Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive75

Janelle Pierzina

 * is suffering very persistent disruption (edit warring) from an IP editor,, who insists on including two inappropriate (one unsourced and another using incorrect terminlogy) independent pieces of information in violation of WP:BLP. The editor is not responding to message on the talk page, and has been abusive in edit summary ("you're nuts"). The warring started on 18 November, with these two edits, and has been a total of eight times up to this complaint. Request block of the IP or semi-protection for two weeks. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest AfD. She was only on a game show and was an extra in a couple of movies and TV shows. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's up for AfD at Articles_for_deletion/Janelle_Pierzina_3.In the meantime, the IP activity is continuing. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fictitious person's biography

 * - this appears to be a joke biography of a fictitious person // Victorgo (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Mitchell


 * Looks like it was vandalized a long time ago and no one caught it. I've restored the pre-vandalism version. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the pre-vandalism version appears to be legit stub of a real person (an actor). &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Cooley
- IP editor is repeatedly adding WP:OR material. Not super libelous but inaccurate at least and some statements might be considered controversial such as calling city council folks "irrelevant" where really he was referring to legislation in the one citation included, I believe. Requesting some other folks please chime in. Thank you. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit newsy and the IP has put it back, the IP doesn't seem to want to talk about it, is it being reported by any other sources? What about rewriting the story to a simple line, that might calm the IP down. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I'm hesitant to reduce it all after the two reverts I've made already, but it's a good suggestion. I'm hoping more third party editors can take a look and participate as they feel so inspired. But in particular to make sure that whatever there meets BLP standards as folks here see it. Even the one citation however doesn't establish that the DA is "against" dispensaries as far as I can tell or that there is a marijuana controversy particularly. He's quoted as against the practice of over-the-counter sales (per state law), as opposed to dispensaries existing, so I'm not sure even that citation has a noteworthy contribution to the article's current assertions. Google '"steve cooley" marijuana' and one does find that his statements that pot dispensaries should only grow for coop members and not sell over-the-counter. Noteworthy for his article? -Owlmonkey (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I trimmed it a bit to take the weight out of it, that does not mean that I actually support its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. I appreciate the tag on the overall section as well. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anita Turner
In response to a post on the neutral point of view noticeboard I have stubbed down the article on the above television producer. Some more eyes would be helpful, in particular to comment on the use of a website, Digital Spy, for non-controversial information. I'll take that to RSN if necessary. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say not, actually that is quite a controversial comment that is supported by that website if you can't find any ref to the comment at another location I would suggest removal of the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse in edit summary on 1948 Palestinian exodus
An editor has removed content from this article. In the edit summary, s/he claims that the source, a respected academic and historian, is "a discredited extreme leftist liar". Such a comment in the article or talk page could easily be removed as a breach of BLP policy. Is there any way to remove this from the edit summary? RolandR 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a way to remove that edit summary without oversight (WP:RFO). You can give that a shot. Aditya Ex Machina  14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, there is another way. I deleted the article, then restored it without that edit. It put a bit of a load on the servers, as the number of revisions is just within the limits for doing that without asking a developer. We will soon have a way of handling this sort of thing more properly ourselves as administrators.    DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REVDEL, acceptable under WP:REVDEL or maybe #5 (I think)  nableezy  - 05:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanjiv Tripathi

 * - I do not understand all that is happening here. Initially, I observed a page blanking and contacted the editor to offer some advice.  They responded politely on my talk and blanked the page again.  Looking at the article history, and the creator's talk page history, it appears it may be a re-creation of a deleted article.  I do not know if the subject is notable, if the cited sources are reliable or if the treatment of the subject is unbalanced.  In short, I need other eyes, please. //  Tide  rolls  16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * imo, it is clearly an attack page, the ctations, (for what they are) look suspect, I suggest a speedy deletion, the ip has blanked it, so now is a good a time as any to delete it.Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as a BLP violation and a repost of material already deleted after OTRS complaint.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex
Anon is repeatedly adding back obviously unsourced/unreferenced content naming living persons, therefore raising BLP issues, to List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex with edit summaries claiming the content is sourced. There seems to be a running attempt by a small number of editors to claim that "I watched the film and I believe it's true" is acceptable sourcing for real-world claims concerning living persons. I don't believe there's a genuine dispute about any lack of consensus on this point, since it's at best original research. I made substantial deletions from the article earlier today, removing most of the unsourced claims, and adding references to several where the claims could be clearly established. I suspect several other claims might be sourceable; but too often the sources I turned up tended to hedge their statements with terms lke "reportedly." I also left in several claims regarding well-established pornographic performers, since there's no likelihood of reputational harm to them (although citation tags might have been appropriate as I look back). Other sets of eyes could be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is appalling. It contains self references to Wikipedia reliable sourcing as a criteria, and then proceeds to list a whole load of unsourced claims. About half the material in the article ought to be removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed about 80% of this article as unreferenced and thus violating BLP. Please watchlist, as I'm sure to have upset someone.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a great article to nominate for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not disagreeing. But it was at afd before.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the stuff mentioned isn't really sex. I have President Clinton to back me up on this. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, what an embarrassment. How does this article survive AfD? What's the world coming to? Isn't the idea of a list of films containing unsimulated sex a perfect concept for the porn industry itself to maintain? Why the heck would anyone want Wikipedia to be maintaining this list? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you already have 3 "delete" votes. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead soon and renominate it. The more I think about it the more serious the BLP problems seem. Nothing is well sourced and anyone involved with any of the films could be harmed. If the article is saying actors were hired to have sex on film, what does that make the film makers? Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination)Steve Dufour (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted, one of the biggest surprises I have ever had on WP. Fans are trying a counter-attack against the person who decided to delete however.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Durgan: NASL, "Vitriol"
In post, NASL section, references [3] and [4] do not directly support authors statement of "vitriol" toward Mark Peterson or other players. Further, reference [4] appears to be hearsay from an unpublished author in which I am neither quoted nor are direct quotes by me from other sources referenced.

In total, I am under the impression that the author of this Jeff Durgan post is biased against me and has reason to report negative and potentially harmful, inaccurate information. When I try to remove questionable, inaccurate or seemingly biased statements he reverts to his original text and threatens to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notiempo (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Original post regarding this at WP:Editor assistance/Requests. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Garside
Hi. Wikimedia UK has been contacted by the subject of this article, who isn't happy with the article. Essentially the complaint is that the controversy section is unduly weighted compared with the rest of the article. This is apparently part of an ongoing campaign against the subject across the internet, which has included Google bombing. For that reason, relying on google searches is problematic, and editors that have just edited this article and related pages may not be approaching the topic from a neutral point of view.

For background, the article has been raised here twice before:.

This is a tricky situation that I personally feel uncomfortable taking an active role in as a wikimedian (note that Wikimedia UK of course can't take an active role here, being an independent organization). Could someone please take a look at the article and assess whether or not it needs to be more balanced, taking the above information into account? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment..The controversies section does look a bit excessive, his record was accepted by the Guinness book of records so they are very strong on facts and conditions, that said there are some issues, which we should mention, but the section is in need of trimming by a decent writer in the way of summarizing the stronger comments, to balance the article in a fair way, the controversy section is the main part of the article.Any volunteers? Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a shot in a while if there are no takers. Meanwhile anyone in favor of moving the controversy section to the talk page temporarily as a WP:BLP issue, while the problems are fixed? Aditya Ex Machina  14:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, I have removed the section to the talkpage in readiness. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm traveling, but noticed the blanking. As I indicated when I wrote the text, I welcome additional review. That said, I read every news source on the subject that I could access at that time, and I don't believe that the article is unbalanced in reflecting that. Criticism was most of what I found. I don't object to the removal of the section so long as this is very temporary (since currently I think it represents an WP:NPOV problem), but it can't remain in its current state for long as now the article certainly does represent a BLP issue. The lead says "Although press in 2001 and 2002 reported that Garside had admitted some fabrication, in 2003 he denied the admission. In addition, critics have questioned the plausibility of his claims and the accuracy of the evidence documenting Garside's run." This, of course, summarized the sourced criticism section. Perhaps pending the proposed rewrite, somebody would like to add sources for that? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, in reference to the top note, when I wrote that section, I searched google news, not google, and I did access everything I found at that time that was not hidden behind a subscription wall. And I had no history with the subject of the article, positive or negative, prior to the OTRS communication. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to describe the problem as neutrally as possible, but looking at it again I see that I failed. :( I have no opinions on the article, or any surrounding controversies, and my intention was not to imply anything; my aim when writing the above text was to communicate the issue as I understood it without putting words in people's mouths, or taking a stance.
 * I would note that Google News is still powered by Google, so if google bombing has gone on here then that will also be susceptible. There are a large number of links and references to media coverage on the talk page (I believe that they were originally placed in the article by the subject), which might be of help when reworking the article.
 * If this could possibly be sorted out this weekend, that would be great... Earlier today the subject of the article sent me a version of the article that he has written, about which he says "I believe this is balanced". I will place on the talk page in case this is of use. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for commenting, of course respect to these additional comments, I also agree that there does need to be a section on the doubts as regards the record, and I also feel that the section is excessivly large compared to the rest of the article and that Guinness is well known for its accuracy as regards accepting claims. I personally do agree with the complaint from the subject of the biography, it seems excessive, the Internet is sometimes a place that enjoys controversy and so there are plenty of such citations around, there was an offer of a rewrite and I accepted, I appreciate your wanting something returned to the article and I will give this my attention over the weekend looking for a replacement to the article by Monday, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would a google bomb prevent articles from showing up? I'm not really familiar with the concept, but I checked literally every readable link in google news that I could find. Even if it was on the last page, I read it. Again, I requested review at the time and am happy enough if I get it now, but I am unsure how much "of an ongoing campaign against the subject across the internet" may be reflected here. Notes and edit summaries such as this, this and this suggest to me a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia's function. In the one instance, the person he accused of "NOTHING MORE THAN DIRTY TACTICS BY PEOPLE WHO COME SECOND IN LIFE. THIS IS A COVER-UP" seems to be.


 * Clearly, the proposed rewrite by the subject for the controversy section is not balanced. It reduces all criticism to David Blaikie--others of standing are mentioned as well at various sources such as, , , , . In the controversy section I created, I made every effort to air his viewpoints as well. I understand that the subject would be happiest with no or little reference made to the controversy, but it seems to have been huge...and to have persisted after the validation of his record by Guinness. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The rewrite is a nice story and for sure personal elaboration, I have not checked the citations the subject claims support it, if you think that it is fine and balanced then we can replace it, personally I am with Guinness here, and I don't think the controversy section about anything should be bigger than the section related to the achievement. There was no support at all here for the section until I removed it today? As there are experienced editors here that actually support the section the subject is complaining about I will happily take my time elsewhere. Feel free to simply replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at it a bit more, the article has lost nothing of any value with the removal of the titillating controversies in the removed section, there are still comments regarding doubts in the article, imo, if the lede was simply trimmed to reflect the new article body it would be fine, the reader would have lost nothing at all, I do think it was excessive, and a bit tabloid, trim the lede a bit, archive the talkpage, job done.I will do that if there are no objections. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I already objected above, and I still object. I believe that you have cut out a good bit of information that is verifiable to reliable sources, and I do not believe it is undue. Sensitivity in WP:BLP does not require ignoring significant media coverage of controversies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So your position is that there is no problem? Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (I am not on my home computer, and my connection is very iffy. The edit conflict sent me into stasis for quite some time. I'm afraid I can't communicate quickly here.) Not to be redundant, but I invited review before and continue to welcome it. However, I believe that the current article shirks coverage of controversies. Wikipedia's policy, as we all know, is to accurately reflect what reliable sources have said about notable subjects. This controversy is covered extensively around the world. Some sources that have covered it include The Guardian; Sports Illustrated Adventures, Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, Telegraph, Guardian (again). Removing the controversy section wholesale is definitely unbalanced. Regardless of whether the run was authenticated or not, the controversy seems clearly notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, there is a lot of time, I do agree that there was a lot of coverage of the surrounding claims of falsehood and cheating, misrepresentation to Guinness and whatever else, plenty of citations, I am not in favour of censorship, simply that to me, what was there does seem excessive, so we can take the strongest most encyclopedic points from the removed content and add it to the other sections, thereby reporting the simple story without a controversy section. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added an archiver to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not object to 8 days. 1 day when there is ongoing discussion about a page is not a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I am just getting to know all about those archive bots, I didn't realise that. It is gong to need an archive though, all those cites and stuff there will need cleaning. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Archiving can also be done manually, as explained at Help:Archiving a talk page. I'm not that familiar with bot functioning, but wonder if this method might not be superior on article talk pages that are seldom used. Not only would it significantly slow down the bots if they had to trawl every article talk page to determine if content needed to be archived, but unless the article talk page is monitored, somebody could easily leave an important note that is overlooked in even an eight day window. Perhaps these are the reasons that Miszabot says, "Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there" and the help page says, "Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot or ClueBot III on a talk page other than a user talk page." I don't believe automatic archival there is necessary or, really, a good idea, once the excessive content is trimmed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If your of that opinion, I am fine with that, I do see the points, manual archiving is perhaps a better way to go, feel free to make the alteration, as per your comments here I will ask for consensus in future before doing that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, but I will leave it to you to decide what is currently on the page that needs manual archiving. :) Given my OTRS communications and subsequent actions, I think it's best that I not make that determination. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to do that, is there some kind of general agreement that we are all more or less happy that what is left is fair enough settled on? Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with anything being archived up to the section to which I contributed today. I'd like some feedback on the proper placement of the Disputes section, as requested there, and I'd like to know the reason for the italics in the quote. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. All additional assistance appreciated. Aditya Ex Machina 12:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done now. Aditya Ex Machina  14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, on first appraisal it reads well, there are imo enough of the critical comments still included so as not to whitewash the story and the excessive weight, imo, has been taken out from the section. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done some alterations and explained why at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of blog to source allegations of criminal wrongdoing by named individuals
On Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, a couple of editors are seeking to add a paragraph that implicitly accuses individuals of criminal wrongdoing and cites correspondence between specific named individuals in support of its claims. The paragraph in question is sourced solely to a blog. After another editor pointed out the BLP violation I removed the paragraph. The issue is being discussed at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - some second opinions would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some of what I said on the article talk page: The blog is written by a journalist and hosted at the Science magazine website. The journalist wrote (emphasis added): "[U]niversity researchers may [...] find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." Neither was Phil Jones or Michael E. Mann anyone else actually accused by the journalist of doing that. The blog is a news or news analysis blog at a reliable-source publication. WP:RS states: 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. The magazine is at least as reliable as a newspaper. Given Phil Jones' statement in the email, (Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise) it isn't "speculation" to say "if" and "may" -- it's called reporting. It's what news organizations do. BLP was not meant to squelch legitimate description of an encyclopedic subject important to readers. It certainly isn't meant to protect WP:WELLKNOWN people from legitimate scrutiny. Phil Jones heads up an organization that has produced some of the most important work that's gone into reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's most influential body related to climate change. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See also: The Guardian news story from 11/23 it emerged last week that hundreds of their emails and documents had been leaked that allegedly manipulated data and destroyed evidence for Freedom of Information Act requests. Jones has been called (by a writer in the Daily Telegraph) without doubt, one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming  -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I see no general problem with citing this blog under WP:RS or WP:BLP, because it's hosted by Science for straightforward journalistic purposes (as opposed to commentary/opinion), I'm uneasy about citing a science journalist's blog when the central claim involved is an opinion regarding the law. I think it would be prudent simply to wait and see whether similar analyses are made by other sources, or whether the issue is openly raised by participants in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * HW, you asked for other sources -- here are two more, so we have at least four reliable sources (Science magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail) saying that Jones' statements call into question whether or not he violated Britain's FOIA:
 * The Daily Mail in the UK: Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests. (11/25) ;
 * Daily Telegraph story: Thousands of documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) also seem to show that academics on both sides of the Atlantic discussed deleting sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics. (11/24)
 * Here's what Phil Jones wrote in one of the released emails (09:41 AM 2/2/2005):
 * ''Mike,
 * ''I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! ...
 * Does the passage ChrisO deleted still look like a BLP violation to anyone? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And why not have The Financial Times of the UK join the party (registration required, but it's free) -- referencing the very blog post that's the supposed BLP violation: Lesson 2: Don't evade Freedom of Information requests. As noted in the Science Magazine link above, many of the e-mails discuss how to destroy documents in anticipation of Freedom of Information requests. That's a criminal offense in the United Kingdom (where the CRU is located). IT folks should be aware that an increasing amount of data (particularly scientific and research data gathered via public funding) is subject to FOIA. They should work with researchers to ensure documents are stored and organized with that in mind. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, Pete. We've heard from precisely one (1) person who hasn't already staked out a position on the article, and he said he is "uneasy about citing a science journalist's blog when the central claim involved is an opinion regarding the law." The world won't end if we wait another day or two for more outside comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the homework, John. I agree, CRU's apparent FOIA evasion may well be the central sticking point in the whole Climategate affair, and it's a serious disservice to our readers to omit this well-sourced account from our article. I propose speedy reinstating of the FOIA sub-section, with the added cites from User:JohnWBarber's work, as this discussion is now moot. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Serious disservice" is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. One might conclude that it is a "serious disservice" to the reader to use these sources to highlight the alleged FOIA violation while omitting the Daily Wail's lead-in (characteristic of a number of such sources): "Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real..." MastCell Talk 06:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you should highlight that. My recent edits to the article talk page was to suggest we add sources to the reaction section that made points very similar to that.  Of course, the sources were only used for one thing here: The subject at hand -- FOIA. We have so many other, more qualified, sources -- including the ones I suggested -- making the same point you make and making it with more authority. JohnWBarber (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * when the central claim involved is an opinion regarding the law Not so slow, Boris. It isn't an opinion that Phil Jones' emails about deleting files and obstructing FOIA requests may be violations of FOIA law, it is an observation based on the facts of the Jones' comments and the fact of the FOIA law. And it's a common-sense observation. That's why five different reliable sources make it. The source from Science magazine happens to have been the one that reported on this point in greatest depth.  And that depth comes from this source having asked a lawyer who works in the field as well as the UK government agency that deals with FOIA. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the reality (as opposed to the speculative world), is that you (or the science blog writer) have no knowledge of whether any deletions were made of this kind. All you have is interpretation of an email, where you do not have the full context, you don't know if they were joking (for instance i've joked about killing my boss with others in company email) or a multitude of other explanations.. Separation of fact and speculation is something that apparently is rather hard to people in this case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, you really don't seem to get it: Multiple reliable sources have reported this story. The two principles (Mann & Jones) have separately confirmed that the "Delete the emails, Mike" email is genuine. Jones is on record, in emails that he's confirmed "appear" genuine, to actively planning evasion (at least) of the UK FOI law on multiple occasions, and encouraging colleagues to do so. I'd be surprised if he still has his job when this affair is sorted out (no, this spec isn't for the article} -- and you natter on about "joking" or "a multitude of other explanations." Give it a break, OK? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again separate fact from speculation - its a fact that the mails appear genuine (as stated by Mann and Jones) - the rest is your speculation, based on incomplete knowledge. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "... the rest is your speculation..." No, it isn't. It's good reporting, especially by Science's Antonio Regalado, who's been working for Science for may, many years, and has a good reporter's nose and a finely-tuned BS detector. And we can WP:Verify his reporting, with other reliable sources, which is THE bedrock principle of the WP project. I'm not sure why you can't see this, but your position is (imo) untenable. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that speculations about legal issues on a science journalists blog, while interesting as such perhaps, isn't encyclopaedia material. The situation will most likely become clearer in the following weeks or months. WP isn't news, there's no hurry.
 * Kim, Chris and Apis, the issue of whether or not Jones and the others may have violated FOIA is -- just that: a public issue. If it were a very minor part of this subject and unimportant, or if these people were unimportant, I think you might have a point on humanitarian grounds, which are very good BLP grounds with marginally notable people. But the fact is, in terms of public policy, these are some of the most influential scientists in the world. Their work was influencial in IPCC reports, which are one of the reasons, to give one tiny example, that I walked by Priuses and other hybrids in the parking lot as I headed home tonight. Good science implies openness with data. That these scientists went so far in avoiding openness that five news organizations have brought up the possibility of FOIA violations is simply important. Since most of the coverage doesn't emphasize this, it's reasonable to say that this aspect of the subject doesn't warrant emphasis in the article, but WP:UNDUE has a flip side: this is important enough to include in the article. Whether or not Jones and the others actually violated FOIA is not the issue we're here to try to solve -- the point is that the revealed emails and other documents raise questions because on their face they look like (a) a lack of openness; (b) subverting the peer review process with bullying and politicking; (c) covering up bad practices. These are the issues brought up by various influential commentators -- for instance, this commentator (These e-mails depict the scientists of the CRU in the worst possible light: manipulating data to reach preordained conclusions, disparaging critics, stonewalling legitimate requests for information.) -- as well as other sources we wouldn't use). Some of the commentators -- in fact, quite a few -- who are critical of what's in the revealed documents are themselves not AGW skeptics,   which should tell you that it isn't bias that's motivating all of the criticism, but real concern.   Now you can admit or deny that there are real concerns out there (have any of you admitted that?), but those concerns, expressed by influential commentators and by scientists, are an essential part of this subject, which is a public controversy. Policy allows criticism and negative information on aspects of a subject that are integral to its notability. From WP:BLP: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FOIA complaint filed, government officials have opened an investigation. Clearly they think there's something worth noticing here. Source; Daily Telegraph. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It means nothing of the sort. The ICO is obliged to investigate non-vexatious complaints ; that has no bearing on whether the complaints have any merit. The fact of the ICO's response is noteworthy but no conclusions can be drawn from it. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, despite the fact that you started this thread, you have been completely unresponsive to almost all of the evidence I've put forward, referring to and quoting from WP:BLP, citing reliable sourcing and showing how, when Wikipedia covers the fact that questions have been raised in public, in prominent publications, about whether there were FOIA violations, fair coverage of that is not a BLP violation. You have no consensus anywhere that there is a BLP violation here because you no longer have an argument for it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not citing "evidence".. You have cited opinion of individuals primarily (the few RS's that you've cited are relating/repeating opinion from various people). The fact that you think its evidence goes a long way in explaining the problems. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "the few RS's that you've cited are relating/repeating opinion from various people" - Actually, we rely on WP:RSs for fact checking. If they print it under their own auspices we can accept it as reliable.  Where they got it from is irrelevant for our purposes.  --GoRight (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 opinion articles. Yep really really good BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is really good BLP material, since criticism is allowed in BLP articles. If magazines and newspapers with a professional knowledge of libel are printing commentary that contains criticism, that is relevant to WP:BLP. News articles that report on the matter, such as the Science magazine news blog, are best for sourcing facts in the article. There is no BLP violation in the passage ChrisO took out of the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "New articles...such as (a) blog"... Hmm. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read my first comment in this thread, the one where I quote WP:RS on just that point? Hmm? JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just speculation and it's from a few people who really don't carry much weight when it comes to judging the legal status of such matters. If there is any truth to any of this it will cause big headlines soon enough. No point in inserting wp:libel sourced from blogs.
 * You've ignored my previous comment, which refers to my first comment in this thread about news-organization blogs. There is no speculation involved in an "if ... may" statement -- it simply explains where the legal liability is, and the reporter sources that to a British legal expert. Here, let me put it right in front of you where you can't miss it: According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt. Here's a statement issued by the ICO, the UK government agency that handles FOIA law: Destroying requested information outside of an organisation’s normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure. The ICO has specific guidance relating to the destruction of requested information that can be found on our website. Please try to follow the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously this should be included; it's one of the biggest questions any astute reader will have, and therefore it's just a waste of the reader's time to hide the existing research (I searched in vain for an answer when I heard the story). There's also no reason to think it is inaccurate that evading FOIA requests is a crime andno reason to doubt the reliability of the Science journalist. The word may conveys that the full circumstances will be determined in (or out) of court. Sidenote: we are not legal advocates on Wikipedia, and we should be presenting the full picture to each other. ChrisO's introduction, calling the Science blog "just a blog" (no mention of Science), was clearly disingenuous. Behavior like that needs to be called out discouraged to the fullest extent, because it wastes everyone's time. For the particularly legalistic among us, WP:RS has a sentence on these "blogs" which reads: "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". I'm really disappointed in the behavior of some of the most dedicated global warming article editors here. II  | (t - c) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
A primary source by the victim of an alleged crime is being directly cited to state that a crime has taken place. Those supporting the citation argue that the alleged victim is the best source of whether the crime took place. The current discussion is at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident Andjam (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not fundamentally a BLP issue, since the statement being cited is not about any identified living person - the identity of the culprit is not known. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that equally mean that Ibn Warraq shouldn't be covered by BLP (currently he is) because we don't know his real name? Or is there a difference? Andjam (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference. The University of East Anglia has said in at least two separate statements that (I paraphrase) "someone hacked our server and stole a number of files". No individual is identified and the university is the only source competent to make the statement that (a) its server was hacked and (b) its files were stolen - both of those things relate to property in the exclusive ownership of the UEA. Ibn Warraq, whoever he is, is an identified individual about whom a range of biographical information is known. It doesn't make any difference from a BLP perspective whether he's identified by a pseudonym or his real name - the point is that he is a specific identified person. Absolutely nothing is known about the person who hacked the UEA server. Now, you might have a point if the UEA had accused a specific named individual of the hack and theft, but it hasn't, for the obvious reason that it doesn't know who did it. Note that this only bears on who is responsible, not on whether the crime took place. There is no dispute whatsoever in reliable sources that the files were stolen: the UEA has been explicit on this point.


 * Here's a point of comparison for you. The top story on In the news at the moment is 2009 Nevsky Express bombing. The Russian government has said that the incident was a terrorist attack. Since it's the investigative authority and owns the property that was attacked, it's the authoritative source on the incident. It's not an "alleged" crime and the 25 people killed are not "alleged" victims - the occurrence of the crime and the victims' deaths are hard facts. There is no BLP issue about quoting the Russian government's statements that the attack was carried out by unknown, unnamed terrorists. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know Russian, but I can't spot any press releases being cited, just secondary sources. Andjam (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The pages relating to the UEA/CRU incident also cite secondary sources reporting the UEA's statements that the server was hacked and the file was stolen. In the interests of accuracy, the UEA's own words are quoted verbatim from its press releases, but secondary sources are also quoted in the article describing the incident from a second-hand perspective. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently, a mix of primary sources and secondary sources are cited to describe the actual events. Only the latter should be used, with the primary sources only used to describe UAE's comments. Andjam (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Defending America for Knowledge and Action
The article on Defending America for Knowledge and Action is seriously NPOV and has many unsourced defamatory statements. Matchups 12:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was hard to get a read on the POV, but I have removed some coverage of disparaging statements made by the man behind the organization against a university PR functionary and a college student that were sourced only to the man's editorials in Front Page Magazine. They were pretty over-the-top BLP vios -- disparaging claims are not self-sourcing.  Even if true and sourced, the fact that a provocateur gets in a pissing match with a PR agent, or wins a small claims court judgment against a college student, is not noteworthy and is not sufficient basis to besmirch their character here on Wikipedia.  I'm also concerned that the organization itself is not notable.  It's a front for a single person's extreme political agenda and as far as I can tell involves nobody else.  There is a single reliable source, a rather long and well-written profile in the SF Weekly, a free weekly paper that itself has uneven editorial oversight.  It's a very interesting article but I don't think it evidences notability by itself - that paper likes to publish long portraits of obscure people and organizations.  If the organization were notable, surely there would be other mentions.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states that the allegations were made by Kaplan alone. More to the point, there are plenty of Anti-Israel and left-wing organizations which have entries in Wikipedia that promote their own views from their own sources and include diatribes and insults against those with whom they disagree. Besides, Kaplan was making specific allegations against Burness, not simply making insults. It is my concern that BLP is being used disingenuously to censor events which may reflect negatively on persons are groups which are anti-Israel or left-leaning. With regard to the claims that this article is libelous, could you please specify which statements meet this criteria. All of this information has been published on several websites and deals with an incident that occurred several years ago. And there is no debate that Salahi did start a website that criticized Kaplan, that Kaplan sued him in small claims court, and that he ultimately won $7,500. This is a statement of fact that even Salahi admits is true (he has posted numerous rants about this on the Internet). Why this section in particular was deleted (I have restored it) remains to be explained.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC))


 * It doesn't matter that the article states that Kaplan alone made the allegations. Nobody other than Kaplan has covered Kaplan's allegaionts.  Hence, they are not reliably sourced.  If you feel there is some inappropriate anti-Israel stuff on the encyclopedia please deal with it or bring it to others' attention.  That is no reason to introduce inappropriate anti-Arab stuff.  Kaplan's so-called allegations have no basis other than Kaplan himself.  Kaplan is a young extremist rabble-rouser.  There is no reason to think that his personal account of alleged grievances while carrying on a radical agenda merit reprinting those accusations in the encyclopedia.  The websites on which this are published are all fairly notorious agenda-driven websites, not reliable sources.  Yes, one college student lost a small claims judgment - is that the stuff of encyclopedias?  If you read the sources the judge admonished both parties for their "immature" antics, and asked them rhetorically if they had something better to do with their lives.  A backwaters small claims court case does not rise to the level of reprinting here for the world to see, particularly on the charged issue of Arab/Israel recriminations.  If we can't get some sanity in the article, the article itself ought to just be deleted.  There seems to be nothing notable about this person's personal organization.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In your response, you accused me of introducing "anti-Arab stuff" into the article. Please enlighten me - What "stuff" that I added to the article was "anti-Arab?" My additions dealt entirely with allegations against specific people without any reference to their ethnicity. If you are going to accuse me of this, you should be prepared to back it up. Second, you describe Kaplan has "a young extremist rabble-rouser." The fact that he takes a pro-Israel approach to his work and sharply criticizes people who sharply criticize him does not make him an extremist. It's true that some of his tactics (e.g. going undercover in disguise) are certainly unorthodox and vexing, but suing someone whom he claimed had libelled him (and criticizing someone whom he believed was abusing his position to support an agenda) does not make him a radical.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC))


 * None of that is relevant, or under consideration here. You were saying we should include Kaplan's accusations against people (which, observing the obvious, on their face represent a radical pro-Israel, anti-Arab agenda) because in other articles we allow comparable allegations by those opposed to Israel.  That's not the way it works.  WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:RS apply to all articles and are not relaxed in the interest of two wrongs making a right.  If other articles have the same problems they need to be fixed as well.  - Wikidemon (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How is Kaplan's criticism of Burness and his lawsuit evidence of "a radical pro-Israel, anti-Arab agenda?" (Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))


 * I do not claim they are evidence of that agenda. Rather, they represent it.  The only way in which the agenda is relevant to the BLP violation is that you said we should include it because elsewhere there is equivalent content about anti-Israel organizations.  Take away that argument you made and it doesn't matter what his agenda is: a BLP problem is a BLP problem.  I'm not sure whether you are proposing anything here or not.  As far as I'm concerned the article is now trimmed, as modestly as possible, to stay barely on the right side of the BLP policy: the litany of accusations Kaplan made against the PR official is replaced with a more general statement that says he made accusations, and the arguments he made surrounding the small claims court case against the student are condensed in favor of simply saying he won.  That way the article mentions the facts of what happened without repeating claims sourceable only to Kaplan.  The citations remain, so any curious reader can follow the links to find them.  If you're okay with that, the question of where Kaplan's politics lie becomes moot.  If you find articles where anti-Israeli activists (or anyone else) make comparable accusations sourced only to themselves, I think you should remove those too, and if people editing the articles object and you think it's a significant enough issue, bring it here and I'll back you up if I notice it.  - Wikidemon (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I still have my concerns, I feel that the current version is best compromise that can be reached at this time.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Good :) I'm serious about my offer, any problem articles you spot I'm happy to help.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Traian Băsescu
High-profile. Appart from the general poor state of this article, the current dispute is whether ongoing event's (until December 6) information (which is highly controvesial, and 100% political) should go to the section "2009 Presidential campaign" or to a separate article Romanian presidential election, 2009 with a resume to be added after that to the bio.

Previously (during the last two days), there was also a dispute about whether the "Controversies and criticism" section should contain all such info (about 1/2 of the article is controversy and criticism, which is quite unfortunate for a BLP), or if in cases where it is possible, the relevant criticism info should go section by section into the bio. I managed to convince the other editors that the latter course of action is more logical. Or if I did not convince them, they let it now be so.

Thank you for your help. Dc76\talk 05:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All edits in the last week were sourced only with reliable sources (mainstream International and Romanian media), and all opinions were attributed. The info are strictly about the subject of the article, not about the general Romanian campaign (his counter-candidate even declined to comment at all on the subject). Yes, the article is about 50% about controversies surrounding Basescu, but this is just because he is a very controversial person, and the mainstream media is predominantly critical of him. Since Wikipedia is sourced with reliable sources, we can't just put info sourced from blogs or internet forums just to "equilibrate" the article. There's no requirement to present positive and negative aspects 50:50, when the sources clearly concentrate on the negative aspects (again, the sources are all top mainstream non-tabloid Romanian newspapers).Anonimu (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dov Hikind Financial Censorship David Irving John L. Sampson Eric Adams Carl Kruger Diane Savino Peter Abbate Michael Benjamin Vivian Cook and other similar
User:Yossiea and User:Will Beback have reverted contributions by User:pottsf to the above articles claiming that Yeshiva World News is not a Reliable Source.

I request a ruling as to whether Yeshiva World News is a reliable source.--Joe (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you were adding material not found in any of the sources you listed, such as the "censorship" charge and the quotation about driving Irving out of business. Adding unsourced or poorly sourced negative information about living people is a direct violation of WP:BLP.   Will Beback    talk    18:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is the source the names listed appear to be included and the source appears reliable (although editorial process could not be found). I didn't verify the added content. I agree that it must be properly sourced, in addition it must be a relevant and notable event to be included.  Merely being sent a letter, does not meet this criteria and seems like a POV push.  The content seems like an undue weight issue better discussed on the article talk page, hopefully avoiding formal dispute resolution.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I too consider the source reliable, but I think it excessive weight and a probable BLP violation to put this anywhere but in the articles for Hikind and Irving. Adding it to American Express, or its officers, or the other signatories is in my opinion very problematic, and a violation of WP:SOAPBOX as well.  According to the sources available, the true sponsor is Hikind, and not the others. The Financial Censorship article has been proposed for deletion as a neologism, as none of the sources use the term. I do not want to remove the material from the other articles myself on my own judgment since this is likely to be controversial, but I will support any other admin who does so.     DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * YWN is not a news source. They borrow their news from other sources and the 1% that is their own is not sourced. It is similar to a blog, which is not WP:RS. The site is closer to a blog than a real news source.


 * To repeat, I wasn't complaining about the quality of the sources. Instead, I've been complaining about inserting assertions not included in the source. Yeshiva World News doesn't list an editorial policy, and the unsigned post above may be correct that it's more like a blog.   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of WP:RS info on Gilad Atzmon
The last time this article was brought here there was a consensus to make the Politics section shorter, which was done.

The current issue, as described in detail with quotes from WP:RS is at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Drsmoo (who will surely comment below) keeps removing three WP:RS saying Atzmon is called an antisemite for his criticism of Zionism because of his Drsmoo's POV that Azmon is only called one because of his ethno-cultural critiques. (Note an Admin had to delete two Drsmoo attacks against Atzmon on Nov. 21 - 1, 2.) Considering there was an OTRS in the spring about just such biased editing on this biography, hopefully someone will opine about this biased deletion of WP:RS info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To begin with, the last time this article was brought here, Carolmooredc completely reverted the edits of the two editors who attempted to help, replacing them with her own edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642088&oldid=321461856 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088


 * I'm not sure "ethno-cultural critiques" is a good euphamism for Atzmon's statements that: "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop.”, "Bush behaved Jewishly" and "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar.” Which are the kinds of statements that have earned him regular accusations of antisemitism (that being the point of contention here.) The reason CarolmooreDC's provided sources were removed is that A. The Aaranovitch article, while a reliable source, in no way states what CarolmooreDC's interpretation of it claims it states, every example/quote provided by the article regarding antisemitism, is a statement regarding Judaism; the same is true for the Scottsman article. The only source that said Atzmon had been accused of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism was from the opinion of an editor/interviewer at the Gisborne Herald. A tiny local newspaper with a circulation of about 8,000. That is against the Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." Citing papers such as the New York Times and the Times of London as examples, and "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact" The opinion of the conductor of that interview is included in the politics section. Drsmoo (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * People can read the facts at the link. And the editor who shortened it left out almost all the neutral info and it was two to one negative info, despite lots of WP:RS neutral info, which is one of the reasons the article got locked last time around. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI. I have tried a mediation with Drsmoo, but after weeks of personal attacks on me for trying to make the article NPOV, now followed by yet another illustration of Drsmoo's hatred of Atzmon (illustrated by these two hostile diffs he refused to remove and an admin had to: 1, 2) I think I should just delete this silly BLPN thread where he's got me trying to prove there are accusations vs. Atzmon.
 * I probably should just go straight for a complaint about re: BLP Dispute tag regarding Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people are strictly forbidden on all Wikipedia pages. In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research. Editors who continue to introduce unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people will be blocked from editing per Wikipedia policy. Advice on what to do welcome. 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do have to prove your statements. If you can find a reliable source that states that Atzmon has been accused of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism, than it will be included. I recommend that you actually see a noticeboard discussion through to completion, rather than jumping from noticeboard to noticeboard to mediation to noticeboard as soon as there is any discussion. Drsmoo (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel Drsmoo's hostility towards the subject (esp. as mentioned above in his recent talk page edits which an admin just had to revert because he refused to) and towards anyone trying to do an NPOV edit of the article is so severe that I have cataloged various editors' complaints about him at Wikiquette Alerts. Perhaps that is what I should have brought here instead of the one issue which mediation had not been able to resolve yet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Revised alert focuses on Drsmoo's incivility towards me as advised after the first alert. Let's think positive thoughts Drsmoo will get a good mentor!
 * Meanwhile, for anyone interested in substantive discussion of this issue, again I present my case at Talk:Gilad Atzmon If necessary I can repeat it here, with any updates. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section
Rather than start a new thread, I decided to put up a link to revised version of this section correcting what I believe are WP:BLP violations. See this diff which I explained with this edit summary: More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section; use quotes in context of what Secondary Sources say, not editor's WP:OR; per various talk page and noticeboard comments. It is based on comments I have gotten in various places that deals with the WP:OR issue (cherry picked use of Atzmon quotes out of context of what the secondary source said about those comments) and POV issue (not allowing the Swedish Democrats defense of Atzmon in the article), plus a few POV issues. This diff also shows I am NOT trying to delete all negative information about Atzmon, just trying to make the article comply with WP:BLP and WP:RS policies. Note the section still is 2/3 about criticism of Atzmon and his replies, which should satisfy the most strenuous Atzmon hater. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Marcel Diallo

 * I've just restored some disputed content to this article. It looks to me like it was properly sourced and only removed so that there would not be any negative content in the article, but maybe I'm wrong, so I'm reporting it here to get more eyes on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A diff would help since there may have been various revisions since you posted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick Collins (composer) and Click Nilson
Two biographies recently started by the same author, about possibly non-notable persons. Given that their names are anagrams of one another, they were born in the same year, work in the same field, and both are associated with the University of Sussex (though not mentioned in Nilson's article, the info is online ) I am suspicious that Nick Collins (composer) and Click Nilson are the same person. I've left a message on the author's page, to no response yet. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated.... 99.155.206.57 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Click may be a stage name of Nick Collins, though we'd need a WP:RS to say so. Looks like same guy in photos. I'd say get rid of Click and put a note on Nick's web page with link to article asking for more info, including WP:RS that they are the same guy. Article has potential and guy may be WP:Notable soon enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst
The entire first section of this article is written in a biased and potentially libelous manner. It is opinionated and unreferenced, clearly being based on the author's personal beliefs. The contents include personal attacks on the subject's character and qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poonster (talk • contribs)
 * Ah. That's pretty clear vandalism - anyone can remove it, and I've gone ahead and done so. I'll keep an eye on the IP in question. MastCell Talk 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P.Roos
This article now has a note claiming that it contains no references which is not true. I ask that the note be removed as I don't know how to do it myself. It had been vandalized by some malicious person but I have now corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokepoet (talk • contribs) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is referenced entirely to two books, with no inline citations. I think it really needs to be referenced better. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Clemmons and Mike Huckabee
Please note that Clemmons, a convicted felon who received executive clemency from Huckabee when the latter was governor of Arkansas nine years ago, has been announced as the prime suspect in the killing of four police officers in the Seattle area. However, he has not been arrested or formally charged, let alone convicted. I believe inclusion of this information in either of these two biographies violates WP:BLP. I have reverted at Huckabee's bio but haven't taken action yet on Clemmons' bio, and would like to hear opinions from other editors more experienced in these matters. Please advise. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a BLP issue as far as Clemmons is concerned as he was killed by police. The fact that he has not been arrested or charged is mute if he is dead. Given the coverage I think a small note is ok on Huckabee's page. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Or moot... – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While it's not a BLP issue for Clemmons, it remains an issue for Huckabee whatever the page. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention Huckabee on Clemmons page but rather just reminding editors that BLP issues remain possible for both pages Nil Einne (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Neill
This Australian soccer/football player was involved in controversial play @ 2006 World Cup, reported in International career section of article. Australian fans have inserted inflammatory to POV language. I've attempted to edit for NPOV. Back and forth for over one year. Since 11/25 two editors have added and endorsed addition of Australian coach's criticism of officiating, removing counterbalancing info. Would like this resolved. No shorter overview possible. If interested, please examine history. Unfortunately, it's lengthy. Have removed coaches criticism, leaving only description of play.

Tapered (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Henderson

 * - Need some editors to watch this article because of this: (blog post about a Facebook post, probable hoax). It has been added to the article once already. Might want to watch the article title "Sarah Henderson" as well to make sure that's not created. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al Qasimi
The entry for Sheikh Kalid bin Saqr Al Quasimi is completely copied from a blog, ostensibly run by him. The location of the blog is: 

It has been created and run by a PR firm, California Strategies to accomplish Sheikh Khalid's political goals of being reinstated as crown prince of Ras Al Khaimah.

None of this information is verifiable by neutral third parties and as such should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucastar78 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a clear cut case of blatant copyright infringement. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is actually the same group putting their private political messages on Wikipedia. They have now simply moved the unverified content to a new entry - Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr Al-Qassimi. It uses the purpose created website,, as a neutral third party reference.

The Justice Department Foreign Agent Registration Act records can show that California Strategies, which runs the is hired and paid for by Sheikh Khalid. Here is the document showing that this is the case: This is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucastar78 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirected it to the original page and watchlisted it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the page is a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, but CSD was denied on the original page (though it will be deleted unless copyright issues are resolved). &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noting that copyright issues have been resolved by a release at the site. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert Campagnola
-- need a clean from unsourced and self promotional material. Wikid as&#169; 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain your need more clearly, please. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a problem with sources. Wikid as&#169; 08:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

need some BLP opinions on Diana Napolis
the article is about someone who reportedly suffers from a "delusional disorder", was charged with 'stalking' steven spielberg and also charged with making death threats against jennifer love hewett. the issue is that i dont believe the article should link to her personal blog, which does probably qualify as her official site, but adds no encyclopedic content. i believe that linking her site might have a deleterious effect on her mental health as 'legitimizing' rantings via a link from the encyclopedia might further propagate potentially delusional ideations. please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diana_Napolis#linking_her_homepage and comment on whether this is a policy or editorial issue, and whether linking her site is in the best (or any) interest of the encyclopedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [redacted] Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * what would ever make you think that i'm diana napolis? that makes no sense. if i were, i'd just take down the blog, and then the link would be removed as it'd be dead. and what would ever make you think that you can attempt to WP:OUT an editor, even if it's a ridiculous failure to out me? it appears that this situation might require admin intervention due to probable sockpuppetry and insane accusations. i believe that hipcrite is probably a sock of someone. i'll look into this more. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that if you are going to have a whole article filled with allegations about a minor figure, at least you should people a chance to see their viewpoint. What is done with other figures accused of crimes who put up their own pages? I see for example a link to a Leonard Peltier advocacy page and Jonathan Pollard's website. She should be treated the same, with link allowed to stand. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, we've gone from satanic ritual abuse, to how to handle mentally unstable biographical subjects, to outing, to accusations of sockpuppetry, in the first three posts. If the individual is notable they belong in the encyclopedia.  This particular individual seems fairly notable for doing a number of strange, scandalous things that got her a lot of media coverage: being one of the more prominent accusers in the satanic child abuse witch hunts, and stalking celebrities.  We generally don't include unproven allegations, unless the allegations themselves are noteworthy.  In this case it's well-documented incidents and a guilty plea resulting in jail time.  This being an encyclopedia rather than a courtroom, external links are to share encyclopedic information, not to give article subjects a chance to argue their case.  Normally a bio subject's official blog / site is a valid external link, particularly if it is in part the subject of the article.  However, there are sometimes good reasons to leave them off - hate or defamation sites, copyright violations, etc.  I'm on the fence here.  I see no reason to protect her from herself, but I question how much it adds to an understanding of things to kee the link.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Coming back from ANI on a tangentially related issue, Template:Satanic ritual abuse (linked to at the bottom of the Napolis article) has led me to some serious BLP violations, especially under the "Notable People" section. I've removed a couple of egregious examples - check my contrib history, I'm not going to highlight them. Others should review these articles for poorly sourced allegations of abuse and support of said abuse. I think some of this may be residue from User:ResearchEditor and his merry band of socks. Skinwalker (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * i've posted about this situation to WP:ANI [] because i think the whole situation requires more scrutiny Theserialcomma (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for noticing and taking care of things! - Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD and BLP1E
The entire entry is undergoing an AfD and the main argument put forth for deletion is that this is supposedly a clear case of BLP1E. Can someone here explain how that is so. I've suggested at the AfD that those making the argument come here to explain it since at the AfD people are simply listing the policy. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow
Article appears to have been edited by subject of the article that may border what is allowable in the guideline set forth in WP:AUTO; furthermore, the editor does not appear to be removing vandalism per WP:BLPEDIT. I am unsure if there is any violation, but it might be worth noting. Here is a list of the user's edits. // RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt he's heard of all the alphabet soup you cite. I've never heard of it. The article is a bit spammy, but it is sourced and fairly neutral. Can't see any harm here. You could report it to Conflict of Interest Noticeboard if you are concerned.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe
A couple of editors have tried to insert this statement into the Jim Inhofe article:
 * Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims about the science of climate change.

Real Climate is a blog and it is my understanding that blogs are never allowed as a source for BLP. Could we get a ruling on this? Much appreciated, Madman (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Experienced editors should know better than to source material to a weblog, even one as “respected” (har har) as RealClimate. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs aren't the issue, RC is a publication by recognized experts and is thus allowable. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Self published sources and multi user blogs are not allowed under BLP policy. WVBluefield (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I should note that another user said that the source provided does not make the claim which was written. Richard  ( talk ) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this proposed edit goes a bit far to me. It would be acceptable to say 'according to the RealClimate blog, Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory claims...', but to simply state it seems POV. It may well be true that he has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims - indeed, looking at the article, that appears to be the case - but we can't just say it without decent sourcing, and this blog is not a good enough source for such a contentious statement. Robofish (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the editors who were so insistent to put this into the article (knowing full well the prohibited nature of doing so) have settled on using Chris Mooney as a source to represent Inhofe’s critics. A wise move as he is both notable and meets the WP:RS criteria. WVBluefield (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen
Criticisms that the film The Great Global Warming Swindle received are being inserted into the article since Lindzen was in the film for 45 seconds. All of the referenced sources that could be defined as reliable deal solely with the movie, and the sources which mix criticisms of both the move and Lindzen’s role in it are self published and blogs, and not WP:RS.

Self published and blogs being used to add negative information on a subject is not allowed, and material not directly related to the subject, especially when critical, is also a violation of BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Would someone please come look at this, two editors seem rather insistent on putting in non RS material. WVBluefield (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have protected this article for three days to stop the edit warring. Anyone should feel free to unprotect as this discussion warrants. Or a discussion at Talk:Richard Lindzen if that ever gets started. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The BLP claim is rather spurious since the issue isn't personal or related to the person. Its a description of a movie that Lindzen was involved with. Since the movie was outside the mainstream, and since NPOV requires that the mainstream view on it is mentioned on minority issues, the added description of the movie is necessary. The two SPS's that WV is talking about, is from recognized experts on the topic - and these have been chosen from the article about the movie. The first is by Houghton who has written textbooks on the subject, and the second is from the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, so they are clearly reliable sources on the subject of evaluating the films scientific merit.
 * An alternative has been proposed: To remove mention of the movie entirely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the criticism is of Lindzen’s participation in the movie then it not acceptable for inclusion into his biography. You also failed to mention that the only source directly critical of Lindzen’s participation was a blog. WVBluefield (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, WV, that criticism of the film is not germane to the article, unless Lindzen was actually involved in writing/directing/financing the movie. I haven't seen it, but according to your comments he was only interviewed.  So, criticism of the movie is off-topic for this biography.
 * That being said, I would nonetheless support removing mention of the film altogether in the Lindzen article, particularly if he is only on for "45 seconds". Madman (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removal of all mention is probably the best option. Alternatively we could tag on a description of the film such as "polemical".JQ (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another vote for removing mention of the Swindle video. Peripheral to Lindzen at best. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I could go for removal as well. WVBluefield (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is a BLP issue. It may be undue weight (I don't think so), but that can be discussed on the article talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a BLP issue because the sources that are reliable don’t mention Lindzen, and the only one that does criticize his involvement is a blog. WVBluefield (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lindzen was in the film. Fact. Houghton said the film was scientific crap (I'm paraphrasing, but he didn't say many nice things about it, if any). Fact. Both are can be reliably sourced. The fact that Houghton didn't mention Lindzen doesn't change the fact that Lindzen was in a knowingly in a film that was scientifically wrong. And that's why it should be in his bio. -Atmoz (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * “The fact that Houghton didn't mention Lindzen doesn't change the fact that Lindzen was in a knowingly in a film that was scientifically wrong”, is the classic definition of guilt by association. You are taking two sources, one saying Lindzen was in the film, and another saying it was no good and synthesizing a conclusion that is not supported by either one of the source by itself: Lindzen is bad for being in the film, a definite BLP no no. Since no one (reliable) criticized Lindzen for being in the movie, criticisms of the movie belongs in its own article, not Lindzen’s. WVBluefield (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Add to make it non-OR. "They [including Lindzen, mentioned in previous sentence] present intentionally or otherwise through selective editing, grossly simplified and often disingenuous and counter-factual arguments and quotes." Jones D., Watkins A., Braganza K., and Coughlan M. (2007), Bull. Aust. Meteor. Ocean. Soc., 20(3), p.63-72. -Atmoz (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your source does nothing but confirm that Lindzen was in the film and that his, along with the other 4 climate experts interviewed may have had their interviews taken out of context ... no criticism of Lindzen though. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had decided to remove mention of the movie. In any case, Atmoz, you cannot state that just because Lindzen was in the movie that this opens the biography article up to every critique of the movie that's out there. Madman (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who agreed to that. And I never said that. You're 0/2. -Atmoz (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

From a neutral bystander: I'm not sure this is a BLP issue - I don't think the proposed additions violate that policy - but I don't think they belong in the article either. The criticism of the film, while well-sourced, is not directly relevant to Lindzen. Anyone who wants to know more about the film can just click on the link to The Great Global Warming Swindle and read the criticism of it there. It isn't necessary to include it in this article; if you want, call it 'the controversial documentary...' or something like that, but it doesn't need any more comment than that. Robofish (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, perhaps all thats needed is a link to the film somewhere in his body of works or something to that effect. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Robofish. Wikilinks are what makes Wikipedia writing so easy -- you don't have to explain everything in every article.  Madman (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Arham Aftab
Simply put, this "Bio" is a complete rip from Mike Portnoy's Bio; and, most certainly cannot be verified.
 * Mike Portnoy


 * Pre-Dream Theater history


 * Influences


 * Drummers


 * Influential bands


 * Awards and recognition

Sorry if I did a poor job at performing this task.

--BigJoeRockHead (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you did fine. This is a bogus article and I have nominated it for deletion.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Big Joe, as you might be able to tell from the red header, this article has now been deleted. Madman (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank G. Jackson
This article is a horror, a nightmare of unreferenced claims and counterclaims, and POV headache. If this article is not fixed in a week, I shall nominated it for deletion. Mayor of a large city or not, it is a wreck. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article would not be deleted. In fact, there's not a heck of a lot of POV that I saw, but then again I'm not familiar with Cleveland politics.  I did delete one paragraph that was unspeculative.


 * There is only 1 footnote, unfortunately. A bit of pruning or the use of  might improve matters.  Or you can find the references yourself.  Why don't you take a shot at it??  Madman (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hate to complain, but it seems like I am doing a lot of heavy lifting to clean up others' messes. I'll share the work, but I'm tired of having to rescue another BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case remove all content that is unreferenced and could be problematic, then add {stub} to the bottom and the job is done.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Just take the axe to it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I just worked over the article, but there are still a few problems.  Enigma msg  18:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Random Unreferenced BLPs tool
I added a link to Category:Unreferenced BLPs to open a random page in that category. I use a tool recommended at Village_pump_(technical) that creates the necessary link. Using it I quickly found one article that had unreferenced contentious material, Dragan Čović. I found a source for one item and deleted the rest. Several others random articles were either stubs or sports figures with no obvious contentious content. It would be nice to have a tool that made it easy to dispose of articles that have been reviewed, with options to edit, PROD, CSD G10, or move innocuous BLPs to a "sighted unreferenced BLPs" category or some such. If we made it easy, it might be possible to make a triage pass at the 53,677 articles currently in this category.--agr (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to vote or change your vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections
This is a brief reminder to all interested editors that today is the final day to vote or to change your vote in the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. The voting period opened at 00:01 on UTC 1 December 2009 and will close at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009 as initially planned.

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballot, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please [&section=new ask] at the election talkpage. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

I apologise for this OT message but I felt it would receive much more attention here then in the talk page and it's an issue that's important since BLP comes up in arbcom decisions on occasion, WP:BLPSE of course being the result of an arbcom decision and being an issue that has received discussion. Feel free to remove it once 23:59 UTC 14 December 2009 has passed if I haven't already. For clarification this is coming from me as a resonably regular participant in WP:BLP/N but was shameless copied from a message from  Skomorokh Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone
Goldstone is/was a member of Human Rights Watch as evident from HRW's 2008 list and bio of Goldstone mission members. It is unclear whether he is still a member of HRW or not, and if not - when and under what circumstances he left.

Professor Gerald Steinberg of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor and journalist Melanie Phillips said that judge Goldstone was a member of the Human Rights Watch board, resigning from it only after the UN Fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict began (see also primary source of Steinberg's words).

Is it OK to leave the Steinberg/Phillips statement, provided that it is not stated as fact but attributed to them and sourced to Haaretz and Spectator respectively? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it is, as long as you explicitly attribute it to them, and don't take any POV-ish stance on the issue. Aditya Ex Machina  08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If two WP:RS says he is no longer a member, use first sources to say he was and latter to say he is not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both NGO Monitor and Melanie Phillips tread a uniformly Likudist line, never criticising their ideological mentors. It should still be possible to trust facts they publish - except perhaps in cases such as this. We don't know if Goldstone's relationship with HRW has changed, but we can't rely on POV sources that seem to specialise in personal smears 86.159.67.125 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Storch
I've just taken my machete to this article, which had become an outlandish collection of unsourced puffery and detailed recitals of musical feuds and financial debacles, assembled by anon IP editors. Other eyes would be helpful. Is a request for semi-protection warranted? (yet?) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that semi-protection is warranted, but I've added this to my watchlist to be on the look-out for untoward assertions. Thanks, Madman (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shockingly, it seems that a lot of it is true - see and . Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If only there was a 10 minute video that even anon IPs had to watch before editing, they'd get the simple principle that it took me a few months to really get, and I'm sure others - every allegation should have a nice neat reference at the end of it, even if it means using a >ref name=Whatever> a dozen times in article. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Balls
This BLP Michael_Balls seems to be more about animal testing that about Mr Balls, there is a picture of a hamster in the infobox where I would expect a picture of the subject of the biography, have a look and please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Animal testing is his field. Looks fine to me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't accept that to be true.Is it really ok to have a picture of a hamster in his biography infobox, I can't see that is ok at all, do you know some other comparable situation in a Biography of a living person? It would be like having a picture of a football in the infobox of a footballer because you didn't have a picture of the subject.

I looks like it is a pattern in this animal testing group, here is anoother BLP with the same situation Simon Festing These people are not very notable for a biography if you ask me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The hamster is not in an infobox about the individual, it is in a navbox about animal testing. I admit these navboxes are far too prominent and can give undue weight to one part of a person's career.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, if its a nav box it should be at the bottom of the page, can it be moved? are all these workers in this field actually notable enough to warrant their own biography? Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

John Silber
This article has a "controversy" section, largely unsourced, longer than the rest of the content. I am not too familiar with the subject, so I would appreciate someone more familiar to have a look. Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the entire section. Some of it was referenced, but I've erred on the side of caution. If someone wants to rebuild it, fine. If not, fine too..--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox
The above named article was previously deleted while the subject's trial was not yet decided. It was recreated today after the decision came down, but the editor who recreated it as expressed concerns thereafter. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Murder of Meredith Kercher. There is nothing in the Knox article that can't go there. There is simply nothing else notable about the individual outside of her part in the murder. I don't have a concern with the article, but it is pointless and should be redirected under WP:BLP1E.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been redirected and fully protected.  raseaC talk to me 01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend review
it would be enormously helpful if uninvolved BLP editors could have a look at the Pete_Townshend section of the article to ascertain whether it's in line with Wikipedia policies. many of the links and "annotations" seem pretty sensationalized. Sssoul (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just taking a quick look, I'd say if it's a dead (and not all that important/notable) link or if it doesn't specifically mention him, it shouldn't be there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for your input. i've cleared out the whole linkfarm now. Sssoul (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fred Singer
(moved from talk, where I had accidentally posted it)

A small scale edit war is brewing at Fred_Singer over this line, sourced to the RealClimate blog:
 * "Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt called the 2008 NIPCC document a "dishonest 'assessment' of the science of climate change."

The RealClimate blog posting sourced is this:, and it opens with


 * "Much in the spirit of the Fraser Institute’s damp squib we reported on last year, S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious “Heartland Institute” we’ve commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment’ of the science of climate change earlier this year in the form of what they call the “NIPCC” report (the “N” presumably standing for ‘not the’ or ‘nonsense’)." (emphasis mine)

I have removed it twice, others have added it back in. My concern is that RealClimate is a self-published source, and the posting is critical, even mocking, of Singer himself. This seems to be a clear-cut BLP violation, but others are reverting.

Further, there is already a criticism of Singer and his report report, sourced to ABC news, so the RealClimate blog source isn't even necessary to make the point.

I believe it should be removed, and I am seeking outside opinion. Thanks. ATren (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP specificaly prohibits the use of SPS's in biographies. WVBluefield (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's properly attributed and Mann in particular is a notable voice. We do not source the criticism of Singer to the blog, we source the criticism of the NIPCC report. Hence it's not a BLP issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP specifically prohibits the use of SPS's in biographies. ATren (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I don't like the sentence basically because it is undue weight. I don't think the BLP argument is strong, but the source isn't notable enough to be worth it (and we throw too much mud every which way, its not encyclpaedic. I am close to protecting the article anyway because I think its all a bit silly to fight over). --BozMo talk 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that it isn't undue weight, is that according to NPOV we have to describe the mainstream view, when a minority/fringe view is being presented. The reason that this is on Singers biography is because the "report" was AfD' and the contents moved to Singers biography (not deemed notable enough). This is not BLP material (since it is about the science and the report - not the person). NPOV is not put out of function because it moves to a biography page. Another trouble here is that some people are confusing that BLP is - protection of persons, not protection of articles. And that BLP and other content policies are equally valid on biographies and articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KDP, if I started a blog post describing "KDP and their merry band of contrarian luminaries", would you consider that not directed at you? But in any case, even if it was not directed at Singer (I believe it clearly was), it's still forbidden per BLP, which forbids all SPS-sourced material from BLPs. ATren (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that you are confusing what BLP is. BLP is a protection of persons. A biographical article is under BLP protection (just as every content in every article that is about living persons) but not everything in such an article is BLP material. SPS's are disallowed on BLP content, but this is not BLP content. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If its not BLP content, then it doesn’t belong in the article. See WP:COATRACK. WVBluefield (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not against removing the whole NIPCC section, because i do agree that in this case BLP is being used to justify presenting it in a non-NPOV way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KDP, Singer is accused of lying in the first sentence. Do you really claim this is not a criticism of the man himself? And in any case, BLP states "no SPS in BLPs". Even if the criticism weren't personal (it is), its existence in that article would still be inappropriate per BLP policy. ATren (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all that part is not cited, so it is rather irrelevant - but lets go through it anyways: that Singer is a contrarian is supported in large parts of the literature - see discussion here so that part ("contrarian luminaries") isn't strange, that something written is "dishonest" is not the same as "lying" (not to mention that they are talking about the report - not Singer), RC is saying that the science part is one-sided, misleading and completely outside the scientific mainstream (while at the same time claiming to be a review of the mainstream) - which is certainly something that an expert opinion can say. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, we're talking in circles here. None of your arguments above addresses the main concern: SPSs are not permitted in BLPs. RC is a SPS, and the article is a BLP, open-and-shut case. Nothing else matters, not lying vs dishonesty, not the veracity of Singer's contrarianism, nothing. Please read BLP and SPS policies, they are quite clear on this. BLP policy is black-and-white. ATren (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, i disagree - the exception on WP:SPS applies to non-BLP material even on biography articles. (just as the opposite applies to regular articles when taking about living persons) Nothing is ever truly black&white. (and i have read those policies lots of times) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: all of the above are involved in the dispute, can we gets some outside input on this? ATren (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sought clarification on the specifics of BLP policy at talk:BLP. ATren (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The quoted word "dishonest" about the report pushes it clearly over the top in my opinion. It says or implies that Singer is lying, we would need a much better source for that.  I don't see why using this blog is particularly desirable here, the ABC report and response performs the same function with unimpeachable sources; saying the blog was critical of the report might be OK with respect to BLP, but also supernumerary.John Z (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove The tone of the RealClimate article is clearly inapproriate for inclusion. I haven't read the NIPCC report. If it is as bad as they say, perhaps it is understandable that some would write about with dripping sarcasm and barely disguised hostility. However, having a good reason for writing a non-neutral article does not make it neutral. I'm astounded that anyone would honestly argue it deserves inclusion. (I'm not a participant in that article, although I do recognize some of the names from Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, so I'll let others decide whether this is "outside" input.)

Tiger Woods
I'd appreciate comments about describing his alleged affair, particularly the corresponding section title. My position is basically that until the major media outlets drop "alleged" and "rumored" from their descriptions, we shouldn't either. I'm an admin, but I'd appreciate getting views from others experienced in BLP matters. Comments can go here.--Chaser (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that it would be wise to continue use of "alleged" and "rumored" until Woods either explicitly confirms this alleged affair or the major news outlets drop these modifiers. Madman (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How does all of this reconcile with WP:RS which states "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors"? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request watchlisting: I have moved this thread to the bottom to request that editors experienced in BLP watchlist the Tiger Woods article and help fix BLP problems as they come up. It is getting a lot of page views every day and I am not on wiki 24 hours a day. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is still a mess-- rather, one section is a mess, and I think which one is fairly obvious. It's now lacking in several days worth of new news; corrections you might say-- most specifically that any reference to an affair should probably be removed since the only sources ever listed were tabloids and the woman in question has publicly denied it. This is backed up by A+++ news sources like the AP. Talk page there seems to have mostly died in regards to these events... hm, actually edits in general have died down. Any thoughts? Maybe one line in about rumors that were denied by the woman in question? It's hitting higher on defamation the longer its there. I have no idea who decided it was acceptable to use the National Enquirer as a lone source (or source, ever) in the first place. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)
Can somebody come up with a less POV term than "notoriety"? Woogee (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Notable, in WP:Notable?? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable works. John Carter (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Notoriety is not an appropriate term. Woogee (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I changed "Notoriety" to "Notability" Woogee (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 Barack Obama alleged assassination plot in Denver

 * - These men were not convicted yet all over the article they are referred to as assasins. This is name calling even if they are 3 stooges that should be jailed. // Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found only one place in the article (an image caption) where the alleged plotters were labeled in a manner that incorrectly suggested they were guilty. I fixed that. I also removed some wording that gave undue emphasis (by repetition) to the fact that there is no proof of guilt. The article still needs some additional cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jarmo Eskelinen
A biography of a Finnish media professional Jarmo Eskelinen doesn't have any links to support the data that the entry provides. For example, one excerpt of the entry:

"Jarmo Eskelinen (also Elukka Eskelinen; s. 20 November 1962) is one of the leading media and creative industries experts of Finland, living in Helsinki."

In the entry, there is no link or any further information supporting the claim that this person really is one of the leading media experts of Finland. According to the Wikipedia policy, there has to be supporting data for such claims.

I'd flag this article down as it doesn't provide enough supporting information for the content. Also, it gives a strong feel that it is a self-written biography, which is not along the lines of Wikipedia policies. Freeflowofinfo (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeflowofinfo (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the statement "one of the leading . . . " needs to be supported and I have removed it. Please feel free to edit this article at will and investigate whether or not this fellow is notable.  Madman (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've listed it at Articles for deletion/Jarmo Eskelinen. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Tobin, bishop


In this article, the bishop's arch-conservative interpretation of Catholic doctrine is described simple as the bishop "upholding Catholic teaching." The seemingly neutral phrasing used to describe his positions is deceptive. The bishop's hard-line social positions (against homosexuality, abortion, same=sex marriage) are, in fact, extreme, even among Catholic bishops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domorel (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is as such a BLP issue, the paragraph does go on to clarify his views. However I don't know if this should be regarded as a reliable source for his views. If you thing that "upholding Catholic teaching" is not applicable then your could remove it, although it has only been there 10 days or so. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

 * - swearwords and rediculating // just read the article please

Thanks for reporting this. I've reverted the article in question to a good version, and will take some action to prevent the same thing happening again. --Deskana (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Isaac Fine
The lede contained a strong statement, now removed

I removed it, but looking to see if I handled it correctly.

It is not uncommon to write a lede without references, as a summary of the remainder of the article, with the references attached to the discussion in the main article. While that may be a common practice, I'm uncomfortable allowing such a strong statement without an immediate reference.

Furthermore, I looked in the main article, and I'm not completely convinced that the claim there is adequately supported. The statement "was later discovered to be invalid on its face. [17] and lacking authentication.[18]" has two footnotes, but one is explanatory text without a reference, and the other is to a primary document. While primary documents can be acceptable references, I would think we would insist on a reliable source in this case.

In a later section, it is implied that he is falsely imprisoned. I added a template, but I'm thinking more aggressive editing is called for.
 * On the major - give me a couple of days (48 hours) to get back to this job - i.e. till tuesday.InproperinLA (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As a minor note, is it acceptable to describe someone as an attorney if they have been disbarred, or should he be called a former attorney?-- SPhilbrick  T  19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the minor: One may be disbarred in one jurisdiction, yet be an attorney in another. You are talking here a person who was an international attorney. InproperinLA (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second - while he may not be permitted by California law to hold himself out to be an attorney, he may be "attorney in fact", and others are not barred from calling him attorney.InproperinLA (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Najib Tun Razak
There are some active disputes and edit warring going on in this BLP of the current Prime Minister of Malaysia. I think this article has been mentioned on /N before but unfortunately this is a big mess and not one easy to resolve. The fact it concerns such a high profile politician probably also understandbly means people feel less urgency when it comes to BLP. But I thought I'd raise it here in case anyone wants to try. Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Category: Islamic terrorism
Is it ok to list Anwar al-Awlaki in the category "Islamic terrorism" (note: this is not "Islamic terrorist"), where:

--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) he served as VP for an organization that a FBI agent testified was a “front organization to funnel money to terrorists.”
 * 2) investigators believe he knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.
 * 3) his name was placed on an early version of what is now the federal terror watch list.
 * 4) his name was on a list of 100 prisoners whose release was sought by al Qaida-linked militants.
 * 5) FBI agents have identified al-Awlaki as a known, important "senior recruiter for al Qaeda".
 * 6) the U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis said he "targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks."
 * 7) according to author Jarret Brachman he is a major influence on radical English-speaking jihadis internationally.
 * 8) terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann calls him "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination."

Here is a link to the catagory so that people can have a look there to help consider.. Category:Islamic terrorism Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * EP, he definitely belongs in the category. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do sources not at war with Muslim fundamentalists say about him? 86.159.67.125 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More specifically do any of the neutral, non-advocacy sources like newspapers and wire services used in the article or elsewhere call him an "Islamic terrorist." A News.Google search of Islamic terrorist and [http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Islamic+terrorism%22+Anwar+al-Awlaki Islamic terrorism and his name did not show any such neutral sources. When, say, two or three do, go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted before, the category is not "Islamic terrorist". Rather, it is the overarching category "Islamic terrorism".  Which category as has been pointed out above (if one follows the link): "is for topics related to both proven or suspected cases of terrorism or violence significantly motivated by beliefs attributed to Islam is some form." emphasis added.
 * The comment two above this seems to suggest that if the US indicates that someone is suspected of activity related to terrorism that is not helpful because the US is at war with Muslim fundamentalists; I don't think that it a view that most people would agree with.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Briscoe

 * - On this article keeps adding that Briscoe currently resides in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. I removed it and asked him if he had a reliable source to back this up.  He responded with "Yup. See article."  None of the links in the article appear to support where he is currently residing.  I thought maybe he was using this as a "reliable source" and I asked him.  His response was to blank his talk page.  He has once again added the information to the article without a supporting source.  If you check the related city's history you'll see he keeps adding Briscoe's name to the notable people section.  I need advice on what I should do next. // Rockfang (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're right here. I'm willing to help you with this. Aditya Ex Machina  15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Atrianfar
Mohammad Atrianfar - this article is pure pro-regime propaganda. Atrianfar was imprisoned by the revolutionary guards and any "confessions" he made were under threat.77.250.200.70 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) On the other hand, if Wikipedia keeps up this standard, it will be unblocked in Iran in no time! 77.250.200.70 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this material as unsourced. I will be keeping an eye on it.  I could use some help from additional experienced editors .  Madman (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a set of eyes on it. Jamie  S93  01:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll watch list the article.(olive (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

TobyMac
Toby's real name is indeed Tobias, not "Kevin Michael MacKeehan". The false information is likely derived from the names of Toby's friends and former partners in dcTalk, Kevin Max Smith and Michael Tait. No instance of "Kevin Michael MacKeehan" has ever been used officially, either in liner notes, or on TobyMac's website.

I'm posting this because I have changed this false information about a dozen times now.
 * Sorry, but I believe you're mistaken. Even though as a songwriter he is always credited as "Toby McKeehan", his birth name is Kevin Michael McKeehan, and the "Tobias" thing is a myth. Multiple sources can prove this. The Washington Post was the first one I came to. If you Google search "kevin michael mckeehan", and ignore the blogs and Wikipedia mirror websites, I'm sure you'll find multiple reliable results confirming his name as Kevin Michael. I've re-added it back in; please do not remove it without discussion, because that constitutes edit warring. Regards,  Jamie  S93  02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

List of actresses in the MILF porn genre
I've listed the above on Afd as Articles for deletion/List of actresses in the MILF porn genre. The article is largely/almost exclusively sourced from imdb. It thus constitutes badly sourced BLP material - however, to remove the bad stuff would leave nothing. I'm posting here because, if this survives afd, it will need immediate and brutal BLP surgery.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rose

 * Repeated additions of potentially libelous material by this range of IPs. I have argued these are questionable sources at best.
 * 
 * 
 * 

-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected for a month. After explaining to the IP, treat such edits as vandalism and report for blocking. The sources are quite unacceptable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher
I'm concerned about the Ophélie Bretnacher article. Although it contains multiple references, it appears that it falls completely under WP:BLP1E. There is also the issue that "Category:French murder victims" is being used when it would appear from reading the (roughly translated) article that the police concluded she had drowned. I'm tempted to bring the article to AfD, but would like some opinions prior to doing so. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good candidate for AFD to me, she is not notable imo, there is some reporting of her death but this crime report single event imo doesn't assertain notability for a bio, just to mention ..she is dead and this is the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I'm so used to working within the BLP arena that when I came across this article via New Page Patrol I read it through my BLP 'filter'. The article still feels wrong to me though, it just seems like a bunch of fingerpointing and conjecture. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I did exactly the same thing, send it to AFD, I support that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have sent it to AFD here please add comments there. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods, again
Comments requested at Talk:Tiger_Woods. Is including something that has been reported in one reliable source undue weight? Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't good. ABC and CBS stories that could never stand up to scrutiny... I'm kind of angered those places would ever publish such things. If something is new information or an exceptional claim or remotely defamatory, it should have more than one source within current events. Period. If there aren't other locations of the same information in some form, it probably means it's still too close to news and not to being possibly verified for our purposes. The word of Christ himself by itself would not be enough to convince me of affairs with more than 6 women and PORNBIO-listed individual were happening in this case. Hell, there's barely proof of any affair past one quote in US Weekly. I have no idea why that's been given so much weight, even. ...I'm going to remove everything after 210 written as it is. The Boston Herald article is the only thing close to a plausible story out of all of that, and it's absurd to tie the entire statement on the weight of just that one source. No. If these things were such clear fact why wouldn't we have dozens and dozens of possible sources of the most reliable types with the same information. As I said, US Weekly's one quote is weight of any affair at all and that would also look a lot better with more behind it.
 * That area under it needs to be rewritten from scratch, though I honestly don't understand why any editor would be so desperate to include all of that for now until we know more and that "more" is spat out by a multitude of our more heavy-hitter sources. Not re-inserting it would be a pretty good way to kill any debate for the night and wait for another day of news, at least. The article has GA status! Why oh why would we risk that with any degree of gossip? I have nothing to do with the article's development, but GA/FA statuses give credibility to the community and project as a whole as seen by the world, and although no article should have to go through anything like this, it's just a slightly more powerful call to arms. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a media feeding-frenzy, fueled in no small part by Woods' own fruitless efforts to control said media. USAToday.com is saying he's had, what, 7 or 8 or maybe 9 reported flings that have come to light so far? (I've lost count). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll take months to sort this out or for any academic/professional to get a point in, but there is an honest-to-god neurological syndrome where some behaviors are a lack of understanding for how others are perceiving your words, or not comprehending their replies, or worrying oneself to death so far that only apologies come out when speaking. At least that's my guess that's one reason this has been awkward with him. As Chaser has suggested, I'm going to copy some of my above over to his article talk page. ... and chop out the tabloid nonsense... again. It's a GA-status BLP with an average of 100k hits/day since the incident.... disgraceful on our part. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt we'll be hearing new facts and rumors frequently for awhile. The point made by the ESPN Sports Reporters, Sports Illustrated, and others, is that Woods has always tried to control media-related things, and this is the first major thing he has been unable to control. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For Record Keeping: This diff is probably the best version in awhile. "This is the best we know of it up to this point" I think is a good summary of things at this version. I'll unofficially nominate this as a good revert point if things go horribly wrong and spiral into chaos in the short-term or until there is anything significant to add. Weasel-type resources are pretty much gone, things only tabloid-backed are out, anything at all defamatory without an A-grade or higher source is out. Good work. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keshia Chanté
An anonymous editor is repeatedly making good faith edits to remove a serious BLP violation from the Keshia Chanté article. Since the anon keeps making the edits without explanation, and are continuing to make the same edits, they keep getting blocked. In actuality, their edits are valid, and they should be allowed to stay. Woogee (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your interpretation. Things seem to be in hand now, though; is any further action required? Steve Smith (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now, no, but there were a lot of problematic edits in the lede, making claims that were not supported by the linked sources. It probably should be kept an eye on.  I'm not sure if any of the claims are valid, based on those links, but as I've never even heard of this person, it would help if somebody familiar with her would take a look at it.  Woogee (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:FrossBitten reverted my edits, I have re-reverted him and explained to him that, despite his claims, I actually did explain my edits on the article's Talk page. Woogee (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove
The last paragraph of the lede paragraph for a while has read as follows: "Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities." Several editors (myself included) have raised concerns about the bolded part of the paragraph. The paragraph has since been changed, but other editors have raised the possibility of restoring it. Does the bold sentence violate WP:BLP? Soxwon (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Rove is very controversial so supporters may be opposed to the language and opponents in support of it. If the sentence considered is "to date, no charges have been filed against ____ for any of his alleged illegal activities", then this may be considered more objectively. There are politicians of both parties whose names could be inserted, just google some politician scandals. The bottom line is that adding "for any of his alleged illegal activities" does make it a BLP violation. Ipromise (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As the author of the original paragraph, which stood from last summer until a few days ago, the intent was to find a middle ground. Rove is, as I understand it, under active investigation, hence the wording. Please see the current Rove talk page for more information. Archive 7 and 8 shows some of the turmoil from the era, and my current talk page also has recent material regarding this. Best, Jusda  fax  07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the phrase out. As a neutral from the UK I thought it was weasely and speculative and opinionated and does not belong in the lede at all. if as Justafax claims that the guy is actually under current specific investigation then details of the specifics could be added to the body of the article but to have such an open, unspecific comment in the lede is awful (imo). What are these alleged illegal activities? Who is investigating him and what are these people investigating him about? When will the investigation (if there is one) end? How jolly mysterious.  Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have answered these concerns in exchanges with this user on my talk page and the Rove talk page, but the user has stated they refuse to google anything or look into the archives. In addition the user appears to me (and after the events of last summer, I admit to sensitivity) to be using terms both above, and elsewhere, that approach or cross over the limits of what I understand to be WP:BAIT. Thanks, Jusda  fax  15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, this issue is fairly straightforward. Do we have a reliable source saying "no charges have ever been filed against Rove", or something roughly equivalent to that? If so, then it is probably a good idea to include it. If not, then it should be omitted, because such a contention would then constitute original research. We need to go with what the sources say. *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly I find User Justafax's comments about me regarding WP:BAIT without any foundation at all and shows from him a complete lack of good faith.

I found this at

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct." Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stale - That article is well over three years old, and is not relevant to the current matter. Again, I have given Off2riorob specific information regarding this, which the user chooses to ignore. I will now paste some of the material from the Rove talk page to this one to demonstrate this. Begin paste

Again, on Aug. 13, the New York Tmes says this: "Congress must continue its investigation into the firing of top prosecutors and call Karl Rove and others to testify so the American people can hear how the justice system was hijacked." Try googling 'Nora Dannehy' and any combination of 'Rove' or 'attorneys firing' for more information on an ongoing investigation. It's my view that 'To date' stands, by Wikipedia standards. Jusda fax  00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still not required to be in the lede. I am not going to google anything, all I care about is the weasel pov opinionated edit in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would I be correct in saying that you support this edit and don't want to change a word of it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I wrote the paragraph you object to. Frankly, I see it as a compromise between those who would word it much more strongly, and those who don't want mention of Mr. Rove's ongoing legal issues at all (however, remember, he had to testify before the U.S. Congress earlier this year.) I'm open to discussion within reason, but I think by any reasonable standard, you fail to make a case.


 * To recap: Rove is being investigated at the current time by a U.S. Prosecutor, Nora Dannehy. Now I know you say you won't google anything, so how about clicking on her link? It shows who she is, and what she's investigating. Now click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html which mentions Rove as a player in the investigations, based on his testimony before Congress.


 * The day Rove is either cleared, or charged with a crime, is the day we can remove this moderate paragraph. At least, that's how I see it.

End paste

This pasted material demonstrates that we are going in circles here. The person who brought this issue back to this page, User:Soxwon, was warned in September warned for edit-warring on Rove's page. It seems, to me, given the edit histories of both Soxwon and Off2RioRob, that we have long since reached a point of diminishing returns on this issue. I ask for a speedy decision here so that the issue can move forward. Best, Jusda  fax  18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your attempting to point the issue at other editors and not at the edit is very bad faith. You have not answered any of the issues regarding this actual edit, I will add it here so that people can see the actual edit under discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others.  To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.


 * this is what I edited to...


 * Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy .


 * It is a good edit made in good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel it's important to add (for the casual reader) that Off2riorob fails to discuss any of the points I have just made, and in my view, for the obvious reason that they are facts, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. Jusda  fax  18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax please discuss content, not contributors. I was advised to bring this here by another neutral editor and await an outside opinion. I advise Off2riorob and you to do the same. Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your link provided to support this opinionated edit in the lede of the article, this one is an opinion piece with nothing of any weight to support your edit. I also note that your edit has no support here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absent any word in a RS of an 'actual investigation aimed at Rove, the sentences are on the order of "John Doe has never said when he stopped beating his wife." Clinton does not have such a list of claimed crimes sans any investigations, to be sure, and so Rove ought not.


 * To resume...


 * The investigation of Rove and the 2006 attorney firings is ongoing. (The link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402816.html ) as this Washington Post article (Prosecutor To Interview Rove Today, Sources Say) notes.


 * Then there is http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/rove.attorneys/index.html this CNN reference on Rove's interview the day after. For clarity, I paste some of this below:


 * Rove questioned about U.S. attorney firings - Story Highlights


 * NEW: Karl Rove questioned for 3½-plus hours on 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys


 * NEW: Rove's attorney: "He intends to fully cooperate with the investigation"


 * Justice Department report found that some firings were influenced by politics


 * Special prosecutor trying to determine if any ex-Bush officials broke any laws.


 * Again, the Karl Rove Wikipedia article lede final sentence, which I now strongly suggest returning to the lede as timely, informative and meets WP:RS requirements, reads:


 * To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities. Rove continues under investigation by special prosecutor Nora Dannehy.


 * In August, Rove was named in a U.S. House investigation. "Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony June 15 to House Judiciary Committee investigators that Rove was "very agitated" over U.S. Attorney David Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."


 * The link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/08/12/2009-08-12_george_bush_adviser_karl_roves_role_in_firing_us_attorney_detailed_in_newly_rele.html


 * NBC covered the story. The link: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/archive/NATLKarl-Rove-to-be-Interviewed-in-Criminal-Probe.html?corder=regular


 * Conclusion: Rove continues under investigation by both Ms. Dannehy and U.S. Congress. He has neither been charged nor cleared. Jusda  fax  00:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not worthy of inclusion in the lede. If he is still under investigation add it to the body of the article with all the details, where it can be rebutted and defended as desired or required. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, Disagree. Without any further discussion from other viewpoints (the silence is deafening), I will feel free to add the sentence back into the lede. I believe I have demonstrated good faith, WP:RS and the right to do so. I also waited ten days to see if there was further commentary. Time to move forward. Standing by for final comments, if any.  Jusda  fax  03:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it is deafeningly quiet here is that a few people have commented, it is not a big issue, a few words in the lede, please don't relate the silence to support for your edit. It is a detail and not worthy of inclusion in the lede. Whether you have shown good faith or not is irrelevant, the edit is poor, it does not even explain itself, it does not belong in the lede at all. Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I continue to wait for voices other than Off2riorob. It appears that my sources meet WP:RS by any reasonable standard. Jusda  fax  05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Off2riorob, I don't see it belonging in the lede. I disagree with your interpretation that in absence of other contributors, your view should prevail. He could make the same argument as I don't see anyone flocking to support EITHER view. As above, it runs dangerously close to questions like "So when did you stop beating your wife?". I feel that biographies of living people are a case where extra care needs to be taken, especially when they are figures who are so potentially divisive. Putting it in the lede gives it undue weight - I'm not suggesting that it be removed, so arguments about the validity of the statement are irrelevant. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot say that Karl Rove has 'alleged illegal activities' unless he has been formally charged with a crime and he has never been charged with any crime. In the U.S., one is presumed innocent and therefore all charges are 'alleged.'  But you can't allege anything without the charges.  Rove is not being investigated for criminal activity.  He's never been charged with any crime.  To say that his name came up in scandals is fine because it did, but a scandal is not the same at all as criminal behavior that begets criminal charges.  The article must be sensitive to the fact that this is a biography of a living person and therefore Rove has rights under U.S. and international law, not to mention the questionable morality of hurling false accusations against someone just to advance a petty personal agenda.  Off2riorob is entirely correct within Wikipedia policy in removing the line since it bears absolutely no merit.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: As we now have a whole raft of new problems on the Karl Rove page, including section blanking and baseless formal accusations to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring by Malke 2010 (no action taken by admins) of edit warring, the above original issue has gotten lost. Soxwon states on the Karl Rove talk page that he has requested full page protection as a result of edit warring by Malke 2010 and Off2riorob. Is there an uninvolved admin willing to step in, or does this just quietly get marked off as 'unresolved'? Jus da  fax  07:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Chhe is edit warring, and along with Jusdafax they are a tag team which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. They are like bullies on the playground.  There is no page blanking on the Karl Rove page.  There is only removal of copyright material, which after discussion, a consensus was reached to remove it. Chhe restored it and then added "references," which only refer to the copyrighted material.  Didn't change one word of the copyright violation.  And the other is the vandalism by Chhe where he inserts the line that Karl Rove was made to testify about Don Siegleman which is not true.  Even after being told there is no such investigation, Chhe insisted on restoring the line in an effort to maintain the negative POV.  Jusdafax refuses to discuss edits that will in any way change the negative POV on the Karl Rove page which as it stands right now reads as a scandal sheet.  He immediately accuses people of having "an agenda" if they don't agree with him. It's so blatantly obvious he's the one with the agenda.


 * We can't make progress on the page without Chhe constantly flying in to revert all new edits. Their tag team hounds editors who make new contributions.  The harassment of accusations and the incivility by Jusdafax are an everyday event.  Jusdax does not engage in discussion.  He is turning the Karl Rove article into a battleground in violation of Wikipedia policy.  He believes that only he is allowed to determine the content, acting as though he is the owner of the article, (making statements such as, "I wrote that line," which again, is a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Any contribution that threatens the extant negative POV is cause for Jusdafax to report to this noticeboard.  He is uncivil in his comments, as is so obvious by his posts, for which he has been warned in the past.  His latest diatribe is on the edit warring noticeboard where I appropriately addressed Chhe's edit warring.  Neither of these individuals is willing to contribute to the reduction of the negative POV or add information that is legitimately relevant to the biography.  They both want the page to remain exactly as it is.  The smallest edit prompts thousands of words on this page and the Karl Rove talk page, yet they offer no solution. It's just a conversation driven in circles.  Jusdafax makes negative statements like, "Here we go again," or "chilling effect" is his latest.  Or they both constantly bring up mistakes of the past, which is clear evidence in itself of a refusal to move on, and make progress.  Neither of these individuals has ever engaged in civil discussion on the talk page.  The only saving grace is that by their own words we know them.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Malke 2010's obsessive interest in Karl Rove (a brief look at his edit history shows this, also the extensive material in Rove article Archive 7 and 8), and somehow getting me in hot water (note his heated discussion with and block by admin Black Kite in September), speaks for itself. The idea that I claim ownership of the KR article is pretty rich when one notes that I have made exactly one edit to the article in the past three months.  Jus  da  fax  00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Editorial Note: I would like to add that the sentence in question is very poorly written, and should probably be re-written for clarity and conciseness. The sentence should read in a way that clearly connects his involvement with the controversies to any ongoing criminal investigations. 65.209.6.2 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, any suggestions? In the meantime the sentence in question was deleted sometime ago, so this longstanding open report might as well be closed as stale.  Jus  da  fax  23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I totally agree with the IP, the sentence that is left is very poorly written, the fact is that Rove has not been convicted of anything at all. I have seen twice recently similar comments removed from article leads for that exact same reason. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the IP. The sentence should not be rewritten to connect any controversy to criminal investigations.  Karl Rove is not under criminal investigation.  He has never been under criminal investigation.  He was asked to testify about the U.S. attorney firings.  He did that.  The sentence does not belong at all.  Rove has never been the subject of any investigation.  The original sentence was put there to  make it sound like he was.  It was poorly written and with NPOV.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of material from American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
In this edit removed a summary of five reliable sources (including the NYT and The Times) for the stated reason that these were "journalistic sources" and that the information in these sources cast the people concerned in "a false light" per the BLP policy.

The main source for this section was the 2007 NYT article [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15aging.html? Aging: Disease or Business Opportunity?] but the dispute was also mentioned by the LA Times, The Times, CNN and two separate articles article 1 article 2 in The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences Given this broad and in-depth coverage of this incident, I don't see how this deletion can be justified. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine is not about the two men, who are licensed physicians, albeit Osteopaths. Apparently, in addition to their training and licensing as osteopaths, they also trained as MDs through a distance learning school Central American Health Sciences in Belize, which included residency in Mexico. That degree is not accepted in Illinois where these two gentlemen practice. By including trouble they had over whether they could refer to themselves as MD in the article a false impression is created that they are somehow not properly licensed, but they are, for 20 years, as osteopaths. There appears to be a pattern of point of view editing of this article, see


 * The old version of the article quoted the Illinois Board of Professional Regulation stating that "Both physicians did receive degrees as doctors of medicine, but were never properly licensed to use the title “M.D.” in Illinois" The article also quoted CNN as stating that "the A4M co-founders have since received licenses, but are not permitted to write prescriptions." The article therefore did note that they had received degrees and that they are now licensed as MDs. Given the article specifically contradicted the "impression" Fred objects to, I can't see how the argument that someone might gather this mistaken impression justifies deleting a summary of several verifiable sources. If you think we should be clearer about their DO degrees Fred, why not just add a sentence describing these degrees? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What about


 * They are simply licensed physicians. The article is not about them. The information that they had not studied in Belize creates a straw man requirement and thus a false impression, as though there is somehow something inadequate about their medical training. They are licensed physicians. What is the point of muddying the issue? Fred Talk 21:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn here - I can see Fred's point. The article isn't about these two individuals, who are just two of the founders, and the "Credential dispute" has nothing to do with the A4M at all. I mean, had one of the founders once been involved in an unrelated malpractice suit, would we include that? (Especially had it been unfounded.) Although the section was factual, and did include the conclusion they were legitimate doctors, it still smacks of the hatchet job tenancy of "guilt by association". The net effect invites the reader towards a "quack, quack, quack" conclusion.

But then that's the other side. Borderline medicine is often associated with dodgy doctors and bogus credentials (although in the end there are not such) and so the connection is there in popular prejudice. I suppose the argument goes: "lay out the fact and let the reader draw their own conclusions - don't suppress information". However, in the end, given the tangential relevancy, and the danger we lead the reader towards a conclusion (even while protesting we are not), I'm coming down on the side of exclusion. The net effect of inclusion borders on a breach WP:UNDUE and NPOV.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose it is because they are the founders of this organisation and the principal figures promoting anti-aging medicine that all the sources I have listed above comment on this event in the context of discussing the A4M. However, it is not our business as Wikipedia editors to second-guess the NYT's motives. The NYT felt this was relevant information to mention when discussing the A4M, the NYT is an eminently reliable source, therefore there is no problem within the BLP policy in including this information in the article. If you are worried that a reader might gain a "false impression" (which is already directly contradicted by the text of the article) the best way of resolving this concern is to make the article even more clear on this point than it already is. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that view is that it abdicates our editorial judgement in favour of that of the NYT. Papers, even quality papers, have their biases - we need to strive for neutrality even when they do. Had the NYT article mentioned that one of the doctors was involved in a messy divorce, would that mean we should mention that in the article? No. The NYT is a reliable source in terms of facts, but the facts are not in dispute, what is in dispute is relevance and neutrality - and we need to reach our own consensus judgement on where that lies here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In my view The NYT determines the facts, and the wide discussion of this event in connection with the A4M establishes the notability, even to the point of being mentioned in "Anti-Aging Medicine: The History: Life Extension and History: The Continual Search for the Fountain of Youth", which is a general academic history of the anti-aging movement. Here is the section in her article where Haber discusses the meaning of the incident:

After all, per WP:N notability comes from an event being discussed in multiple secondary sources. I can see the argument that we spend too much space on this (due in part to this having been a contentious section in the past) What do you think of condensing this section, to avoid giving undue weight to the issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the quotation, I guess the information could be condensed to "Klatz and Goldman have been harassed in the media (and on Wikipedia) with respect to their professional qualifications." Fred Talk 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked you this several times before, but please base text on sources Fred, not your own opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the article talk, controversy is notable (=reported), and clearly a notable source sees the controversy as integral to the understanding of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. Hence, should be kept in. By the same argument, irregularities in many articles that might be germane to the understanding of the entity discussed could be removed. A worrying precedent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not neccessarily too worried by it going in, but the notability slight of hand doesn't cut it with me. Notability is NOT a core policy on wikipedia, neutrality IS. The information is certainly factual and verifiable, but is it germane, or is it leading? I've seen too many articles that are factual, and seemingly neutrally presented, but the editorial decisions on what to include or exclude fall far short of (what I see as) neutrality. Your argument seems to imply that because the NYT is "a notable source" (whatever that means) that its editorial decision (or that of the journalist in question) ought to be the benchmark for what is neutral here. I think that's both naive and dangerous. Whatever we end up doing here (and I'm not that fussed) we can't escape making a judgement, for better or for worse. Life's like that, and what's neutral is in itself subjective. I know many wikipedians like to believe that there's some nice formula to do with sources that will always give us "the right answer". But neutrality is an art not a science and we need to do the thinking ourselves. This is actually a very interesting debate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, I think the main argument for relevance is that Klatz and Goldman are the core of the A4M. Unlike say the AMA, which is a huge organisation and cannot be defined by a few people, the A4M is run by a handful of people. This, combined with the large number of books written by these two on the topic, makes their personal history of direct relevance to the history of the organisation and the history of the anti-aging medicine "specialty". In fact you could argue that all these topics overlap to such an extent that they are really the same. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, if you are a company whose opinion and research is based to a large extent on having medical or science qualifications, and those are called into question, then this doubt is integral to the understanding of the qualifications of the personnel of a company and how one is able to view it. More information = fuller picture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm misreading what's at issue, but the controversy about this organization (which is actually its main claim to notability) is whether or not it is promoting junk science. The credentials and qualifications of the sponsors are central to that issue. Provided that all relevant known facts are included (including the Mexico stuff, which is the reader's choice how to interpret), I don't see how this topic can be avoided. Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Purely from a structural POV, I think the article veers into WP:COATRACK territory (because it talks so much about Klatz and Goldman), and looks like WP:ATP too (because frankly it is very critical of the subjects). I see there is an argument here to say that these two people are especially prominent, but they are NOT the same thing. Perhaps structurally the article should be broken down into one about A4M and one each for Klatz and Goldman if they are felt to be notable enough. The article is also far too long with over 4000 words compared with about half that for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for example. The *goal* of this article (or articles) should surely be to present a balanced perspective in a clear manner, thus enabling the reader to make up their own mind? Shritwod (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Klatz and Goldman have little notability independent of this organization and this organisation has little notability independent of Klatz and Goldman. The two subjects are deeply intertwined. The problem of "tone" is tricky, since all but one of the reliable, independent sources about this subject are highly critical of the A4M's approach and ideas. The single exception is an editorial from 2009, which is already cited in the article as a dissenting voice praising the A4M. It is particularly difficult to write about organisations that are described in highly-critical terms in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, since per WP:NPOV the article has to give the most weight to the majority of sources and cannot be "balanced" in the sense of giving equal validity and equal time to both views. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Positive" and "negative", "true" and "false", "critical" vs "uncritical" are labels that should have no bearing on if and how editors present information from reliable sources. Reliable sources on this subject have covered the credentials of the A4M founders and how they have represented them in public. It's not the purview of editors to base their inclusion of information from RS on whether that information could lead readers to see the subject in a "good" or "bad" light. That's not to say that editorial judgement has no place. Certainly, if the New York Times had stated that one of the founders sports a mohawk or plays the cello brilliantly or was involved in an acrimonious divorce, such information could be considered of no relevance to this article. Medical credentials and one's representation of them are another matter. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But one point that needs to be considered is that of the organisation itself. A4M is listed as an organisation of note, therefore its own assertions as to its beliefs and purpose are important. In the article, these are largely covered in the "Beliefs" section, but really that should be near the top and may benefit from editing in respect of WP:WEASEL. As I said, this is not a biography of Klatz and Goldman and I do not believe that it needs to be covered in such depth here. Finally, although Wikipedia is now discouraging "Criticism" sections, it would perhaps be appropriate to move critical comment into its own section. I think that is a pretty common structure for an article on a controversial topic. Oh yes, and the entry is far too long and rambles somewhat. Shritwod (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the beliefs section (which is the first section), you will see that these are largely the beliefs of Klatz and Goldman, since they are the authors of most of the sources cited. As to "criticism sections" these are poor practice, and are specifically advised against in our NPOV policy, see chiropractic and homeopathy for examples of how to integrate both viewpoints on a topic within the text. You might also want to read Article size. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, no, "Beliefs" isn't the first section - the first section is an introduction that appears to jump straight into axe-grinding. As for "criticisms", guidance has shifted on this recently, and unhelpfully. Attempting to include these criticisms within the main article appears only to be undermining the objectivity of the article IMO. Shritwod (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point for wanting the article to fous narrowly on the topic, but at the same time we have to follow the sources in deciding which information is relevant and what context is needed. As I see it, DUE requires a modicum of coverage of the founders. Perhaps in twenty years this will be nothing more than a historical footnote to the organization, but for the nonce we should follow the course charted by the reliable sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Phelps
The subject of the article has objected to content and removed it. The content describing a faculty dispute he was engaged in is well-sourced, verifiable, apparently notable, NPOV, not defamatory nor libelous. He contends the edits were based on "bad source material." He implied legal consequences, writing that "frivolous changes to the entry that create a disproportionate weight and do not add to understanding of the body of the subject's historical writings are immaterial. It could have legal implications for Wikipedia."

In addition to removing any content related to a faculty dispute, he also removed a statement that he ran for the U.S. Senate as a Socialist.

The sources he says are bad include content from Oregon State University, World Net Daily, and the Columbus Dispatch Newspaper. It appears to me that all three sources are valid.

The same content has been removed three times in 24 hours by user WFCarlton here, here, and here. I do not know if this is the account for the subject of the article, but that user was asked three times to refrain from making edits without making comments or discussing the issues on the article's talk page. While I respect the article subject's concerns, his edits appear self-serving. I believe the content in question should be restored. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we only have his word for it that he is the subject of the article. If he really is then procedures exist for him to report such matters - WP:BIOSELF - but OTRS is unlikely to look favourably on requests to delete sourced material. – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if he is the subject of the article, he should not be dictating what is and is not included in the article. Note the IP address that claims to be him is based near Ohio, not in the UK where he currently claims to be.
 * With regards to his edits, there does seem to be a bit of undue weight on the Savage incident that the IP removed, and given that this is a BLP, I would suggest leaving that out. I think the fact that he ran for the US senate is notable enough to be included in the article.
 * By the way, Btphelps, what is your interest here, as I note your username is similar to that of the surname of the subject? Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the librarian so called controversy, it is weakly supported by poor citations and seems a bit excessive, we are imo not here to report such non notable incidents. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * World Net Daily is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source for a BLP. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I addressed the first two content deletions by WFCarlton because no edit summary had been provided for the removal of sourced material (regardless of source quality) and no discussion entered on the talkpage. I assumed vandalism at first but in my opinion, then as now, the detail and length of the deleted material distorted the biography as a whole; trim it or expand the other sections to match its weight. For this disinterested UK non-academic drive-by reader, the subject's academic life and achievements are overwhelmed by a "controversy" whose notability is inferred by the undue weight afforded it. Haploidavey (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Other than the fact the the subject of the article and I share the same last name, I have no interest.


 * I wondered about WorldNetDaily as a suitable source, given their obvious right wing slant, but noted that the article about them mentions their being cited by the Drudge Report, so I went with it. I could not find the WorldNetDaily when I searched WP for a list of non-reliable sources.


 * I thought Phelps' contribution to the Michael Savage faculty situation was notable, given his interest in labor and political issues. If WorldNetDaily is not a qualified source, then the question is whether the faculty dispute is notable on its own right based on the source info provided by the Columbia Dispatch. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article has reverted the addition of his run for the U.S. Senate as a Socialist twice more within 24 hours without discussion. To offer input and for details, please see the article's talk page. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Marcelo Chimirri, David Romero Ellner, Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration
A new user User:Alb28(sockpuppet?) has created 3 new articles and injected similar information into other articles with very dubious content not backed up byRS about Marcelo Chimirri, David Romero Ellner, and Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration. Could you look quickly at them and advise what should be done. speedy deletion?? advice would be much appreciated.Cathar11 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Issue raised at WP:ANI Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This was largely a content issue, in my opinion, and it has settled down, at least at Marcelo Chimirri and Manuel Zelaya. Certainly the recent events in Honduras have been contentious.  Madman (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Troy Davis case


The first article has 45 watchers, the second has less than 30. They could do with a few more, since especially the first article is a playground for racists. Hans Adler 08:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Quade Cooper

 * - the subject has been arrested in Brisbane for alleged breaking and entering. Someone has scattered numerous offensive puns about this throughout the article // Rogpat (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)   and/or
 * I think I got most of it out. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was fast! Rogpat (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it happens again, please request semiprotection at WP:RFPP. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend‎:
Pete Townshend‎ This was here recently, an issue regarding the operation ore children case, and there is a new addition being inserted as some kind of point that he said he was gay in a interview and that it turned out he wasn't, that this adds weight to the pedophile claims. I have removed it a couple of times as new controversial content that is being given excessive weight and actually seems to not have been widely reported and is weakly cited, the editor in questions has reinserted, I have asked him to seek support on the talkpage to add the content but he has found as yet no support but has reinserted, I have left him a 3RR warning but wanted someone else to look at the issue, the disputed content is still in the article at present. I have made two reverts to the article and the editor has left me a 3RR warning on my talk, there is also some discussion on the users talkpage where he declares his position. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to Talk Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pete_Townshend#bisexuality.2Fhomosexuality

--Scieberking (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)