a teenage partisan 65 years ago? Input in talk page welcome. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben Nyaumbe
I was wondering if other people feel this article is a case of WP:BLP1E. I think it seems to be, but I honestly don't have much experience with this policy, so I thought I would ask for other opinions. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much textbook. Redirected to the snake article which already discusses him. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Leighton Meester
News of a sex tape has popped up on numerous websites (including reliable sources) and I've spent a large part of my day reverting IP vandalism on the account. A page protection is likely in order, but more eyes are definitely needed as to how the information is included (if at all) in the article. Thanks in advance, ponyo (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I copy edited a bit. What "reliable" sources are we talking about? Maybe best to take this to the article talk page?--Tom (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Parents were in drug ring and brother in some scandle, ect, ect. Does need more eyes since article is being reverted without discussion on talk page, thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) halfwit and dogface
Does anyone actually watch this? Apparently two contestants have legally changed their names to halfwit and dogface. talkShould wikipedia be calling them those names? or does this just appear like tabloid journalism. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If they really have changed their names by deed poll, then I guess we should use them. We use the strange names people sometimes stand for election under, don't we? --Tango (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, does anyone know how long it typically takes for a deed poll to appear in the London Gazette? They aren't their yet, but some others there are dated about 6 weeks before the issue they appeared in. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Judge Charles F. Sandoval
This article appears to have been written by someone who's no great fan of the subject--it can't remain in its present form. To make it neutral would require a major rewrite, and the removal of most of the cites, which come from blogs and other sources of dubious strength. Before that happens, I'd appreciate some thoughts as to whether the subject meets notability requirements in the first place. If it's a candidate for deletion, there's no sense in doing a rewrite. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stubbed it for now and left a talk page note. Crum375 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being bold on this. Much appreciated. JNW (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. :) Crum375 (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article/bio now redirects to a place? Is this standard operating procedure or just temporary or what?? TIA, --Tom (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on Danny Gokey
Am I overreacting, or is it a big problem to have a lot of blog "sourcing" at the Gokey article. I've removed some things, but there is an editor who is upset about it, so I thought I would bring it here to see if I'm wrong about this. There are some cases of blog sourcing that I have left in, as they're relatively non-controversial, but having survived the David Boothroyd storm -- and learned a lot from it -- I wanted to bring this here for some extra eyes to look at it. Thanks, Unitanode  14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I guess I'm supposed to be the upset editor. My only involvement has been with respect to a couple of sentences, so I can't really speak for anything else in the article. My two cents on this can be found on the talk page, but in a nutshell, my disagreement with Unitanode stems from the question over whether the restriction on blogs applies to every blog in existence or just "self-published blogs", as the WP:BLP guidelines say. Either way, I gathered some additional sources, per Unitanode's request, so the question may be moot at this point.
 * Would someone uninvolved (and well-versed on BLP issues) PLEASE comment here? Unitanode  22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I would contest this argument with respect to the specific edits I've made, it's worth noting that the broader point is correct about the use of blogs to source a lot of the American Idol BLPs, at least for this season. The practice appears to be rampant. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that sourcing from blogs for non-controversial material is fine. Sourcing from them for controversial material is not. If there are controversial items in other AI articles that are sourced to blogs, perhaps they should be looked at as well. Unitanode  15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published blogs" assertion
I'm pretty sure that either "self-published" doesn't mean what you think it means, or you may just be ignoring what it means in a Wikipedia context. To quote (bolded text mine):
 * "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").

While I love MJ's blog as much as the next AI fan, it's not a reliable source. Unitanode 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interest of keeping the conversation together, I'm responding back at the Gokey talk page. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've commented at the article. I think you'll find what you need in reliable sources without leaning on blogs. -- Banj e  b oi   14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Walter Cronkite
Back and forth editing over appropriateness of illness and possible imminent death inclusion. I am unfamiliar with the proper protocol here, this may be a candidate for article protection. Sswonk (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will make a request at Requests for page protection for this article. Willking1979 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Before acting, you should check out ANI. I haven't looked at the article so the situation may have changed since it was brought up at ANI, but...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and protected the page. While yesterday it may have been premature, the disruption reached the point where protection was warranted.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian Littrell
This is not true:

Personal life
 - Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, just got what you meant, I've removed it as clear vandalism. GiantSnowman 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Cherry1779/Lily Sparkletoon
An unsourced BLP in user space. The "article" has been deleted three times in article space. The editor has yet to provide any sources as to the existence of this person, let alone their notability. Unsourced BLPs should be deleted wherever they exist, is this not correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the person clearly exists (link to self-publisher page) but given their (non)notability and behaviour it's very likely that the user is that person. Procedure? In view of the previous speedy deletion, straight deletion by an admin is possible I think, as abuse of a WP:userpage; otherwise WP:MFD. But a polite request should probably be made first (though the user is currently blocked for repeatedly re-creating a bad page). Disembrangler (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Johnson
- this BLP, is a minefield. He's a Californian politician with past sexual assault allegations and is currentle being pinned for misuse of federal funds tied to Obama's firing Walpin, who investiagted this misuse. Johnson was an Obama supporter. I'm hoping someone else is inspired to look at this as my plate's overflowing but too many red flags went up when I gave it a quick read. -- Banj e b oi   14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Josef Streb

 * - Despite the existence of several (offline) sources from local German newspapers claiming that Josef Streb is alive, User:GiantSnowman continues to add Category:Possibly living people to this individual's article, when Category:Living people is more appropriate for WP:BLP reasons. I do not wish to take any action myself, since it would be inappropriate given my role in the disagreement, but I feel that edit warring is not productive and that WP:BLP must be followed on this page. I admit that I cannot produce the sources, since they are not in my possession nor do they appear to be online, but I am very uncomfortable not having him in "living people". Currently, the individual is in both PLP and LP. I am happy to be proved wrong and admit my mistake if that is the case but, without evidence, he should not be removed from the latter category. // Cheers, CP 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the BLP consequences of only treating him as a PLP? My initial reaction is that treatment should be the same. And I'd say by declaring him definitely alive without proper sourcing you're creating a BLP problem. Disembrangler (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disembrangler - thank you. As I stated in one of my edits, having Streb in the 'posibly living' category seemes like the best option, as the sources Canadian Paul mention are not only a few years old, they are offline and cannot be used as verification. If I have to prove that Streb is dead, then CP should also prove that he is alive. Seeing as neither one of us can do that, then 'possibly living' is the sensible outcome. GiantSnowman 11:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

--Tom (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, per the category PLP, just leave him in that one snce he is over 90 and not sure of status. good? --Tom (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds good to me - is he is alive – and once again, no sources have been provided saying he is – he would be 97! An age not unheard of, but certainly very rare. GiantSnowman 11:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry Kim
This page seems to be designed to poke fun at its subject, and has no good version to revert back to. It contains a mix of true information, enough to identify the person, and a lot fanciful nonsense that I am sure would embarrass him. Abductive (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted and referring adbuctive to WP:CSD for better handling of these articles.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Leigh Jones
Severe BLP problems, as it represents rape allegations against uncharged people as true. THF (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a complete rewrite or stubbing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, what? It mentions legal action against the alleged perpetrator over the allegations, but I'm not seeing anything would suggest BLP violations here. Rebecca (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It was reporting an alleged rape as fact using youtube as a source - I removed the section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Juliet Ortega
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC) - Could I get some eyes on this article? It appears to be a smorgesbord of BLP issues, but I'm unsure of what to cut out and what to leave in as there are no inline citations. I could just add the unreferenced BLP template to the article, however I think the BLP concerns are serious enough to make mention of it on this board. ponyo (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles like this cannot exist without full referencing, and simply adding an unreferenced template is not enough. I have removed the unreferenced contentious bits which don't have inline citations. ;-) Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Martin! I have no problems with removing unsourced controversial/BLP-violating material, but when the article is so extensively unsourced I find it hard to know where to draw the line between what stays and what goes. Thanks for the help. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd question whether this article passes notability under the usual WP standards, especially WP:BLP1E. On the other hand, the documentary about her does appear to have won a slew of awards, has been reviewed in significant places, and is even mentioned in a Frommer's travel guide as a notable film about the dynamics between Cubans and Cuban-Americans. The material I've seen does seem to be consistent with the previous text of this article, but rather than attempting to BLP-ize this page with footnotes, the available wiki-energy might be better spent creating an article about the film.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In its current state it is clearly speediable under WP:CSD so I have so nominated. – ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg W. Moore
User:Greg W. Moore is the main contributor of the article (and has admitted to being the subject). He objects to the tag because he is not affiliated with the sources. Is he correct, or should the tag stay as long as he is involved in editing his own article?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he is incorrect. As long as John Oxendine is writing his own biography, he is by definition writing an autobiography. Please review WP:Autobiography and encourage him to do the same, for it outlines how the subject of the article can contribute constructively to the progress of the article. For future reference, this type of complaint belongs at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, not BLP. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When does ridiculously irrelevant trivia become disruptive?
There is far too much trivia in the Matt Barkley article, violating WP:WEIGHT. When I try to trim it down, it gets reverted. Am I wrong in thinking that so much of that inconsequential praise of how wonderful he is, even if sources, is excessive? See this edit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think as long as it is sourced it should remain - to people (and publications) interested in sport they like this sort of thing, just as a an artciel on a book will contain a lot of 'trivia' about what happens in it, reviews etc.Martinlc (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It has to be integrated. If it can't be intergarated. then it doesnt fit  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The fact that it is sourced is utterly irrelevant. It's easy enough to find material which comes from reliable sources (often more reliable than we use in articles), but which simply has no place in an encyclopedia (work-safe example). Physchim62 (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant trivia is alway disruptive to this project's goals and should be removed. We do not include everything that is sourced on every article. I can find sources that Albert Einstein famously stuck out his tongue for a photo, but that doesn't belong on the photo, time dilation, Gene Simmons or physics articles, for example. If you want trivia, go form a site somewhere devoted to trivia, because that's not what this site is for. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The "but its sourced" means sqwauduche, imho. As does the claims of censorship so freely tossed around this project. It has to be relevant, due weight, and written in a NPOV encyclopediac tone, ect, ect.--Tom (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you keep shopping this around without addressing the fact that this sort of section in integral to any athlete article reaching a GA status like Mark Sanchez. Don't just link this hardly unanimous discussion on the Barkley page to legitimize your actions. --Bobak (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the user who started this section is trying to remove highly relevant information on the player's playing career --the storyline of the threeway competition for USC's quarterback race was on the the national stories of the spring in ESPN, SI, and the major papers. So User:Who then was a gentleman? obviously isn't aware of college football and assumes no good faith on my part (despite the fact that I've put together GA and FA articles in this area and plan to develop all articles to as close to that level as possible). --Bobak (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be beneficial if anyone above actually explained what excised material they think is trivial. The main things that the original poster removed was (1) information about how the subject became the starting quarterback for USC -- his main claim to notability, and (2) his personal religious beliefs. This is a biography of an individual, and most of the information removed does appear relevant to forming an idea about this subject as a whole. For instance, how are his religious considered "trivial"? For many people, religion is a significant part of their lives, and this is included in similar high-rated articles such as Colt McCoy (GA) and Tim Tebow (B-class). I do believe, however, that we can safely drop the bands that Barkley likes. Second, the fact that he had to compete against two other quarterbacks to assume the lead position on the depth chart is unbelievably relevant to an article on an American football quarterback, especially since that is how he has attained his notability. Strikehold (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. Quarterback battle = notable. Bands = non-notable. Yeah. However, I disagree that his religion is automatically notable just because it's an important topic to many people. My opinion is that it would only be notable if it somehow related to the topic that makes this article notable in the first place. For example, if somebody reported that he skipped practices because of his religious beliefs, or something similar. Think of it as analogous to zodiac signs or blood types - some people think they're important, but unless it somehow becomes notable in its own right, it's just trivia. DeFaultRyan 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with the above. I deal with a lot of religion articles, and my personal opinion would be that if there is a reliable source which indicates that the subject places a significant degree of importance to his particular religious life, then there would be reason to mention his religion. It could be having been an altar boy, having a minor in religion, having seriously considered becoming a priest while in early schooling, doing a lot of work with his church or a religious charity, or whatever. Otherwise, unless there's a place for it in an infobox or something, there probably isn't any real reason to include it. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but generally speaking, I'd say if it is reliably sourced then it is considered important to the individual. Usually, that information would be obtained from interviewing the subject or his close associates. I was curious, not having read the actual source before, so here's what the one cited says about his religion:"'Though he knows some don't want to hear it, Rollinson said the balance Barkley has struck in his life through his Christian faith helped him find the perspective he needed to persevere through difficulties on the field. Barkley plays acoustic guitar in a church youth group and has participated in many service projects in the community. Next month, he'll join a group of about 20 friends and family members who will run every aspect of an orphanage in Cape Flats, South Africa, during Christmas vacation. 'He has a deep caring for people and wants to make a difference in his life,' Les Barkley said. 'He's grateful for all the accolades and is grateful he's been able to play football, but he wants to make more of his life than being a pretty good football player.''"Strikehold (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

John Oxendine
- User:24.98.228.92 continues to revert this BLP to an earlier version fraught with non-neutral language and has stated the user's intention to continue reverting to this version indefinitely. Edits by this user remove a variety of copy-editing issues and cleanup and neutrality tags placed on the article as well. Thanks for any help anyone might provide. // Qqqqqq (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not proper to remove any of the tags until they have been discussed on the talk page. You may wish to encourage the offending party to review WP:NPOV, WP:OWN and WP:Edit war. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, Askari Mark. I'll direct the editor to those articles should these problems continue. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
User User:Parrot of Doom has made a number of edits on this page which (as far as I can see) are inferances not specifcaly stated in the sources, as well as askingh that changes are discused on the talk page (without having done so himself) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297899100&oldid=297891659. He claims its correctly sourced when its not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297901852&oldid=297900411. He even admits in his first change that there is no sentance directly linking the two http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297886349&oldid=297802269. Nor is this the first time this has happend on this page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User User:Parrot of Doom Now admits there is no direct link betwen the two http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297907078&oldid=297906649 yet here insits thay are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=297902522 and continues to argue for his version herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=297906685 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=next&oldid=297907204. Moreover the user had been asked (more the once) to provide the quote to back up his claim, and has refused to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=297906685&oldid=297905394.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now in truth it is the case that the comments by nick griffin appear to been in respsonse to the reporting of of the Rune to the police, but his comments are not linked (and have ne bearing) on the trial.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

John Baird
Some BLP input needed at John Baird (Canadian politician). There's been a longstanding campaign by some users to out Baird on Wikipedia as gay — he's part of what I call the "glass closet" cadre of politicians who don't pretend not to be, but avoid actually talking about it on the public record at the same time — which took on a new wrinkle last week when a Toronto newspaper ran an article in its print edition which described Baird as a "gay conservative" as a snarky aside in an article about something else entirely, but then dropped the word "gay" when throwing the same article up on its website.

While this obviously fails both WP:BLP and WP:CATGRS, which require that the subject themselves publicly acknowledges their sexual orientation on the record, an anon IP has been determined to add it into the article. Their most recent attempt toned it down to "it has been alleged that Baird is gay", but keeping the exact same source.

Note that due to the BLP-sensitivity of the issue, I initially took the discussion over to WP:CANTALK to keep it away from public consumption — but another user expanded it back to the article's talk page as well. So if you need additional background on the discussion, you may need to read that discussion as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)
There is currently an RfC on the talk page of the above article regarding the inclusion of some information regarding an allegation made about the subject by Paris Match which was apparently later retracted as part of a legal settlement. Any input on whether there would be BLP considerations regarding such material would be welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note: 3 admins have already said "yes" to the inclusion after reviewing it, so this seems like an unnecessary entry on the noticeboard. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 02:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all admins are necessarily really good at BLP, however. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Boots
A “Controversy” section was added to The Little Boots Page based on sourcing from The Sun and an Indian newspaper that took information from The Sun regarding an alleged incident that took place at The NME awards. In The Sun, Little Boots singer Victoria Hesketh was quoted as saying she was kissed by Florence Welsh of Florence Welsh and the Machine and that while she does not mind that female singers are bisexual she is not bisexual herself. I deleted the controversy section based on possible BLP violations, poor sourcing, and triviality (Hesketh’s sexuality is not a notable part of her public persona) Florence Welsh may or may not find this objectionable. As you will see in the Little Boots talk page I tried to explain that you must be cautious when dealing with BLP, what BLP and other policies may have been violated and why The Sun is an unreliable source. I have been repeatedly called a homophobe both on the Little Boots and my personal talk page for my troubles. I expect at least a warning to be issued if not stiffer sanctions to be leveled against editors questioning my good faith (if not outright harassing me) by calling me a homophobe. If this section does not violate BLP I really do not understand what would violate the policy. I have been outvoted and in one case called a libeler for a material that was a lot less incautious. In a number of articles I have edited a overwhelming consensus has been reached that BLP has been violated just for these sort of things. Edkollin (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrators should read carefully through the article Talk page. The article is not about Victoria Hesketh's sexuality which she her self has spoken about, is quoted directly in the article and isn't in any doubt. But the media controversy that surrounded her actions with Florence Welch on 09/06/09 which is well documented sourced and was/still is a global story. An indication of this can be obtained by googleing "Little Boots" and "Bisexual". If anything the article is setting the record straight according to Hesketh herself. There is numerous precedent for a 'Media Controversy' or 'Sexuality' section in an article of this type: see Elton John or Amy Winehouse. My contention is that User:Edkollin is attempting to invoke WP:BLP rules as a smoke screen to delete information that he originally believed was too trivial for the article and that others now want on the article against his wishes. This is a simple content dispute which is being resolved by consensus. andi064 T . C 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but there is clearly homophobia at work here if Little Boots had been linked to a male celebrity with photos and numerous news articles no one would think twice about having it on her article. But same sex, whoa rip it down straight away! Actually no one is saying she is LGB just that the media has made a big issue of it. Simples. 82.132.139.11 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's normal practice to cover every single tabloid allegation about a celebrities private life, heterosexual or otherwise. Particularly when we are referring to someone notable/famous for something other then just being a celebrity/famous (i.e. it's not as if we're talking about Paris Hilton here). As it stands at the moment, this is only sourced to a tabloid, "A news portal for Indians in Thailand" and a third site which appears to be primarily notable for its forums Digital Spy. In other words, I'm not convinced this belongs in the article regardless of the sexuality issues involved given the sources at hand. Furthermore, this is under a 'controversy' section, but none of the sources clearly establish existence of a controversy. If there are better, non tabloidish sources, (in other words if this is really 'global news') then please bring them to the table. P.S. The fact that this appears to be the only mention of any aspect of her private life in the article speaks volumes. You say 'if Little Boots been linked to a male celebrity', yet she's 25 and in this modern age, I somewhat doubt this is the only person of either gender she has been linked to. Indeed a quick Google finds where she mentions her boyfriend. In fact, despite your accusations of homophobia and bias, in reality I suspect if it wasn't for the fact the person was female, we wouldn't even be discussing this because no one would have tried to include it in the article and if they did, it would have been quickly removed. P.P.S. To put this a different way, I would have no problem mentioning a long term partner of either gender, who is mentioned in most biographies about her; mentioning everyone she was once caught pashing while drunk, regardless of gender, however is quite a different matter particularly when she had denied any relationship and it's only briefly covered in tabloids. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As I noted on Talk:Little Boots, it is highly inappropriate to repeatedly assert that anyone is homophobic, that is a personal attack which must stop. That it is a chorus taken up by other editors does not make it acceptable. The issue has been stated clearly all along - it is with the tabloid coverage of The Sun and the two sources tacked on with it that only are quoting The Sun story. If it is that highly controversial and notable, then by all means, find acceptable reliable sources that have reported it - and do so with content that is presented in a non-biased way, not the tabloidy manner in which it is in the article. That it is being based on a less than reliable tabloid source is part and parcel of the WP:BLP issue. Present it in a non-biased and neutral way that avoids drawing conclusions. If it can't be, then it doesn't belong in the article - it creates controversy where it isn't clear that any exists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Villaraigosa needs better sourcing, resolving of POV concerns
has many inadequate sourcing issues and needs POV concerns resolved. Otherwise it should be pared back. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Train wreck to say the least. Oh well. --Tom (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy King
Could someone help? An editor keeps adding a non-notable tag to her article. To me she looks perfectly notable (plus article is well-sourced) and I have removed the tag twice. Dr. King is somewhat controversial in the small world of European archaeology and some people don't like her. Could someone help with this dispute, or if she is really non-notable nominate the article for deletion? Borock (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some people don't like her"? Are you suggesting I am tagging the article out of personal hatred for the individual? I just don't think that notability has been established, and certainly articles can be tagged as needed sources and arguments demonstrating notability without having to jump to an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is in AfD and seems to be heading to a snowball keep, and the article itself has some pretty significant sources, so this matter is pretty much resolved. --  At am a chat 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Kate Raphael Bender
The subject of this article, who's notability is in question, but I guess that is different issue, recently, like a day or two ago, not sure tried to boycott trader joe or something. Material that is not even written in a NPOV keeps getting reinserted. Can some other eyes please chime in, since we are at inpass? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting closer to resolving our differences, but we still disagree on adding category anti-zionism. Thoughts? --Tom (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Category removed (re-add only if there is consensus - WP:BLP caution) and nominated for deletion - Articles for deletion/Kate Raphael Bender. Disembrangler (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More eyes on Murder of Robert Eric Wone
I'm probably a bit too close to this article and the disputes of six months ago to judge whether recently added information about the suspects in the murder case violates BLP or not. Another editor has added way more than I would have chosen to, but it all looks adequately sourced. Overall, I'm uncertain, hence asking for more eyes here. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is far more information than necessary in the article about those three men. The information added is demographic (home town, education, history of residence, etc.) - while this isn't defamatory or otherwise controversial information, I think we should err in favor of privacy. This is particularly true when our article already names these men as, ultimately, murder suspects - even though they haven't been charged in that crime, nor convicted or subjected to continuing restrictions for any other charges filed. (Disclosure: I argued awhile back that we shouldn't even name these men in the article, let alone describe them in detail.) Last bit: Jclemens, I don't think this thread has been noted on the article talkpage yet? <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems on the talk page have escalated a bit, with one editor accusing the three named living persons of direct involvement in killing Wone. I've blocked him for that, but would still prefer more eyes on this issue.  Good point, Nathan, I'll note this thread on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the sections on the three roomates who have been suspects in the past. Until or unless they are charged and/tried with murder we need to err on the conservative. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Update. Escalated to ANI - Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to review possible violation of BLP policy on article talk page
Please check the current thread at Ani. There seems to be no consensus whether this constitutes a violation or not, an editor has been blocked, but the relevant comments haven't been removed. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Prima facie, if the BLP violation is sufficient to block and possibly topic ban the editor, the comments should be removed. BLP caution applies extremely strongly here - there is a possibility, however remote, that such unsourced speculations might influence the legal process. Disembrangler (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Professor Friedwardt Winterberg
There have been various attempts over the years to libel professor Winterberg. The problem became so bad that his article was partially protected. However, I recently noticed two "watch" type pages which imply he has questionable political connections he is trying to cover up, etc. Is this really necessary? The man is 80 years old and doesn't know how to defend himself against such computer based attacks on his character. Various friends and colleagues have attempted to intercede on his behalf, but that doesn't make him a low person. I ask that the following material be removed from Wikipedia as falling outside the guidelines of Wikipedia's policy on living persons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg_notes

Physiker121 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC the article has been protected due to the combination of a succession of IPs and socks of a banned user who have disrupted the article, and the subject or his assistants deleting well-sourced information. Some of the details of this disruption are in the pages that Physiker121 would like deleted. If folks really think the pages are offensive then WP:MFD is the appropriate venue.  Will Beback  talk


 * Heh. I'd forgotten that there were two of these pages. I've merged them.

This series of issues actually dates back to before WP:BLP was formalized. The heart of the issue is whether King is a reliable source for Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche, and whether Winterberg's LaRouche involvement is important enough to include in Winterberg's biography. (The original reason why I got involved with Winterberg's article, his support for Christopher Jon Bjerknes' claims in relation to the Relativity priority dispute, have already been removed from the article; I don't think he's objected to the stuff about the Einstein-Hilbert controversy now.) If we accept that King's book is a reliable source, and that Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche is worthy of mention, I see nothing in WP:BLP that warrants removing the material from the article. I've seen no WP:RS sources claiming the King book is not reliable; I've seen claims made to that effect on Wikipedia, but these aren't WP:RS. FWIW, the book's text is freely available for reading online.
 * As to the fact of me keeping notes around - I'm trying to keep the notes' facts to what's easy to gather for anyone with access to the history of the pages involved, not adding personal opinion - but at times, for instance when looking up IP-related information, it's unavoidable to document some degree of speculation. I think this is good practice, and don't want to stop doing it. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW - I am very happy to see that Winterberg's defendant has now created an account. I assume this is the University of Reno IP, since the editing styles seem to match. User:Physiker121 is definitely a WP:SPA, but I like having this much better than having to guess whether they're the same person or not. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't respond to this before - I only noticed it now in the archives. I ask again that the pages in question put up by Alvestrand be removed.


 * Alvestrand: If you have some sort of proof I am with UNR I suggest you provide it now. If you bothered to check my IP you would see I am more than 2500 miles from there and have nothing to do with that university. Not only have you libeled Winterberg, you have now libeled me which is a clear violation of the rules.


 * Will Beback: There is a lot more there than King's book. There are insinuations involving IDs and IP addresses that are based on Alvestrand's personal opinions and original research. Even if you accept King's work, the page is clearly not NPOV and should be taken down for that reason alone. But the book isn't NPOV either as anyone who has read it can see. Those Alvestrand notes/watch pages are nothing more than an attempt to embarrass Winterberg. Why else put them online for the whole world to see? Physiker121 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeating my friendly reminder to both of you: all pages on Wikipedia, including user pages, user talk pages and user subpages, are covered by WP:BLP and subject to deletion/severe pruning if in violation. I am not accusing either of you of anything, just a reminder. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this is all about. Has an old discussion been copied out of the archive?   Will Beback    talk    20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is - from about 1 month ago - and from this noticeboard. I assumed somebody would take care of it because I thought it was such an obvious violation of WP:BLP. But instead of removing the offending material, he put me in the talk page too implying I was Winterberg which is also a violation of WP:BLP. Physiker121 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Following the posting here in May the user merged the two pages. Someone claiming to be Winterberg has edited Wikipedia and the Winterberg bio repeatedly, as documented on the page you're complaininng about. There's also a banned user who has repeatedly returned, so it's a complex situation that bears watching. I've asked the user to blank it as a courtesy to those mentioned, but I don't think there's anything there that violates BLP. Speculating on whether the subject of an article is editing it is not a BLP violation, to the best of my knowledge. However if thepage isn't actively being used to prepare a case against an active user then there's no need to leave it unblanked. I'm going to blank it on Alvestrand's behalf, which should reduce the appearance of a problem.    Will Beback    talk    23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it - in particular, I don't see any violation of either WP:BLP or WP:ATTACK - the actions described mainly speak for themselves. I'm hoping that there will never be a need to prepare a case on the issue, but if that ever happens (or if someone tries to make a case against me), notes collected over a period of years is better than having to dig frantically around Wikipedia article histories. I think (and am willing to discuss this further) that the keeping of notes like this not only should be allowed, it should be encouraged.
 * That said, blanking is a reasonable way to make sure it doesn't show up in Google searches. I'll recover the text when I need it. --Alvestrand (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed on Alvestrand's main page Winterberg's name still comes up in connection with an "unfortunate LaRouche connection" with a link to the blanked page which I think falls under WP:BLP. With regard to speculating on a person's identity and posting that on a page, I think that tends to create a paranoid atmosphere and opens the subject up to potential harassment. I think some of the problems from users like DS1000 were possibly caused by that page. I know speculating on an editor's true identity is most definitely against the rules as that falls under WP:OUTING. There are other cases in his other talk pages where this is certainly true like the one for the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute. If WP:OUTING doesn't apply to Alvestrand implying I was Winterberg, it certainly does on the page where he gives out Licorn's true name and address, posting USSearch results and everything. I don't know much about that person but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of opening people up to public ridicule and harassment.Physiker121 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Chabasinski
I'm not sure whether anything needs to be done with this new article. The Activism section is well-sourced although perhaps not entirely NPOV, however the Early Life section is sourced only to Chabasinski's own words as found on the web site www.mindfreedom.org, which isn't obviously a reliable source. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the problem section off. It's possible that some information on his former doctor might also be a BLP problem. (Or not on second thought since that person is probably not still living based on the time the events took place.) I think I had better stay away since I am banned from Scientology-related articles and this looks like it's headed in that direction, although Scientology is not mentioned in this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann
is being reverted after my corrections regarding the chracterization of the relationship between two peer talk-show hosts/commentators by (Ends up agreeing feud is the wrong term),,  and. The two parties are Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly. I have argued that it is unverifiable that the two parties are "feuding", and gives the an inaccurate impression as such.

On the talk page I cite the definition given by wikipedia for Feud: "A feud (referred to in more extreme cases as a blood feud or vendetta) is a long-running argument or fight between parties--often, through guilt by association, groups of people, especially families or clans"." In this situation only one party is criticizing the other. THus if one sided it is clearly not a feud.

I argued that since O'Reilly has never verifiably, see Verifiabily, criticized Olbermannl; much less verifiably been involved in a "long-running argument or fight" with Olbermann. Blaxthos states that: one time a caller called in and mentioned Olbermann and O'Reilly acknowledged Olbermann's existence. He says this alone is proof that O'Reilly is feuding with Olbermann. Clearly this would not be a feud by any definition if this is the only time he has said Olbermann's name, which as far as I have ever seen or been able to verify, it is. Another editor and an anonymous poster, have also said that the characterization as the two being "rivals" is also inaccurate for the same reason.

I proposed that "criticism of O'Reilly" be used in place of "feud with O'Reilly". This is much more accurate a description and section header, as Olbermann, as is written, critcizes O'Reilly nearly every episode of his show. O'Reilly on the other hand has never Criticized Olbermann. The lack of feud and rivalry is supported by the complete lack Olbermann in O'Reilly's wiki page, see Bill O'Reilly. Describing O'Reilly as feuding with Olbermann is in contradiction for the Wikipedia requirement for "Biographies of living Persons": "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Below is the my main posts in rationale for why feud is a completely unverifiable and a gross mischaracterization of the relationship between these two parties. provides the only defense is that O'Reilly once acknowledged Olbermann's existence when a caller on O'Reilly's show mentioned Olbermann.

02:59, 25 June 2009 (CST)
 * (This is latest post. It has not been responded too yet, but is the most thorough explanation of the problem. The rest are in chronological order)

—Preceding (Anonymous) 21:11, 18 May 2009 (CST)
 * (Here I provide definition) —Preceding

—Preceding Dayewalker
 * (Here is the only defense given to my argument and it is insufficient at best. A caller mentioning Olbermann one time doesn't meet the meaning of a feud at all. O'Reilly must be continually fighting or agruing with Olbermann, not a responding to a caller one time)

—Preceding //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC
 * (Here Blaxthos agrees with me and thinks feud is wrong. But he also suggests I am a O'Reilly proponent; I am very much not. That is why I get frustrated in the next post. I am so frustrated by that that I didn't notice htat Blaxthos agreed with me. He says I try to, "portray O'Reilly as some sort of victim", which as you have read, I do not.)

—Preceding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (here I explain how the one caller mentioning Olbermann isn't a feud. Also I mention the libelous effect this wording has in describing O'Reilly's behaviour towards Olbermann. I ask for proof that O'Reilly feuds with Olbermann; this is never provided because it doesn't exist.)

—Preceding //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Here Blaxthos, who already agrees with me, informs me that Wikipedia does not hold the truth most dear. I thought Wikipedia did hold the truth dear. He shows that verifiability is more important than the truth. I argue later that they truth is more important, but it mus the verifiable. Lies and falsities can be validated easier than the truth, just takes one bad source.) —Preceding

'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ''(Here I get mad that I am accused of supporting O'Reilly and mention my "hate" for him. I didn't know that defending myself with the words lies and hate was bad, I'm sorry about that. I only used them because Blaxthos said I am portraying O'Reilly as a victim. later Blaxthos uses this against me and says that since I used an emotional word like hate my argument is inappropriate. Though this attack against my diction in no way validates the use of "feud". )

—Preceding //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Here Blaxthos decries my use of 'hate' and 'lies' in my defense of his unfair characterization of me)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhedonic (talk • contribs)

It appears there are verifiable references to such a feud which I've added. Not sure what else can be done. Soxwon (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As O'Reilly and Olbermann have shows that air across from each other in primetime, rival would be a fair term. However, if your point is that they are simple competitors and nothing more, I think that that would be denying reality.  Just because O'reilly doesn't utter the name "Olbermann" doesn't mean that the feud is one way.  He rarely ever calls Franken by name too, but is there any doubt there is an ongoing feud between the two men.  Similarly, every expose O'reilly does about "elements at NBC", "NBC news", "MSNBC", "GE", "Immelt" etc., is nothing more than a thinly veiled response or salvo to something Olbermann said or did.  Heck O'reilly tried to petition MSNBC to have Donahue replace Olbermann a few years ago.  Also the existence of the feud is well documented in MSM, most notably TIME, Washington Post, etc., as well as Variety, Huffpo, Newsmax, and this very Wiki.  Finally, if you have issues with Blaxthos, I suggest you file an RfC on user conduct. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well allowing feud, even if concorrect, with so many sources I suppose follows the policy of verifiability over relaity that wikipedia favors. Working within these confines, using an article already cited in the "Feud" with O'Reilly section, I added on line of information from that article: The same article cited that claims a feud in the New York Times specifically mentions that O'Reilly has never mentioned Olbermann's name on the air. Yet this information keeps getting deleted. If I can't even work within the confines of already cited articles that are already accepted verfiable, then this is selective preference for a certain opinion. Why is one bit of information that reveals the actual nature of the feud not allowed, yet selectively choosings bits of information from the article that mislead people allowed? (throw me a line) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (CST)
 * Given that multiple people have removed that bit, perhaps you should pay attention to the edit summaries, notably this one diff. If the article in question is two years old and qualifies its statement with "apparently" (I haven't checked, but that's what the edit summary says) then it's a bit problematic. Disembrangler (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Added 3 additional sources, as recent as 2008, that give the exact information. Many other articles cited in the the list of over 75, are far older than the one you mention. But now with 4 total cited articles, it is sufficiently cited.   Anhedonic (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Horwood
Note: this is being relocated here from WP:EAR, as it's obviously a BLP issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My name is Martin Horwood and I'm contacting you (and please forgive the lack of Wikipedia jargon) because the page about me as a serving politician has a few problems. The text was originally lifted from my own website and (probably quite justifiably) attracted criticism for being too sympathetic. But subsequent edits were clearly hostile and included putting a negative spin on every election result and quite gratuitously inserting the name of my new Conservative opponent (but no-one else) into a section on local campaigns. These edits were removed and became the subject of a BBC article but this in turn attracted further editing and a discussion page article which accuses me of criticising Wikipedia (I never have), wanting to make the page a hagiography (I don't) and editing the page in my favour (I didn't). The main article still describes my 2005 majority as the lowest since 1992 (true but it was also bigger than my predecessor's initial majority. This is just the most negative spin on it). And all references to successful local campaigns on the NHS, police and local railway station have been removed.

Could somebody really impartial take a look at the discussion page in particular and see if anything should be done and perhaps use neutral sites like www.theyworkforyou.com or www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk to put back at least some minimal referenced content on the issues I've taken up as an MP. I don't want people to read hagiography at all but I think it's reasonable not to want people to read a whole string of unfounded accusations either.

Thanks and keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not fully on top of the issues here, but let me at least point out that the bottom section on the talk page, Criticisms of ..., if nothing else contains a quotation from the BBC that is so extensive as to constitute a copyvio. This in itself might be grounds for removing the section. Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism or libelous edits detected by the abuse filter
For your information, the abuse filter can detect certain edits that may contain vandalism or libel, and then tag them in recent changes. You can check the tagged recent changes for "possible libel or vandalism" here. They are tagged by abuse filters and, you can also check their logs directly. If you're interested, there are other tags at Special:Tags. Suggestions for improvement of filters can go here, for new filters here. Cenarium (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo and Catholic League (U.S.)
User:Mamalujo and Catholic League (U.S.) Apparently, finally, deleted from Bill Donohue's BLP was a laundry list of things Donohue objects to. User:Mamalujo has now inserted it at Catholic League (U.S.). This user often makes valid points but does seem to be on a bit of a pro-Catholicism, pro_Donohue WP:Soapbox through thins articles history. I've tagged the section as POV as each subsection besides the first, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust - which they deleted at the same time, seems to tell us why each of these people is wrong in some way with little to nil balancing information. For example, the Bill Maher section. Yes, Maher certainly says things that could be seen as objectionable - likely by someone with impaired sense of humor. Maher is a political comedienne and as such always says provocative things about ... everything. In this case, IMHO, a NPOV way to sort out Maher is to state the League maintains a list of those they feel agrieved by with ___, ___ and ____ topping the list for the last three years. Or similar. This otherwise degrades the article and serves as a POV wp:Coatrack soapbox, which violates POV. I am one of the main contributors on this article so would appreciate other eyes and opinions on this. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. User notified of thread. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * those sections could be condensed to great advantage, and perhaps some attention to it by other editors will do the trick. DGG (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Benjiboi's assertions, there is plenty of conterbalancing material in the article. For example,take a look at the following sections: Joan Osborne, Dogma, The Golden Compass, Passion of the Christ and John Edwards campaign staffers.  There is much included in the way of statements of refutation by those singled out by the CL and, indeed, even much which could arguably be said to put CL and Donohue in bad light.  It is simply not true that the info I included is only pro-CL or pro-Catholic.  I am simply including some of the more notable activities of the organization.  I'm a little confused as to why a link to my user page is necessary.  It seems almost to be an appeal to an ad hominem argument. Mamalujo (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When discussing a specific user on an admin board it is good form to ensure they know they are being discussed. I'll let others offer opinions on the rest. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lancaster


Two new users (both accounts created today) have been edit warring on this article about a British politician; it looks like both have political motivations for editing the article. The article was biased with an excessive amount of negative statements, some of which violated BLP policy as there were insufficient sources, or the sources didn't mention the subject of the article. Fatzulu has been removing anything negative, even where it is properly sourced, and Roughjustice123 has been restoring it, including the BLP violations. I've made a few edits, to remove BLP violations and incorrect information, and suggested to use the talk page, but the edit war is continuing. Protection (or at least semi-protection) may be needed; I'm mentioning it here because if the article is protected, it needs to be a version that conforms to BLP policy. snigbrook (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Herman Li
Hi. Can I have a few sets of eyes on this article, please? A friend told me that the article gets vandalised a lot, so I told her that I'd put it on my watchlist, but this happened while I was AFK, so I would appreciate some extra eyes. Thanks :) Sceptre (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Goldblum Death Hoax
Need the opinion of outsiders about whether or not the news surrounding the false rumors of Jeff Goldblum's death should be mentioned. The argument on the discussion page is that "there is no need to give that much power to someone with a twisted ideology." It's also said that there aren't reliable sources, despite citations from 3 News in New Zealand (maybe not a source from the United States or Australia, but a source nonetheless) and the New York Daily News. As a former journalist myself, I see nothing wrong with the use of this material. If we didn't report things because we don't want "to give that much power to someone with a twisted ideology," then there would be almost nothing to cover on the news. Your thoughts? SigKauffman (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we covered every rumor/story/hoax about every famous person that was said to have died, wikipedia would become a useless piece of trash. In 99% of the cases, coverage of such stories does not need to be mentioned.  The only time that it would become meaningful is if after receiving widespread acceptance (ala Michael Jackson) that the rumor was proven false.  But no, this does not deserve coverage.  (Especially, when the latest news reports are on how this story is simply recurring with different actors names---Tom Hanks in 06, Tom Cruise in 08, and the same story for Jeff in 09.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends. If "material/rumor/whatever" has recieved extensive coverage by the main stream media then maybe include it. Otherwise, no, leave coverage of gossip rumor to TMZ ect. --Tom (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Iain Hook - BLP for surviving members of the family
Hi - There's been a low-grade edit war at the article. User:Kasaalan insists on inserting the names of Mr. Hook's surviving family members. While the information is reliably sourced, I think surviving family members of the tragedy are essentially private persons and should not be mentioned under our policy. Kasaalan obviously disagrees. Third opinions are welcome. Ray Talk 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2534225.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/4534620.stm
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/07/israel.foreignpolicy1
 * Multiple reliable sources mentioned names, while they make public statements and memorials, so what kind of privacy issue may exist I can't tell. Kasaalan (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Kasaalan is undoubtedly aware, news media may have different standards regarding privacy of individuals than an encyclopedia. It may be common for reporters to intrude on the privacy of individuals in the hopes of getting a juicy quote from a distraught person. I like to think we're above this. Ray  Talk 19:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * News media has different standards, but The Guardian and BBC has different and higher standards than other media, you may also know. Also there is no intrusion exists since the family make public announcements to media themselves. Kasaalan (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think our BLP policy is pretty clear on this: See here. "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." No need for it, that I can see, and policy seems to demand removal. IronDuke 20:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The policies are too general. "living individuals who are not directly involved" Hook's family is directly involved to the case not "loosely".


 * We have a different case than just "personal privacy", usually I would skip his children names, and only may put her wife's name since she make the announcements generally. But after a deeper search the case is different, whether to include names or not.
 * Apparently the case is intertwined since Iain Hook's 2 children are military officers, that is why Britain made some interesting talk over "British security" or such.
 * Whether to include names or not, the children are related to the case. We should look for a better review on the case. Where can we ask for such a policy debate. Kasaalan (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my attitude is that family members should not appear in the infobox unless they also appear in the article text. If his widow is quoted in the text, for example, then it would make sense for her to appear in the infobox. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair / war crimes.
Hi, There has been a debate at Talk:Tony_Blair over the value of keeping the exact details of a speech in the article or to remove it as contentious and that the details of the speech add nothing of value to the article. Would an uninvolved admin evaluate the debate and make a decision on the result. Thank you.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
 * The above editor Off2riorob has again deleted the quote being discussed. This is the forth time. Three without any discussion. It took several attempts (on my talk page) to persuade him to take it to the subjects talk page in the first place. He has also arbitrarily removed, without discussion, a whole host of 'negative' yet fully cited info on the subject. I tried to revert two of them (there were several dozen at least) but he reverted my reverts. He then followed me to another article and did the same, arbitrary removal, trick. We were supposed to be waiting for an admin regarding this one, but he seems to just do what he likes. I'm sick of this edit bully. He can keep wiki, but I thought I’d make my complaint clear. Having never needed to complain about a fellow editor before I'm not sure if this is the right place but hope an admin can at least take a look. 2writer (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not taking a position either way, but I see that the talk page section dealing with this "issue" was closed/collapsed/hatted/whateveryoucallit. Was that the right thing to do? I was going to give my 2 cents but couldn't? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not the proper thing to do, and neither was marking this thread Resolved - both done by the main antagonist of 2writer. I've left Off2riorob a message. Disembrangler (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was Off2riorob doing. The continual blanket edits by Off2riorob are disruptive in my view, not least because he steamrollers on regardless. Even trying to get the guy to the talk page in the first place is a huge battle. He's a disruptive bully. See WP:DIS. In any case, he can force his edits on others from now on, I'll find something else to do outside Wikipedia. I don't need the grief. And next time someone else in the pub mentions the nonsense of Wikipedia, I'll nod, along with everyone else. 2writer (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

END OF INFO TAKEN FROM BLP Noticeboard (just to avoid confusion).


 * Perhaps you shouldn't give up so easily. There are dispute resolution procedures, and there is no deadline - patience in these situations is often called for. On the substance. I can also see why you thought the quote was important - it's amazing to me how little mention of Iraq there is in Tony Blair. However, with better coverage, I don't think the quote would make the cut. (Also, the structure of Tony Blair is terrible! Please, somebody fix it.) Disembrangler (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe an admin would have decided it wasn't appropriate. I was the one who suggested arbitration of some kind and hoped the dispute could have been resolved that way, but this guy just steamrollers ahead regardless. He's made a complete mess of the article in my view. 2writer (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to an old version of the page that was substantially better? Disembrangler (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I have the technical know how to do that, sorry. The day before the specific editor stumbled in perhaps. Though another editor has recently done some detailed copy edit work on the article, which would have to be balanced agained the 'remove all neg info' and general butchering. I'm not in anyway suggesting the article was formally perfect but still. 2writer (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Click on the History button and find an old revision that has some content you think we should discuss putting back, and paste the link here. Disembrangler (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your help but I don't intend to get involved in editing again. Still I'll point out a few instances to give examples. If you look at the lead prior to Off2riorob involvement here you will see there is a reference to the Iraq war. Off2riorob actually questioned whether the Iraq war was a defining part of the subjects premiership and removed all references to the Iraq war / war on terror from the lead. Akin to removing any reference to Australia from the lead in Captain Cook's article.


 * There are also references in that version regarding a comparions to Thatcher: Blair himself has often expressed admiration for Thatcher. 


 * Approval ratings: In May 2006, The Daily Telegraph reported that Blair's personal approval rating had dipped to 26%, lower than Harold Wilson's rating after devaluation of the pound and James Callaghan's during the Winter of Discontent, meaning that Blair had become the most unpopular post-war Labour Prime Minister. Of all post-war British Prime Ministers of both parties, only Margaret Thatcher and John Major have recorded lower approval (the former in the aftermath of the Poll Tax Riots). Previously Blair had achieved the highest approval ratings of any British Prime Minister or party leader of either party in the months following his election in 1997.  and so on.


 * Those are just a few examples, there are many. Incidently all such edits were done without any discussion. Any reverts were changed back by the editor in question. Indeed it may be reasonable that some cites are removed, but he doesn't seem to understand that his way isn't the only way and getting him to discuss just one of his edits was a monumental battle. I intend to post info on the Admin Board about the editors behaviour generally, beyond that I don't need the grief. Nevertheless, thank you for the help. 2writer (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And in the spirit of there being no deadline, closing a content discussion on the page within ten hours of opening a thread here is ridiculous. I agree that the structure is terrible and have said so there in my comment on this matter. I wasn't expecting User:Off2riorob to close that off.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Erricos C. Pavlis
Hi all -- I have speedy-deleted this article once as an attack page, as did another admin, and the creator has brought it back from the dead twice. Could someone else please look at this? I left a welcome and what I think is a polite note on the creator's talk page. While the article has "sources" it appears that they are neither reliable nor do they support the claims in the article, which are original research and border on the libelous. However -- is this person notable enough to have a genuine stub? I'm going to speedy delete it again -- in my opinion, the content is unacceptable even to have in the history -- but please check should the link turn blue again. Just a hunch, but this one is persistent enough to return. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe request that the page name and variants be salted? – ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović
, a BLP, is yet again being vandalised and disrupted by anonymous IPs who are almost certainly sockpuppets of the article's subject himself. I have raised the issue at WP:AN/I - editors with an interest in managing contentious BLPs may have a view on how to deal with this ongoing problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw 1920
Witold J. Ławrynowicz								June 26, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

I recently found the following page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)

This page essentially accuses me of plagiarizing material from the Electronic Museum website for the “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” article I wrote for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication. Since I was not informed about these proceedings against my work, I was denied the possibility of addressing the charges. I will do so at this time.

[redacted for brevity - quotations from Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)]

I fully expect Wikipedia to immediately withdraw its false and unfounded judgments and publish letter of apology to myself.

Sincerely,

Witold J. Ławrynowicz

(66.67.97.10 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I don't see that anyone accused you of plagiarism; the objections of Novickas and Yellow Monkey, it seems clear, were to our closely paraphrasing the content for which you are responsible (that is, to our nearly plagiarizing you). Unless I've missed something, no other reading is reasonable.  With respect to our evaluating the source with which you are affiliated, there is no issue of defamation; as you surely know, a scholar can expect that his/her work will be discussed, with conclusions drawn about its quality, usefulness, and general acceptance (and here those conclusions were perfectly gentle, resting only on our idiosyncratic reliable source guidelines, to which we are entitled, and not making any averments about your work more generally).  Although I do not imagine that there will be objection to our blanking the discussion in order that it should be hidden from view, I must say, with respect, that I do not think anyone will be inclined to go further.  68.76.156.73 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Novickas has, it should be noted here, now replied to a message from Mr. Ławrynowicz, identical to that posted here; he confirms the above reading of the plagiarism discussion. Because your misunderstanding has caused you distress, though, I have blanked as a courtesy the discussion (see here).  Are your concerns adequately addressed?  68.76.156.73 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a simple misunderstanding. The plagiarism discussed at the Featured Article Review was the (then) Wikipedia article's plagiarism of Lawrynowicz. The discussion of source quality (Lawrynowicz as a source) may be underinformed but is simply Fair Comment. Disembrangler (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if pages such as the one being discussed here should be courtesy blanked. I've added a NOINDEX to it which should prevent it appearing in search engines. snigbrook (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral article on Philippine activist Liza Maza
- The language in this article is non-neutral. It is clearly glorifying the person in subject. The main body of the article has no sources and uses non-neutral adjectives such as "endearing" and "best" that glorify the living person the article is based on.

Here is the second line of the article for introductory purposes:

"Hardworking, persistent, creative and principled best describe the woman activist, parliamentarian and internationalist that is Liza Largoza-Maza."

Can anyone with knowledge of this person write it in a non-neutral manner, or perhaps edit it? If not, warn the user who submitted said article area?

Xbangerangx (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Language like that is a red flag that it's copy-pasted from somewhere where such language would be appropriate. Yep: . I've cut that out as a WP:COPYVIO. Disembrangler (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ross McKitrick
I am regrettably blocked by an administrator who has stepped in to defend Kim Dabelstein Petersen in restoring embarrassing, potentially damaging, and irrelevant instance of a mistake in a McKitrick & Michaels paper. A number of issues have been raised, admin states that arguments demonstrating no WP:WEIGHT are insufficient grounds to remove the text. I say, of course they are... A second issue is that Petersen has included discussion of the "mistake" without any discussion of the paper in which the mistake was made... A third issue is that it is misleadingly placed & presented to make it appear related to the hockey stick controversy with Michael Mann, when in fact it is not. A fourth issue is a link to an external blog (titled "McKitrick screws up yet again") that presents a most distorted, negative characterisation of the issue and its significance and probably fails WP:RS. A fifth issue is that the mistake affected the overall result only marginally and has thus had little impact and has led to no controversy in the peer-reviewed literature. A fifth issue is, although I am not a solicitor, I believe McKitrick could sue WP for damages to reputation and career, given the unbalanced, heavily biased presentation of the story without his permission.

I have withdrawn from this discussion as I am now very angry. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You aren't blocked according to your block log. I think your basic point is correct but you're going about this all wrong -- I have commented on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Diane Black racist Obama e-mail
I did some work on this subject's article about the racist Obama photo sent from her office. User:Scribner and I are edit-warring over a long, rambling paragraph of analysis that makes over half this article about this one event about one of her staffers sending it out. It's all cited to one source, a CNN transcript. I've removed it twice citing the policies, but Scribner is intent on re-inserting it and templating me for edit-warring...sigh. Can somebody else weigh in? -- >David  Shankbone  19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, looks like a classic case of WP:UNDUE (regular reader of your blog BTW). – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ukexpat, I'm glad you like it! -- >David  Shankbone  19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just removed it too. I'm a flaming liberal, and I still think it's ridiculous to have that much text on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm same and feel the same. -- >David  Shankbone  20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * *sigh* S/he WP:COATRACKed it into the TN Governor and TN Republican party articles, too. Removed from both.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are on a holy crusade with this. It's a total Joan of Arc thing ("If I shall be blocked, I shall block for doing the right thing for my country") -- >David  Shankbone  03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * David, these events of racism in the Republican party are a systemic problem, not isolated events. Telling the truth is hardly a "holy crusade", me thinks you doth protest too much.  Truman said it best, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”  The section's been restored to the edit we both agreed upon.  Scribner (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please write an article on Racism in the Republican Party. I am a Republican an I think that this is a major problem. However, don't bring up the issue where it would be a violation of WP:BLP policies. For instance implying that an individual is racist without strong sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a separate article may be needed - that's crossed my mind. The reason the story made national news (actually international) is because of Senator Black's limited response.  That's why it's on her article.  I didn't put the section on her article, but I agree with it's placement.  Also, the section doesn't imply that she's a racist, but to be fair, I think it does imply she was tolerant of racist behavior.  Scribner (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think people come to WP to find the basic facts about someone, not what kind of things can be implied. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Her actions imply tolerance, Wiki doesn't dictate Senator Black's actions. I did just add this in her defence: "Senator Black did denounce the email, said the email did not reflect her views and stated her reprimand was in following with human resources policy for email guideline violations.[6]"  Scribner (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia also does not draw conclusions from implications. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no WP:OR in the section, it's irresponsible to claim that there is and not be specific to your claim. I seriously doubt you even read the section, you just wanted to chime in with what you think is a witty comeback.  Scribner (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman
- Clear violation of BLP...POV smear by conservatives claiming Paul Krugman encouraged the housing boom as a matter of policy. The top quote in the second paragraph is the issue and should be removed. Krugman denied this claim being made on his BLP article here, but the edit is being defended on Wiki by -- Vision-- claiming it to be self-serving WP:SELFPUB because the Krugman's response was made on his NYT blog. Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, doesn't reflect well on Wiki. I suggest removal of this paragraph.

"In August 2002, he wrote that, "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."[3] Krugman also argued that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s).[4]" Scribner (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I interpret that paragraph as him saying that Greenspan's policies are such that they will always require successive bubbles, until finally the whole thing collapses. DGG (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This quote is viral on the web right now on conservative financial sites attempting to smear Krugman (the top quote). Scribner (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears this has been resolved. Thanks.  Scribner (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rick Leventhal and Aamir Ali
In the process of tracking down sundry vandalism, I came across the article for Fox News reporter Rick Leventhal, which is reasonably detailed but lacks in-line cites. Among other things, this article includes the statement that "his maternal grandfather and his mother's all brothers were Muslims" and that he is the "cousin brother" of Indian film actor Aamir Ali. The article about Ali likewise contains statements that Ali was "raised in Silver Spring, Maryland in United States of America, Aamir's paternal grandfather is American Muslim and Aamir's paternal grandmother is American Jew, His father's all sisters were American Jews" and a couple of sentences about his "cousin brother" Leventhal. This would all be quite interesting, the only problem being that I haven't found any outside verification for any of it, and neither article is clearly sourced. (It does appear that both Leventhal and Ali may have attended American University.) This material seems to have passed scrutiny from multiple editors, and I am no expert about either Fox News or Indian film actors, so I am bringing it up here for someone who might be better able to access sources (if any) and take appropriate action.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to "clean up" both articles but mainly the Leventhal one. If material is unsourced, feel free to tag it with the tag. --Tom (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Farah Damji
Farah Damji is a nightmare of POV, non-neutrality, and undue weight. Any work on it would be nice. Keegan (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This veers very close to WP:BLP1E, I think, as she is not notable for anything other than her crime. Does anyone agree? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. – ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested the article be deleted on its talk page. I would expect the AfD discussion to be contentious. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

David Chalmers
Article is very poorly sourced. There is only one footnote. According to the policy this article should be deleted.Dmjanssen (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What policy would that be? --Tom (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the article isn't going to be deleted, but it wouldn't do any harm for the biographical facts to be better sourced. (There are no BLP violations here as far as I can see.) Looie496 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tagged the article as needing additional citations for verification as the only citations are to a review of one of his books and a link to an article that he co-wrote. If the subject does not meet the primary notability crition, i.e. as having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then anyone can nominate it for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chalmers is extremely notable, I assure you. He is, if not the top living authority on the philosophy of consciousness, one of the top two or three.  The tagging is appropriate, but an AfD would just be wasteful drama. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Farah Damji (2)


We've received a number of OTRS tickets from various individuals, all somehow related to the subject, about this article, all contesting different things. The ultimate factor is that this article could do with some more eyes to ensure that any material currently in the article is supported by consensus and complies with the biographies of living persons policy, and any future material added is of a similar validity.

If anyone could go through this article with a fine-tooth comb, and/or add it to their watchlist to provide future support for it, it'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Guinta
I have a sinking suspicion that the article about this minor political figure is being edited by his campaign. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took off some of the more puffy stuff. I am a Republican BTW. Anyway, the mayor of a city and a candidate for Congress is not so minor. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After taking part in the discussion I have more sympathy for Hipocrite's position. If that is his campaign staff editing the article they are really clueless about what makes for effective publicity. A neutral article would be much more effective in promoting Mr. Guinta's run for Congress than one that goes overboard to the point of silliness to say nothing bad about him and puff up everything good. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now a lot of progress has been made towards making this a good and fair article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Justin Lazard
I've just stubbed this article, which has been a magnet for unremoved vandalism and BLP violations for months. I couldn't find a "clean version to restore; perhaps someone else can pick one out. Certainly some of the article can be rebuilt, and I may get to it, but given the level of recent vandalism extra sets of eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was truly awful, good find. I have restored an acceptable version and watchlisted it. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Amber Frey
— I'm concerned about the "Personal life" section at the bottom of this article. Some of it is unsourced or sourced to unreliable websites. None of it is really relevant to the article. At least the unsourced parts should be removed, but I'd urge you to consider removing the whole section. Thanks. 66.31.202.0 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed some of that down. What's left seems sourced and/or uncontroversial, but I'd like an experienced set of eyes to take another look. Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is really sick. Just the kind of thing that makes WP look bad. A person incidentally involved in a crime probably doesn't need an article. I would vote to delete if it was nominated. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit more. In general if trial transcripts are to be used, they should be in the criminal's article, not a witness's. The whole article is vulnerable to WP:BLP1E.Martinlc (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, duh that does sometimes help, I'd like to retract my comments. I see that she has written a book about her experiences and has been the subject of a couple of movies. She is important enough for an article and the article is not an attack or scandal page as was my first impression. I would vote keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette's wedding
User:Neutralhomer is repeatedly reverting edits to reinsert references to a self-published blog which contradict/describe as inadequate the coverage in sources that are generally considered reliable. The statements attributed to the article subject are controversial/contentious, and have no other apparent source. Under WP:BLP, these statements are to be removed, but User:Neutralhomer is edit warring to reinsert them. I cannot see any good faith issue here -- statements sourced from a blog report of the wedding, not found in any of the reliable-source coverage of the event, need to be removed from the article. (There is also a subordinate dispute as to whether uncorroborated claims Pauley made when shutting down her blog are to be repeated as factual or as statements she made.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing a reference from Entertainment Tonight, a show that has been around for 20+ years. That is not a self-published blog.  He has made no efforts to rewrite the page and when I commented on his talk page, it was removed as a "personal attack", which is clearly wasn't.  If he keeps it up, I will request the page, one he hasn't edited on ever be page protected to stop his "editing". - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the article. The contentious text in question is cited to a buzznet blog -- http://www.clintcatalyst.com/blog/pauleyperrette .  The quoted language from that blog, which makes claims about ETs coverage being inaccurate by omission, includes a link to the ET coverage, but the article itself does not otherwise refer to it.  It is becoming very difficult, given your continued disputing this point, to continue to see your editing on this point as being erroneous but in good faith. And your comment on my talk page, alleging bad faith on my part, was certainly a groundless personasl attack.  It seems to be a fashion here lately to accuse editors disputing buzznet nonsense of bad faith, but it's not appropriate behavior. And, not that it's relevant, a check of the article history would show I have edited this page before. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do me a favor and let's keep this all on the Pauley Perrette talk page, shall we? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? This is mainly a WP:BLP issue, over inadequate sourcing for a controversial claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because having essentially the same conversation in two different places is one annoying and two silly. Also, there is not "inadequate sourcing", there are sources, just not ones you like.  You have not even looked for other sources, have you? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have. There aren't any. And the burden of proof is explicitly placed by Wikipedia policy on the editor(s) wishing to retain contentious material like this -- which WP:BLP says should be removed "immediately" and "without discussion." And having BLP-related discussions on the BLP noticeboard is hardly silly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is when we have an essentially exact conversation over on the Pauley Perrette talk page, some of your quotes being exact. It is easier to have all the comments in one set place so you don't have to go search around "Jake's barn" for a comment. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Brenda Shaffer
Two recent edits seem to be a violation, both users banned: Thanks. Brandt 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Eric McDavid
On another board, Eric McDavid's defence attorney is posting about our coverage of him (here). Some more eyes on this might be worthwhile.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Diamond
Could someone look at this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Diamond

Here's my comment from the talk page:

In my opinion, NEEDS MAJOR EDITS I have serious problems with this article. Many of the claims are not sourced. It honestly sounds like this article is written by Ms. Diamond herself. I am not a Wikipedia aficionado so I am not going to try to change much. I would like to see some evidence that her books are best sellers or that she raised as much money as she claimed. As a minor television personality and as an owner of what seems to be a financially unstable magazine (see Forbes magazine article), I question whether she deserves such an extensive entry. Furthermore I worry that Ms. Diamond has had an opportunity to inflate and exaggerate her accomplishments through two bios in which she seems to have exerted a major influence—maybe I am being paranoid. But my point is that if these claims are true, more sources are necessary to establish them. The two biography's I'm speaking of are this one and her Huffington Post biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 (talk)
 * Agreed, I have indef blocked User:Animalfair as a spamusername. All of that users edits were to Wendy Diamond or adding links to the Animalfair website to dog related articles. That editor had removed maintenance tags from the article. I have retagged the article for its various areas that need work. It needs cleaning up and some of the claims rationalizing into what can be substantiated and what is puffery and not encyclopedic. Mfield (Oi!) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jelena Đurović

 * - At first glance this looks OK, but on closer examination the article seems little more than a vanity piece for this person. Problem is though, most of the sources are in a foreign language (possibly Serbian?) so it makes verification somewhat difficult for me.  It would be great if someone more familiar with the subject/language could take a look and help me decide if I should stub or AfD this article. // Astronaut (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

David Ferguson (impresario)
I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: David Ferguson (impresario). It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --deb (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fine and the tags unjustified. It could hardly have more or better sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snort... Steve, of the refs on there now, how many are self-published? How many only exist on the subject's own web server? How many are solely based on the subject's own claims without any fact-checking? How many statements are actually disputed by other sources, but any mentions of that were edited out? How many statements are about things that companies did, not Ferguson himself? How many of the refs, when checked, turn out not to back up what they're claiming?


 * If the article was edited to only contain facts based on verifiable, neutral, third-party reliable sources, all you'd have left is a stub. The refs as they are now are utter crap, and when the refs are crap, so is the article. That's why the tags are there—readers should be warned that much of what's there is dubious, at best. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to the article's talk page Talk: David Ferguson (impresario)   --deb (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira


The user above has exceeded WP:3RR while inserting unsourced and poorly sourced (no WP:RS) contentious material to this BLP, specifically in the spirituality section. The user has also removed the BLP refimprove tag despite large sections of the article being unsourced. Their only response has been to editwar against the BLP removals and tagging, and to add some websites as sources for some of the claims (which still don't support the conclusions being drawn). Verbal  chat  18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The user above is constantly reverting tagging/removal of the OR and unreferenced controversial sections. They seem to have similar problems across wikipedia. I would appreciate more input at the article page please. Verbal   chat  08:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but yestaerday I spent like an hour inserting many new sources --and you said that a very reliable source such as Musica Brasileira.org is not reliable!! How come!!?? This is widely known and very respect webiste for those who research on music. Out of nothing you just come, after a whole hour of work and delete everything --and I don´t even know if you understand portuguese or has any notion of what is written on these sources. Jackiestud (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the OR concern, they are separate issues, hence why they are discussed in different threads on different noticeboards. I have opened a discussion about this unrelated sourcing concern at WP:RSN. Verbal   chat

Content dispute at Mimi Macpherson
A single-purpose editor,, has persistently removed one sentence in the article on which mentions her sex tape. This episode was part of as created by  on 20 October 2005. The sentence is a) true, b) well referenced. I have discussed the matter with the editor on the article's talk page, and subsequently rephrased and shortened the episode as well as provided further references.

Dvj2009's main argument seems to be that mentioning the tape amounts to defamation. I maintain that mentioning it falls well within the guideline for biographies on living persons. Other editors who previously also restored this section include ( and ), , and most recently.

I seek input and advice from other editors to resolve this issue; in my opinion, the article should be restored to. I have notified Dvj2009 about this request on her/his talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article as it stands is humiliating enough to its subject. Why go further, regardless of reliable sources? "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only a very selective reading of the article could conclude that it is "humiliating"; I count five positive (not all sourced) and three negative items. As to "include only material relevant to their notability": indeed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I doubt her life is five parts "positive" events and three parts "negative" events. The fact that 10 years or so before the events that made her genuinely notable, her ex-boyfriend (or somebody) made an Internet splash by passing a sex tape around to capitalize on her sister's notability really isn't a significant event, and doesn't relate to her genuine notability, which isn't inherited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From memory, a large part of her notability back in the 90s was her sex tape (and being Elle's sister). WP:UNDUE weight applies. If major reliable sources report on this, it should be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Given the 4-5 cites, neither sourcing nor WP:DUE seems to be a problem. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">decltype (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I chime in with decltype, after reverting the deletion twice. Perhaps that one line (and that's all it is) is humiliating--that's the problem with being a celebrity, and this information is well-sourced enough and notable, given that the subject's life is still very much a public matter. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK so you're saying that you can see that the line that Michael Bednarek (talk) has insisted be included in the article for the last 2 years is humiliating, yet you say this is ok because she's a celebrity? That's incredible! She is a person first!! Dvj2009 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mimi Macpherson has called me several times recently asking if I can help her with this. She assures me she has never heard of a ‘Michael Hellwig', and reiterates how horrible it is to have lies and rumours spread about you on Wikipedia.   On Talk:Mimi_Macpherson Michael Bednarek conceded: ‘I give up — Dvj2009 wins. The effort required to argue my case further exceeds by far my level of care or interest in this subject.’  Of course the article is humiliating for Mimi (thank you Hullaballoo, I was starting to lose faith!), imagine if the article and this 'one sentence' was on your own sister, or your daughter, or your mother! (or do they deserve more respect?).  Now that the page has a WP:TW on it what do I do next? Also, doesn't that one sentence now look a little ridiculous with 6 citations after it?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvj2009 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not signing, I thought that was automatic. Dvj2009 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning
There are several editors trying to claim that Dakota Fanning has died, though there are no sources for such a claim. They are also editing the Deaths in 2009 article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Iranian election protests
I'm removing inadequately sourced material reporting the death of several named individuals. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Howard Kaloogian
This article contains claims that are sourced solely by anonymous blog posts from places such as DemocraticUnderground.com. Definetly not a reliable source. 209.105.130.50 (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed out most of the poorly sourced material. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Actually more of a related discussion, at User_talk:Avathaar. Bit of a train wreck there that should probably be on talk:Homeopathy, but it's tied up with a mentoring attempt and a user who's banning status isn't completely clear at the moment. Needs eyes, specifically about the BLP issues regarding a recent court case where the parents of a child were convicted a couple weeks ago. (Needs neutral eyes in general, actually: mine are starting to ache and I think a neutral admin should be monitoring). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, if only there was a neutral admin mentoring Avathaar then this wouldn't have got so disruptive and could have been sorted out easily on the homeopathy talk page. The sources all meet WP:RS and support the statement in the text. The couple have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing. There are no WP:BLP issues with the sources or the text, so far as I can see. It's very late here, I'll contribute more tomorrow. Hopefully someone can give an overview of the problem with JWSchmidt's and sourcing. Verbal   chat  22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not much to see here. It's a number of editors providing various reliable sources, with on each occasion a reflexive "that's not good enough" from the banned User:Avathaar (aka User:Dr.Jhingaadey) and his advocate. User:Avathaar is restricted to his own talk page anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see - at a glance, I see one serious BLP violation, in which an editor asserts (without sourcing) that Michael Jackson's doctor was responsible for his death. Beyond that, I see a high-profile court case, covered by multiple reliable sources, to which editors are referring without violations of BLP (though perhaps supplying a diff would be useful, if I'm missing something). As a meta-comment, discussion about improving homeopathy should take place on Talk:Homeopathy, not on user talk pages. MastCell Talk 23:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"this wouldn't have got so disruptive" <-- User:Verbal, please explain what you are calling "disruptive". Are you saying that an examination of the reliability of cited sources is "disruptive"? "his advocate" <-- User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, what do you mean by "advocate"? "It's a number of editors providing various reliable sources, with on each occasion a reflexive 'that's not good enough'" <-- please provide links to these "occasions". As far as I know, all the questions being asked about the reliability of sources have been thoughtfully based on the contents of the sources in question. "an editor asserts (without sourcing) that Michael Jackson's doctor was responsible for his death" <-- User:MastCell, you are misquoting "an editor". What User:Avathaar said was, "...imagine if all allopaths were portrayed murderers/manslaughterers just because Michael Jackson's doctor gave him so many allopathic drugs (all together) that he died!", which is a hypothetical statement and a valid analogy for the context where it was posted on his user talk page. "multiple reliable sources, to which editors are referring without violations of BLP" <-- There were two sources cited in the Homeopathy article that appeared to violate the requirements of Biographies of living persons. The first was a tabloid newspaper report in which allegations made by lawyers were repeated as fact by the newspaper. The second was a blog post that includes apparently unsubstantiated opinions about two living people. Since these two sources did not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirement for "high quality" sources, I started looking for better sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no BLP issues at homeopathy regarding these sources, and JWS has failed to show a problem. His failure to understand the probleem with the Jackson comment is also telling. Feel free to look for "better" sources, but you have to accept that there are no BLP issues with the sources as used, demonstrate it here, or just move on. To answer your question directed to me, I believe your behaviour and abortive mentorship of Avathaar, has been disruptive. Verbal   chat  20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've documented the "BLP issue" at User_talk:Avathaar. If Wikipedia is linking to an external webpage with unsubstantiated claims about living people then it is a problem. It is our job as Wikipedia editors to make absolutely sure that we get this right. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As no evidence of any BLP issue has been presented here, and JWSchmidt is clearly in the minority with his opinion that this somehow breaks BLP policy, unless a new consensus is formed and evidence presented he must now accept that his interpretation is not accepted by consensus. He can look for better sources if he likes, but he must stop further WP:DISRUPTIVE attacks on the sources, and especially the authors of the sources lest he be accused of breaking BLP policy himself, as DrJ has with his MJ comments. Please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal   chat  11:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "no evidence of any BLP issue has been presented here" <-- Well, there was a claim of "one serious BLP violation". As for the lack of presentation of other BLP issues in this discussion, I think you should take that up with User:SB Johnny, since he started this discussion. "he must now accept that his interpretation is not accepted by consensus" <-- My "interpretation" of Wikipedia policy is that editors have a responsibility to check the reliability of sources. We are not supposed to use questionable sources that make unsubstantiated claims about living people. If a few editors claim to have decided "by consensus" that they do not have to follow Wikipedia policy then I am not under any obligation to stop following policy. "WP:DISRUPTIVE attacks on the sources" <-- Please provide a list of these "attacks on the sources". Pointing out that a tabloid newspaper appears to have repeated an unfounded allegation as if it were fact is not disruptive. "lest he be accused of breaking BLP policy himself, as DrJ has with his MJ comments" <-- Please provide evidence that "DrJ broke BLP policy". If you are talking about this edit, then please explain how a hypothetical analogy used on a user talk page broke BLP policy. "Please stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" <-- I wish I could, but I have little control over editors who do not seem to listen when I tell them that I am trying to find better references for Wikipedia. I've responded to all of your requests to the best of my ability. I don't understand why, but it seems like you want to go through a matter all over again here on this page that was previously discussed at User_talk:Avathaar. At the same time, you seem to be telling me to stop talk talking about that matter. Your requests seem contradictory, so I'm asking for clarification. At your explicit request I'll repeat the previous discussion, but please do not then accuse me of tendentious editing for complying with your request. So which is it? Do you want me to repeat my questions about the sources here, or not? If your answer is that you do, please explain how doing so is compatible with the purpose of this page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are any BLP issues regarding homeopathy take them to the homeopathy talk page. Yes, DrJ's comment was a BLP vio. We seem to have a case here where one editor believes they are right, even though many editors have disputed that interpretation. I would rather you didn't repeat the claims you've made on DRJ/Avathaars talk, as they have no substance according to a majority of editors, and you came close yourself several times to violating BLP policy in your unfounded criticisms and accusations against a respected scientist and author. If you have any new, genuine, concerns, then raise them here or at homeopathy talk. Verbal   chat  16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "If there are any BLP issues regarding homeopathy take them to the homeopathy talk page." <-- If your definition of "BLP issues" covers discussions of cited sources that User:Avathaar feels are not reliable, then your first step should be allow him to edit at the homeopathy talk page. As long as he is limited to editing his user talk page, I'll continue to discuss on that page his suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia. "DrJ's comment was a BLP vio" <-- I've previously challenged this claim and I've asked for an explanation of how a hypothetical analogy on a user talk page can constitute a policy violation. No explanation has been provided, so repetition of this claim appears to be accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. "I would rather you didn't repeat the claims you've made on DRJ/Avathaars talk, as they have no substance according to a majority of editors" <-- Are you trying to make some kind of claim about consensus that prevents me from examining the reliability of sources? "the claims you've made" <-- I made the "claim" that some tabloid newspaper articles and a blog post appear to have repeated allegations as if they were facts. I've repeatedly asked other editors to quote the expert medical testimony that supports the questionable claims made in the sources that were cited by Wikipedia. Nobody has provided such quotes, so I continue to look for better sources. "your unfounded criticisms and accusations against a respected scientist and author" <-- Please list all of these "unfounded criticisms and accusations". I've said that I can find no expert medical testimony that supports his opinionated statements about two living people. This makes me question if that blog post can be cited by Wikipedia. If my "claim" has no substance then you should be able to quote the expert medical testimony that supports the questionable claims made in the sources that were cited by Wikipedia. You have not done so: your failure to provide quotes from expert medical witnesses in the trial supports my "claim". "disputed that interpretation" <-- If you want to "dispute" my statement ("I can find no testimony that supports that claim") then you should quote some testimony that supports that claim. I'm trying to find better sources that include testimony about the cause of death. I don't understand how that can upset anyone. --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (just on the first point JWS just raised): at the risk of repeating myself, please note that Avathaar isn't formally banned from the talk page in question. He is currently under what JWS describes as a "voluntary restriction", but AFAIK that restriction is an agreement between JWS and Avathaar, and Verbal is not in any position to "allow him to edit".
 * JWSchmidt: you chose to override the "de facto ban", which is of course your right as an admin. However, it's a bit disingenuous to then pass the buck when it comes to when Avathaar is no longer bound by parts of the agreement between you and he. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "disingenuous to then pass the buck" <-- I question that characterization of events. What "Avathaar" agreed to was: "I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction." In my view, "the Wikipedia community" does not mean "User:JWSchmidt". --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)