Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive76

Blacklisting due to BLP issues?
Is it appropriate to blacklist (or monitor through a bot like ) external links because of WP:BLP concerns? Specifically, I encountered the addition of http://deceiver.com as a reference in this edit. I noticed that the same editor (and possibly others) has used the same reference in the past, and all those contributions were also removed per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, though the edit filter could also be used for this. I don't think blacklisting is a good idea, though monitoring certainly is. Aditya Ex Machina  20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've copied my original question to WT:WPSPAM to get further opinions, due to the lack of responses here. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen 2
ArbComm candidate along with, , and a new/returning member, the Australian climate change blogger , have descended again upon MIT Professor Richard Lindzen's biography, one of the greatest meteorologists of the previous century, this time to advance a point of view (see WP:SYN) that Lindzen is a "contrarian", which is defined as a sort of "bad faith" skeptic, a sort of person who'll argue that the role of CO2 in climate change is minimal, just for the sake of argument (and this is of course, not true; no one of note genuinely holds the view that Lindzen doesn't actually believe in his position anything less than passionately). They have created a section "Contrarianism", to include this material, which appears to violate policy of naming conventions of subheadings, and appears to be included primarily for the purpose of restoring by insinuation that Lindzen is somehow linked with Big Tobacco.

A number of editors have either tried to remove the section or have expressed the view that it should not be included but these good faith appeals to the WP:BLP policy have been ignored, and the edit-warring has begun.

I should like to add how disappointing this is, given the assistance I have given in defending the BLPs of Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth in the wake of Climategate, and the fact that I had previously cleaned up the Gavin Schmidt article, having removed BLP violations added by climate change skeptics.

This is not co-operative; it is not collegial, and it is not professional behaviour. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For the morbidly curious, the discussion began here, Richard_Lindzen. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This may very well be bad editing technique. It could be wrong, it could be rude, it could be disruptive. But one thing it isn't is a BLP issue. Accusing someone of being "contrarian" is not exactly libelous. Follow dispute resolution. causa sui  ×  16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * comment i'm only going to address one of these issues, since its the one i know something about, and that is the one about "this time to advance a point of view (see WP:SYN) that Lindzen is a "contrarian"" which Alex attributes to bad faith of his fellow editors. Unfortunately this is not something that we "invented" - i give here just the few references that i could find within 5 minutes of Google-time (without checking which are used in the article, and it takes quite some time to manually edit these cite web templates) - none of these are opinion articles (except the one from Lindzen himself):
 * Of course there are many other such references. Despite Alex' bad faith and disbelief, it really is something that Lindzen is often described as, and not something that his fellow editors conspire to label someone with.
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Three more (reviewed) - just for measure:
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there are many other such references. Despite Alex' bad faith and disbelief, it really is something that Lindzen is often described as, and not something that his fellow editors conspire to label someone with.
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Three more (reviewed) - just for measure:
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Causa sui, please take some time to read, from beginning to end, the BLP policy. Your own response implies, by a literal interpretation of what you just said, and what BLP says, implies it is a BLP issue that should be raised here. I can understand you lacking patience with these disputes coming to BLP/N but that's not the point. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Causa sui says, "It may be wrong ... but one thing it isn't is a BLP issue." Let me say, then, that it is wrong, and it absolutely is therefore a BLP issue. It is very wrong, and it is very BLP.

In this specific case, we have a group of editors advancing a point of view by synthesis that Lindzen's professional views are not held in good faith. They quote, for instance, his Ph.D. student, Kirk Davidoff. This fabled off-the-cuff remark by Kirk Davidoff has come down to us without any context whatsoever. No one other than the journalist who quoted him & Kirk Davidoff himself really knows what K-D really meant. But one thing is almost certain, though, and that is that Kirk Davidoff would not have meant to say that Lindzen's view of global warming is not held in good faith, i.e. the view that the section is advancing. As such, we almost certainly have him out of context here. Likewise, Kim D. Petersen has certainly conceded on wiki before that he doesn't, himself, believe that Lindzen's views are not held in good faith. So what does that mean about this section we are repeating here? It means, we are, essentially, repeating the gossip & rumour in Wikipedia's voice.

This is a very, very serious problem. The fact that it has been tolerated, even encouraged, for so long in here does not make it any less serious, and there is indeed a very obvious way, and no other way, to stop these edit-wars from flaring every couple of days, and that is, each and every one of you, nicely tell the very small group of climate change advocates to stop, cease & desist. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Semion Mogilevich
The introductory paragraph on this FBI Top Tenner is becoming a massive list of unverified charges. Someone also added that this person threw feces on a Russian diplomat in the infobox. I deleted that, but there probably is more that I don't have the time to go through. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

William J. Kelly
William J. Kelly is a TV personality and sportscaster based in Chicago, Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Shine• contribs) 04:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC) William Kelly formed a production house in 1992 called Rev Productions and produces the Emmy award-winning Upscale TV, which aired on UPN, MY50, and then had a three year run on WFLD-TV (FOX) from 2005-2008 and Sportsaholic (, which currently airs on Comcast Sportsnet, DISH, and Direct TV throughout the Midwestern U.S. Onscreen, Kelly is known for trademark rowdy antics mixed with irreverent commentary, a love for beer, and the humorist's distinctive laugh. He studied improv comedy and was admitted to the Second City's Conservatory in Chicago.

Before he went into the TV business, William J. Kelly was previously the Executive Director of the National Taxpayers United of Illinois. —Preceding unsignedcontribs) 04:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

David W. Ogden
Requesting some neutral arbitration re: recent edits on David W. Ogden. The contentious paragraph is:

'' Ogden has been criticized for arguing against child pornography laws and for being a lawyer for pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse and opposing laws against pornographic material being available on computers used by children in libraries and schools. He has also been criticized for suing the government so that Braille copies of Playboy would be available in the Library of Congress.''

which has been inserted and reverted a couple of times (see here as example).

I don't want to get caught in the middle between User:Billyboy01 and User:64.53.136.29, so I'm listing this matter here. I do feel, however, that the inclusion probably violates WP:BLP, WP:V and probably WP:NPOV. Mark5677 (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the paragraph you cite above (and other similar edits by User:64.53.136.29) violates all the policies you mentioned. I have repeatedly tried to explain myself in the edit comments, but I haven't bothered to engage User:64.53.136.29 directly because their childish m.o. makes it clear they're not interested in debate: they introduce biased material that is unsourced or unverifiable, wait for it to get reverted, reintroduce the reverted material, accuse the reverter of being the subject of the article or related to the subject of the article, and then whine about left-wing Wikipedia bias; repeat every 3 months.  When I first encountered these edits, I assumed good faith and incorporated them into the article by introducing a neutral sentence about the Playboy/Penthouse criticism and replacing the right-wing reference(a townhall.com opinion piece) with a mainstream reference (a Wall Street Journal news piece).  I removed any info that I could not verify in the mainstream source.  For reference, the sentence currently in the article is Ogden's nomination was criticized by conservative groups that objected to some of his previous legal work, such as his representation of adult entertainment companies including Playboy and Penthouse.  In addition to violating Wikipedia policies, the "contentious paragraph" is also redundant. Billyboy01 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As discussed elsewhere on this page, inclusion of material from a blog is not allowed in Biographies of Living Persons. There is a solid sourced NPOV sentence about why some folks don't like Ogden and that should suffice for this issue.
 * Keep deleting unsourced or blog-sourced potentially inflammatory material. Thanks, Madman (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added MSNBC Source..is that liberal enough? I couldn't find an article in the CHina Daily or Pravda. So when do you acknowledge that the IP address of these pro-Ogden edits resolve to Georgetown University, where is daughter is attending? Just a coincidence? Yeah. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the addition again. The section may belong, but not in the way it's currently worded. Saying he argued 'against child pornography laws' without explaining what the laws were is unacceptable on a BLP. A fair potrayal of the controversy would likely include his response `Nil Einne (talk)
 * As opposed to removing the content, let us instead reword it, as you stated is necessary. I agree that it is not a neutral way to word the content, but removing it altogether is not appropriate either. by hajatvrc at 06:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is particular since WP:BLP applies, I was removing a contentious addition to a quasi-stable version. You're welcome to fix it, but it's not my responsibility to fix unacceptable additions to WP:BLPs. This of course could have been avoided if 64.53 discussed this first or had bothered to discuss it after it had been disputed rather then making random accusations against an IP editor without any real evidence and then just adding it back without any semblance of discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't need to discuss it. It's not your article. Stop reverting fact. First you say it's not sourced, so I sourced it with two news organizations. Now you're trying another end-around to get it removed because of your political bias. Stop.75.150.245.241 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I move to replace the disputed content with the material by BillieBoy01:

Ogden's nomination was criticized by conservative groups that objected to some of his previous legal work, such as his representation of adult entertainment companies including Playboy and Penthouse.

As he stated, the rest of the content is not necessarily supported by the cited sources and this is a neutral way of presenting the information that IS supported. by hajatvrc at 06:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Um you do realise the article already says that right and has since September ? Not in a controversy section (which is general best avoided anyway Criticism) but in the Deputy Attorney General section (where it is much more appropriate given that it directly relates to that and only became an issue because of it). This incidentally highlights another problem, the addition was partially redundant (which Billy already pointed out), I guess because 64.53 didn't apparently read the entire article before adding back the disputed addition multiple times. It may be appropriate for the part to be slightly expanded but it likely should remain where it is rather then an unnecessary controversy section Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies. It's 2am :). by hajatvrc at 06:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The controversy section is required. Or is it only required when it's a conservative? Your bias is evident. The verbiage I removed was in the article for a year before it was removed by an anonymous user at Georgetown University, where Ogden's daughter is attending. How convenient? 75.150.245.241 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anon, please stop making personal attacks that are based upon your uninformed opinion. You have no reason to suspect that these editors have any personal stake in this issue WP:DGAF. The information about Ogden's nomination being criticized is already in the article. As has been stated, sections that list criticism tend to be discouraged because they are not encyclopedic. Information about criticism of this person (as long as it is properly sourced) may be incorporated into the rest of the article. Please, instead of attacking people, provide constructive and neutral suggestions for what to incorporate into the article. by hajatvrc at 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wendi Deng
Wendi Deng

The following sourced information has been constantly removed and changed from her biography: The information of having an affair with a married man and she also started seeing another man while she was finally married the first one, who sponsored her Visa to USA.(source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/1372878/How-Murdochs-wife-won-her-ticket-to-America.html) and (http://www.investingvalue.com/investment-leaders/wendi-deng/index.htm) All of that information has not been contested or sued for defamation or libel.

On the other hand, there are many other unsourced but positive in nature, and yet very general statements that questions the validity and neutrality of them interspersed through the article. The article now, hold very little in value, or information about when she went to school, which schools she dropped out, when she graduated, what she did, and how she lived in USA. All fogged through general statements, unsourced, but makes broad allegations that she is a businesswoman and unsourced and unsupported work accomplishment at Star TV.

All information, no matter how "unflattering" it might be, sourced, though maybe disputed, and brought in a counterbalance into the article, SHOULD NOT BE DELETED JUST BECAUSE IT IS UNFLATTERING. But that is exactly what is happening with biography of Wendi Deng. I look forward to productive discussion on how to provide information for people to make their own decission, and NOT censor it just because someone might not like how it might present the subject at hand. Censorship must stop.

StopTheCensors (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, calm down. Second of all, your comment here is in response to an editor who performed this edit.  That edit was undeniably appropriate, and there has been no other removal of negative information in the last six months.  What, exactly, are you talking about? Steve Smith (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I have been watching that article for the last 5 years. I find it very interesting how people rise to power, and their histories. Occidental or planned, I look towards whole picture. For Wendi Deng, some might say, her life was serious of trial and errors. The errors, subjective as we all agree, in her biography have been deleted. Please notice the history of consistent "cleansing" of her aricle. Eventually the logs show that it was originating from her main company, please see discussion, and the person got caught red handed. Now the article reached the perfect "clean" saturation point where information doesnt get updated, and old information got buried so much back, that is hard to see. They will write anything to circumvent the following information that 1: She had an affair 2: She never completed schools but Yale 3: She used to work in Salon. Notice how much of her life is just made "unknown"' and or so vague. How is that that the article written in poor grammar and structure now dominates with so little information - yet on such a person? Yet amazing work done at Star TV HK that are unverifiable and unsourced are placed instead and  allowed to stay unchallenged? That is why I am tired of seeing year after year, changes made to contributions myself and other made to this article completely refuted without any explanation and replaced with that tripe. It has to stop.

StopTheCensors (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is additional proof as recorded, not just from my observation, but by the Media Watch group on how Wendi Deng's profile been censored: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1916646.htm http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0726_deng1.pdf http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0726_deng2.pdf

Wikipedia is victim of this censorship. STOP THE CENSORSHIP! Please look into the matter to recreate RELIABLE profile for this person. Let people make judgment based on information available ant not on Public Relationship TRIPE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheCensors (talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Blue Feather
Douglas Blue Feather whose legal name is Douglas Bonnell is not an enrolled member of any of the three Federally Recognzied Cherokee Tribes nor can he verify his claims of Cherokee Heritage through other means such as showing a direct geneological link to at least one of the Cherokee Rolls. He claims Cherokee Heritage but this claim is unsubstaniated. There are many others who claim Cherokee Heritage such as Rita Coolidge, Chuck Norris,and Johhny Depp, who aren't listed as "Native American". Can someone be listed as being Japanese without proof just because they say they are? If not, then why is Douglas Blue Feather listed as Native American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LightingBug (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need genealogical documentation. The fact that Mr Blue Feather has been nominated for Native American Music awards see this Google search is good enough for me.  Madman (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Blue Feather is a four time winner of the Native American Music Awards ( Nammys ) But the recipients of these awards are not asked to prove their heritage. Anyone could learn to play the Native American flute, get good enough at it, say their Cherokee, and win the award. With your argument, I could dedicate my life to studying Samoan Music and Dance, get good at it, and maybe even eventually be nominated for the annual Samoan Music Awards, and later win the top award. ( If one such exist ). This fact would still have nothing to do with me being Samoan of not. The controversy is not about how talented Douglas Blue Feather is on the Native American flute or how many awards he has one. Its about verifying his claims of being Cherokee/Native American. LightingBug (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
 * There's no need to verify any claims. If someone is widely noted in WP:RS as having claimed to be of a certain heritage, then that would be presented in the article. If those claims have been disputed, then it may be appropriate to mention the dispute if they have been sufficiently covered in WP:RS but I'm not convinced RLNN cuts it as a WP:RS in a WP:BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery
I've already reduced the article to a stub & fully protected due to potential BLP violations, but I'd appreciate if someone would like at the comments on the AfD itself and keep an eye on it. If it isn't deleted I think there will continue to be problems. I also did some minor editing at Hajime Sorayama about the same legal issues. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted, so no more problems there unless it's recreated. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did an IAR close of the afd, if anyone has a reasonable complaint about it, let me know.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Odette Krempin
Somebody alleging that much or all of this article is fraudulent attempted to nominate this for deletion by altering the archived version of Articles for deletion/Odette Krempin. Could somebody take a look at the altered version in the history and follow up? -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Odette Krempin



Could use some cleanup and more eyes on this page please. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed tons of garbage from the article, including a contentious claim that she is affiliated with UNESCO. Verification of existing claims still needed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see here. This is a BLP nightmare, as English-language sources are virtually nonexistent. Suggest trimming to a stub. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have opened Articles for deletion/Odette Krempin (2nd nomination). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Fort
Could just use some more eyes on it - lots of edits via IPs, some citing sources in Spanish (which I can't read well enough to make judgements about), many unsourced, some apparently derogatory. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubbed down, not notable drama magnet, speedied. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

J-Kwon
The J-Kwon article has had almost its entire entry deleted, being replaced with unnecessary and blatantly stupid words. There should probably be a deletion of the information and a restoration of the old information, but I cannot recall how to do this. Anyone want to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squareroot7 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll warn the vandals and keep it watched. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa


I closed a recent AFD on this article as Keep. I noticed some sourcing questions brought up at the AFD, so bringing it here for further attention. Not sure whether or not the sourcing concerns are valid, but of course they deserve additional eyes on it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see also deletion review here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ec.. I had a little look and don't really want to click on some of those links for fear of what I might get to see. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There some sources, such as IAFD or IMDB that might be better dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard or at WP:PORN. A couple of the sources used are clearly inappropriate sourcing - wikiporno.org is an open wiki, and another reference is actually a link to an image of a DVD cover on an online auction site.


 * The book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts they are supposed to reference. They seem to be the result of a Google search simply pasted into the article to lend the appearance of notability. The More Dirty Looks reference is actually the same essay as referenced to The Culture of Queers. The essay contains two passing references to Correa in a discussion about performer Ryan Idol. It does not state that "he performed exclusively in the top role in anal sex with men, but performed in both the top and bottom roles in oral sex".


 * The Advocate reference is actually to an interview with Amy Poehler in which she refers to a video called "Inside Vladimir" and does not mention Correa. Another "source" is merely a quotation of part of this Advocate interview.


 * I'm not willing to spend the time to look closely at the rest of the sources, but I expect them to be similar. It is likely unproductive if I edit this article myself (since I nominated it for the AfD which it somehow managed to pass as "keep"), so if someone here wouldn't mind doing a bit of clean-up I would appreciate it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Amy Poehler's reference to "Inside Vladimir Correa" as she was part of the improv team that named themselves "Inside Vladimir" after the video, is a demonstration of its appearance in the popular culture of the 1990's. When I added this source I did not expect an aggressive assumption of bad faith; there is an implicit accusation that I have been faking notability for the article which I do not appreciate. As you nominated the article for deletion only 2 hours after creation (after the PROD you raised was rejected) and have gone on to put the closed AFD up for a deletion review, you appear to be on a campaign.—Ash (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be more explicit - the sourcing is bullshit. I didn't look at who added the references. I didn't make any assumptions, I looked at the actual sources, as you can see from my earlier comment. Poehler's interview does not in any way suggest that Correa was part of the "popular culture of the 1990s" which should be clear from reading that portion of the interview. It is not even clear that she is referring to a Correa video. Assume what you want about my motivations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes your viewpoint clear to everyone. Bullshit is hardly a convincing argument, and I expect your edit history of aggressively attempting to delete gay porn related articles and putting off new contributors (as per my own talk page) will lead other Wikipedians to draw their own conclusions on how to treat your comments.—Ash (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good time to direct people to this discussion on AN. I'm done here, can someone fix the sourcing please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Ramsey
The material added in this edit of Dave Ramsey is sourced to erictyson.com which is a WP:SPS. Despite my removals with discussion of WP:SPS on the talk page here as well as removal by User:Will Beback  for the same reason, IP address 67.86.123.51 continues to readd the information without a cite to a credible source. I am removing the information again, but I am concerned about a WP:3RR. I am unsure whether some page protection is necessary or what other action is available, but would appreciate an administrator looking into the issue. Eastshire (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected. Please note that removing negative material that is poorly sourced or unsourced from a BLP does not fall under the 3RR.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Ayres
I would like to express some concern over the section "Plagiarism Controversy" in the page on Ian Ayres. It seems unbalanced and is written in a tabloid-like tone. The plagiarism issue is a relevent inclusion, but it must be neutral and informational. The passage in question:

Ayres was caught plagiarizing nine passages of his 2007 book Super Crunchers. David Leonhardt of the New York Times noted how Leonhardt "came across two sentences about a doctor in Atlanta that were nearly identical to two sentences I wrote in this newspaper last year" and that with respect to an article in Fast Company Ayres "reproduces the exact words, without quotation marks."[4] What particularly disturbed Leonhardt was that "many readers will surely assume that Ayres witnessed some events." The Yale Daily News found nine passages in his book, with some more than a paragraph long where he used the exact words of other authors without quotation marks.[5] Inside Higher Ed said in reference to Ayres' case and another one at Southern Illinois University that "Both men simply stuck passages from other writers into their text when it suited them, and gave either minimal or no attribution. In some of the passages in question, neither used quotation marks, even when they quoted at length, verbatim."[6] After some controversy over almost three weeks, Ayres did say "I apologize for these errors."[7].

Inside Higher Ed noted that the exact same behavior by students is "severely sanctioned."[6] Professors at other universities were quite critical of Ayres' explanation for the mistakes and pointed out that the method used by the Yale Daily News to discover plagiarized passages was unlikely to catch all of them in Ayres' book.[6] [8][9][10]

[end passage]

The authors have cited articles from the Yale Daily News (possibly self-authored?) and Inside Higher Ed among others, so this is not a case of poorly cited material. There is, however, another side to the story. Ayres claims he correctly cited all of the "plagiarized" passages in SuperCrunchers, but left out quotation marks. This section gives undue weight to the plagiarism issue, constituting a good third of the article's length, and no information appears to present a more balanced view. Ayres has spoken to me about the issue and is deeply offended by the plagiarism section. Is it appropriate to remove or rewrite the section, or add more information to balance the argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spolitz (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this is not a neutral or balanced presentation, so I've removed the section until a fair re-write can be done.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes keep it neutral. I'll try to re-write this Cablespy (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment Awards (Claudine Barretto)
Claudine Barretto Someone is always including the refrence http://goodtimesmanila.com/2009/03/06/official-titles-of-piolo-juday-claudine-marian-dingdong-etc-released/ in her biography. First of, that site is a joke blog and was created solely to entertain and not to provide facts/information. Anything in the blog is not true as confessed by the blog owner him/herself. The blog has a disclaimer at the side of the page. For your immediate action on this.(unsigned IP)
 * I have had a quick and presently the link is not in the article and I have left the account that has been repeatedly inserting it a note asking him not to reinsert it, lets see. It is not especially demeaning but anyway it doesn't belong in the article especially not in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable wikipedia source Cablespy (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikolai Bezroukov
Nikolai Bezroukov

Nikolai Bezroukov: I could find very little primary information about him through a Google search. The article itself contains no citations, and the only things of interest that I could find were a few quotes from him and profiles on various social websites. The article has had the {BLP unsourced|date=June 2007} tag since 2007. I propose that this article be removed. Raztus (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Add a prod to it - and give your reasoning. If no-one objects, it will be gone in a week.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Prod added, not notable, uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Epstein
This page is more of a story than an encyclopaedic article. It is a horror of unsourced claims. The one source is a "news" article talking about the position of a company connected to the subject. Also, from the history, it looks like the subject has performed numerous edits himself. Looks like he might be using the page as another way to promote his views. I have added a bunch of citation neededs and deleted some blatantly emotive language, but there's still an awful lot of crap. Anyone else want to take a look? (Cook.gj (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Pretty bad, even by Wikipedia's low standards. Bio should be nuked and stubbed imho. --Tom (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some effort today at improving and sourcing the article. (No relation — note the spelling — but the similarity of names intrigued me enough to take a look.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hal Moore

 * - An entry was placed in the bio about Moore's appearence on a radio show being characterized as a "white supremicist" show. It was sourced by using the networks own site. I removed the entry because it strongly implies that Moore is a white supremicist or sympathizes with them. Neither of the sources used provide any characterization whatsoever as to the appearence Moore made, how long he was on or what what even discussed. Given that Moore was the author of a best selling book that was turned into a hit movie, having him as a guest isn't a big shocker. But since this entry, nor the sources tell us when he was on or what he talked about, we're just left with the linking of his name to white supremicists. That is a BLP issue to me. Further, calling the show a "white supremicist" show is a seperate, non-BLP issue. It is opinion. The cited source doesn't characterize the show as such. The entry I removed is here: . The contributor reverted my removal claiming that since it was "impeccably well-sourced", there was no way I could remove it. I contend that this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. There is no evidence that Moore said anything or sympathizes with white supremicists, no reference to when he was on, for how long or what the subject of the interview was. And in the context of his biography, there is simply no evidence that this event had any significance in his life. I feel it gives the reader an incorrect impression and is at odds with BLP. // Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No such alleged implication was made in the addition to the article. All the addition said was that Moore appeared on a white supremacist talk show, an undeniable fact. This fact may be of interest to readers, especially so given your five-alarm reaction to the addition. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is his appearance on a white supremacist show given comparable weight to his appearances on other shows? And is it written in a way that would lead readers to the conclusion that he is a white supremacist or sympathizes with their goals, whether or not it explicitly says that? Because this seems to raise issues of original research by synthesis (juxtaposition of facts in a way that leads readers to a conclusion not stated in the sources, regardless of whether that conclusion is explicitly stated in our article) as well as the obvious WP:BLP issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don;t know where you get the "fave alarm reaction" bit from. I simply made the reversion and explained why. You reverted and claimed I had no basis. I reverted and explained it to you on your talk page and the articles talk page. That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. I have asked, and not had ansered, where you even got the characterization of the show as "white supremicist" in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Facts sometimes need to be contextualised in order to prevent readers drawing the wrong conclusion. I've no idea about this, but the proper place to sort it out is on the article talk page. With BLPs contested material stays out until consensus is reached to a fair and neutral form of words. I've protected the article until consensus is reached.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel S. Peña, Sr.
Please help cleaning up the Canada section under Controversies heading. It may have disproportionate space, some POV wording, non-relevant names and a bias translation from a French source. Cablespy (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Primary sources, excessive legal detail, coatracking of other people..section trimmed to death. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon Pulsifer
✅

Some subtle vandalism and other wankery going on here. Would be nice if someone could clean it up. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Semied.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Lloyd
He is still alive, disregard any of the vandals claims that he has passed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago1990 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a short-lived hoax target. You may request semi-protection if the vandalism continues.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel
Over the course of 5 days, an anonymous editor has repeatedly added untranslated, non-English-language sourced, POV information about an Elie Wiesel identity conspiracy to Criticism of Elie Wiesel without discussing it on the appropriate page in these major edits ; ; ; and. I need help moderating these repeated edits from the unyielding disputer (pl?). Yourai (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected for two weeks. Jayjg (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films - the quintessential BLP nightmare

 * Calling this the "quintessential BLP nightmare" is simply homophobia run amok. I note that in your below example, Brian Hawks, the person actually WANTED to be on this list, but you made sure to get rid of that. Ryoung 122 09:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of male performers in gay porn films has been nominated for deletion half a dozen times, with BLP concerns being mentioned in every AfD discussion. It has undergone a "clean-up" since the most recent AfD, but this seems to have mainly consisted of adding images and dubious references, which should be unneccesary if the linked articles are properly referenced. The trouble is that many of the linked articles are not properly referenced. I have nominated a few completely unsourced BLPs for deletion (Articles for deletion/Brian Hawks, Articles for deletion/Bobby Madison, Articles for deletion/Christy twins) but the suggestion has been made at AfD discussion to merge them into, guess what, List of male performers in gay porn films.

The completely unsourced BLP of Mark Wolff was recently deleted and removed from the list as a red link. He was restored to the list as a red link with the edit summary "rvt, no reason he shouldn't be included here". The sourcing used is a link to Mark Wolff's own site and a brief piece in a porn industry website, neither of which establishes notability or comes anywhere close to meeting WP:PORNBIO, let alone establishing identity. Perhaps that is a reason not to include the red link. I haven't checked but I believe many, if not most, of the entries on this list would fail WP:PORNBIO.

I'm sure that award winning screenwriter and Lost producer Christian Taylor would be surprised to learn that he has been included on this list. If he were alive, perhaps Bradford Thomas Wagner could confirm that he performed in gay porn films under the name Tim Barnett, since the source used does not clearly do so. I'm sure there are more bad entries life these.

The descriptions are also an issue. Red linked Zach Randall is apparently a "featured performer at Boys-Pissing.com" complete with direct link to the site. The source used for including him in the list is an article from an LGBT porn site directory which is used for a reference for 41 of the entries on the list! Some entries have no description at all, some have multiple sentences mentioning specific companies and awards, not necessarily supported by the references.

Here are two more unsourced BLPs I came across while composing this post: Rick Chase and Rick Donovan. Both have been tagged as unsourced since July 2007. I suggest that this list be trimmed back rather than expanded, leaving only blue links to vetted articles. Someone needs to go through every linked entry on this list and ensure that (a) it links to the correct article, (b) the article is properly sourced, (c) the performer meets the general notability guideline and the WP:PORNBIO guideline. There's quite a bit of work to do here. Perhaps a small working group could be established on a subpage of this noticeboard? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Delicious carbuncle that this is a disaster; the random second wlink i clicked on is someone else completely, as a quick visit to the reference proved. All the redlinks should be cut out, and the real articles checked for correctness.  I have no interest in this subject, but am willing to make a start to help out. Cheers, LindsayHi 22:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing redlinks from lists is a standard policy-supported action that should be stringently enforced in BLP related lists and articles. Similarly, standards for verifiable, reliable sources should be most strictly enforced in all BLP related topics. Thanks for bringing this potential mess to attention. Doc  Tropics  22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving through this alarmist thread I'll try to make this brief. my "clean-up"' as Delicious carbuncle terms it has been much more than what is presented. When the last AfD started there was no references on it and I have systematically been sourcing every entry. To indeed show entries are notable I started with the porn notability guidelines by tracking down what awards existed and who got them. Delicious carbuncle dismisses this effort but they have shown a systematic and negative attitude towards me which I continue to see as both detrimental and a form of WP:Wikihounding. I addition to these cleaning up efforts I have also researched every new entry that appears, usually from anons, to verify if they are indeed gay porn actors or vandalism and have dealt with each accordingly. BLP interpretation here is pretty clear - if someone has acted in gay porn films and are male or male-identified, they can be included with sourcing. As clean-up efforts continue and incorporate all the international awards that govern these people I also am reconciling people who have articles that seem to belong in the category to verify if there inclusion on the list and category is supportable. With hundreds of articles an assumption this takes time is correct. Meanwhile Delicious carbuncle started edit-warring to remove an image (from the lede, and if they had their way, the list) of Michale Lucas from User:David Shankbone, people they apparently don't approve, or something. But no we have an AfD which will again be a spin of wheels but oh well. As for redlinks? We do indeed want those as "helpful" folks simply add wikilinks to the article we have instead of realizing it's better to show we don't have an article. This is done for ... wait for it ... BLP concerns. So now we'll sort out an AfD, much drama has been raised for nothing, and regular editing will ensue by folks who have our readers interest at heart. For those wondering ... here we can see that Mark Wolff likely shouldn't have been deleted after all but certainly has loads of coverage by the industry newsource of record; Christian Taylor listing was disambiguated - it was quite easy actually; Bradford Thomas Wagner, as noted, is dead, ergo not a BLP issue; and those unsourced BLPs, not the lists' problem. What a colossal waste of time when simply doing the editing would have achieved the same result. If some needs to be disambiguated? Why not just do it? And CyberSocket actually writes about gay porn all the time, being listed in their annual top lists indeed denotes notability enough for a list for now. This keen interest in getting rid of anything that doesn't have an article seems like a surefire way to ensure that even more stubs will be created when many of those folks would be better off in a list. -- Banj e  b oi   05:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a colossal waste of time, because posting it here brought at least one (me and maybe two (Doc) new users to the list to help. Also not a waste of time because BLP concerns are important and need to be raised.  Certainly doing the edits is easy, maybe easier than coming here, but this is a place a number of people in the community look at as a place to find (and correct) potential trouble.  I do and did.  Doc, apparently, too.  So, i say "Thanks" to DC for alerting us.  As well as, obviously, "Thanks" to Banjeboi for continuing to correct these troublesome entries. Cheers, LindsayHi 11:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you could please put your accusations against me aside for the moment and confine yourself to discussing the BLP issues here (you are welcome to make your accusations elsewhere). As this ANI thread shows, it would have been difficult for me to "simply' do the editing needed myself. To focus on just one issue here, the inclusion of red links is not desirable in a list dealing largely with living people and of this nature. People who are not male gay porn performers are likely to be offended if they are included in such a list. I've already documented one such case, so this is not a hypothetical. You have reverted the removal of one red link by Doc Tropic. If this person is notable, would it not be more sensible to simply create a stub article and link it from this list? Linked entries should stand on their own without the need for further references, which would obviate the discussion about the appropriateness of "references" which lead to the purchase page of gay porn sites. If these were unsourced red links that would be one thing, but the situation as it stands (with unreliable sourcing of claims about living people) is arguably in violation of the BLP policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LindsayH, you're right of course, any extra help is definitely a help. What I should have stated was that any of these issues was easily resolvable but Delicious carbuncle has insisted on taking a very long route of edit-warring about an image to finally state the had BLP concerns. I'm glad that the BLP issues are being addressed but do wish it was without all the misleading dramatics and inflamed concern. Simply state the issue and work with other editors. As for Delicious carbuncle's new hypothesis - a porn star would be fine with being included. Someone who is "not male gay porn performer" or more accurately someone who is not "male and has acted in gay porn films" shouldn't be on the list, I would hope that is obvious. Redlinks are welcome on lists and are actually there to prevent mislinking, Once they are vetted it's easy to see who we do or don't have articles for - that's why we include them. If they aren't there? people add them, to the wrong person. We'd rather disambiguate them so it is obvious their only inclusion on Wikipedia is on the list. And which case you've documented I'm not sure but it could have been simply handled by mentioning it on the talk page - "gee we need to relook at ____, something seems amiss." As for that reversion you note - it seems likely we got the AfD wrong. But my job isn't to fix every entry the list is connected to but to clean-u the list. You may have noted I also added refs when I re-added so the entry was a bit more clear as belonging. And RandyBlue is in fact a notable amateur porn site that produces ... gay porn films. Those references that, for example "Jack Foo" indeed has his own page at the site absolves BLP issues that we are listing Jack Foo as a male who performs in gay porn films. A site showing he does exactly that is perfectly acceptable. It would be nice to show more that the entry indeed is seen as needing inclusion but we aren't there yet. First everything there needs to be cleaned up, then we add context of who meets which various requires of Porn and GNG notability. Then we have actual ground to state here is what an entry needs to be included or not, as is most of all the articles and listing are only part way there and all of the articles have been targeted in various ways removing content. Speaking of which, almost every case you've brought up, possible all of them, you simply been wrong - or at least mistaken - and a bit of research shows we generally had it right. This echos my experience on other lists that needed clean-up. Yes, they were vandalized but surprisingly just a bit of clean-up generally fixes any concerns, and once cleaned-up the vandalism ebbs away as it's easy to detect what is or is not correct. -- Banj e  b oi   20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * if they have Wikipedia articles and the Wikipedia articles support the listing, it is not a BLP violation. If there is debate about the inclusion, the place to discuss it best would be on the article for the person involved.  The question is the many redlinks. If any are red because Wikipedia  articles were deleted, then clearly those names must be deleted here also. But for most, an assertion of an awards is made--if these awards are considered sufficient to justify their notability (I can not tell that, for this is not one of my usual subjects), then by our usual practices they could stay while the articles are being written--but I could also see making this list an exception and removing them until that time.  I see no discussion of BLP issues on the last few months of the talk page, so I suggest that raising this is perhaps not really warranted--certainly it is not justified to say they are not resolvable.    DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with trying to set some rule like - delete redlink if the article was nuked at AfD is that we often get it wrong, I likely could have saved Mark Wolff if I had seen it as he does seem to fly over GNG, if not also PORN. Those discussions live or die if someone like myself knows where, and has the time to look. Anyone notable before 1995 or so has an impressively uphill battle as most of the publications that did cover them aren't online, so only having some massive vault and the resources to access it would have saved it. The industry has greatly changed but almost all actors who did more than a dozen movies - and note most of the gay porn articles that list movies were chopped down to six or less entries (sigh) - appeared in numerous light porn magazines, photo spreads and did both softball and indepth interviews for them. They also did mainstream gay press but most of those are also offline. As time allows I'm happy to give an insightful opinion on any of these issues and whether a good article as a stand-alone is possible. However I see a list as solving a number of issues including that our readers who want this information will basically get what they're looking for without having dozens of stubs that linger unloved. When an editor is inspired to launch a new article we can see what potential it has. until then a list is a great way to keep it all in perspective. -- Banj e  b oi   22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, I don't think anyone here has suggested that the problems are unresolvable. In fact, I suggested a working group so that this could be tackled cooperatively (including the linked articles) rather than the edit-revert dance that is happening now. It should be clear from the discussions on the talk page why I didn't raise the issue there. It would not have been productive or gotten other editors involved. As for the red links, WP:SAL advises "Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles". Clearly if the article has been deleted on notability grounds the red link should be removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenet) The list looks basically sound to me, since entries are referenced. But the redlinks clearly cannot remain as they are. I'd suggest we need to: Such moves should satisfy BLP and allow the article to exist without undue interference with its purpose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) remove the redlinks where the article has been deleted on notability grounds - in these cases there is currently a consensus that the subject does not merit an article, so we should certainly not be inviting one. If AfD got it wrong, then DRV is available - meanwhile we have to write respecting current consensus, not ignoring it and presuming it was wrong.
 * 2) In other cases, we either need to remove the redlinks, or pipe them to Joe MacSmith (porn star). Otherwise there is a high risk that the next article that gets written under that name is a different Joe MacSmith. We know that's a real risk, because it had already happened in numerous cases here, and it is a regular complaint in OTRS that names are wrongly linked to a different individual. In the case of porn, that's not a BLP risk we can take.
 * Forcing redlinks, on just this or just porn articles, to a default disambiguate seems like a really bad idea. Is this a suggestion from the OTRS folks? How widespread is this actually and why can't simply resolving each cases as it comes up - like we seem to do with everything else - not work instead. This may be well intended but again feels more alarmist. Is there some documentation on this being a major OTRS issue? -- Banj e  b oi   03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may find that people who don't work in the industry are more cautious about mistakenly labelling someone as a porn performer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems quite disingenuous. No one is adding ___ is a performer in gay male porn on BLPs as this entire alarmist thread implies. Instead we are talking about wikilinks that go to the wrong articles and are easily cleaned-up that is being addressed. had you bothered to mention this on the talkpage likely it would have been a lot less dramatic and achieved the exact same result. Sweeping together multiple clean-up issues does not change that these are ordinary clean-up issues. If you have evidence that someone is maliciously adding is misleading wikilinks knowingly violating BLPs that would definitely be cause for alarm. But this is a simple clean-up issue and likely should be handled as such. In part I find this whole thread discouraging as it takes away energy from dealing with more pressing actual BLP violation s that are complex and deserve attention. FWIW I have committed to getting every listing confirmed we have the correct person linked. -- Banj e  b oi   13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - what I have said about this list applies equally to List of actresses in the MILF porn genre, which seems rather similar in structure. Compare either of these to List of pornographic actresses by decade which is simply a stand alone list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those too should likely be addressed on each lists' talkpage and maybe at the Porn wikiproject. -- Banj e  b oi   13:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like a very bad BLP situation indeed. Redlinks absolutely must be removed from the list. causa sui  ×  16:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
An editor is constantly adding irrelevant personal attacks on Richard Goldstone to this talk page; eg, , ,. These comments do not relate to the content of the article under discussion, but are merely an attack on a living person. Are these comments a breach of WP:BLP? Are they appropriate in this talk page? Am I correct to continue deleting them? RolandR 14:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note from the user - Goldstone's report was cited in the talk page by another editor, to support some assertion he made there. My comment came in response to that; unlike what you might think after reading RolandR's comment above, I did not just start ranting about Goldstone out of the blue.
 * I made no claim about Goldstone's personal life, but expressed my opinion about his professional performance, which is relevant in any case a user wants to cite him. As my initial comment could have been mistaken for a simple insult, I explained my position and reasoning in a longer comment, which you can read in the fourth link.
 * Additionally, I would have appreciated being informed of this complaint on my talk page. okedem (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't name the editor because I was not complaining about them, but asking in general about principles. RolandR 17:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You linked to the edits, so, you know. And you presented the case inaccurately. okedem (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. In my experience other editors posts on talkpage should only be deleted in extreme cases, editors should remember that BLP applies on talkpages too and to take special care not to voice personal opinions there that would be uncitable, discussion should only be regarding improvements to the article regarding citable content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

← Article talk pages are intended for civil, constructive discussion aimed at improving coverage of the subject. The comments in question not only serve no constructive purpose, but are actively antagonistic, counterproductive, and utterly without relevance to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. They violate the talk page guidelines, and their removal is appropriate. I don't see a real WP:BLP issue here, because it's hard to believe that Goldstone will suffer any real-life harm because an anonymous Wikipedian has a low personal opinion of him. On the other hand, user:Okedem needs to read and internalize the talk page guidelines - a useful start would be to recognize that talk pages are not a venue for one's personal views of the article subject, and also to recognize the difference between "censorship" and maintaining a civil and appropriate working environment. If you go to a town council meeting, grab the microphone, and start ranting about people you dislike, is it "censorship" when someone turns off your microphone? OK, back to work. MastCell Talk 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear - it is your position that I cannot express my opinion of Richard Goldstone's work, when the subject is raised? That I cannot write a detailed explanation of why I view Goldstone as an irrelevant source, due to the inherent failures of his report? This, remember, following another user citing him on the talk page. okedem (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats right. That kind of position is detrimental to discussion and has BLP issues, uncitable defamation of living people is not recommended. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying, that to say someone did a bad job, produced a one-sided report, etc - is defamation? So, no criticism allowed, and no discussion of a source's neutrality is legitimate? okedem (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that this sort of personal name-calling (and you concede that your original comment was insulting) is irrelevant on this talk page; and on the Goldstone page it could not be included as your own opinion, but only from a documented secondary source. The fact that you personally consider Goldstone to be "a joke", and that, in your opinion, his report is "naive", "one-sided", "idiotic" and "absurd", is of not the slightest interest to other editors, nor of any relevance to the talk page on Israel and the apartheid analogy. RolandR 11:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep pretending I just started ranting about him out of the blue, when you really know that I was replying to another user, who cited Goldstone's report to support his claims. This makes criticism of his work absolutely relevant to that article's talk page. If you think the report is irrelevant, go complain with the other user for even mentioning him.
 * And even if you think it's irrelevant - if we start deleting whatever we think is irrelevant from the talk page - there would be very little left. Even if irrelevant, it is certainly not a breach of BLP, which deals with untrue claims regarding a person, not opinions regarding a person. And if you think that I can't say on the talk page this his report is one-sided - well, you'll have to take me to ArbCom for that... okedem (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP does not only deal in untrue claims regarding living people and does deal with opinions on living people. Editors opinions on living people are indeed generally unwelcome on talk pages and usually not helpful and potentially a BLP issue. While probably not a BLP violation, your opinion on the report is indeed something that isn't likely to help the discussion. If you believe that the problems with the report mean it's not useful as a source, that what you should concentrate on with references rather then your personal opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is at issue here is not Okedem's opinion of the report, which is arguably relevant to this talk page. The issue is his disparaging personal remarks about Goldstone himself, which are of no relevance, and I believe are in violation of BLP. RolandR 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Brinkley Messick
If someone has the time to help a new editor with this new page, it would be appreciated. Major BLP issues are expected. Zerotalk 06:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He doesn't appear notable, and if "major BLP issues are expected" why write about him?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also don't think he is notable.Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has been prodded by User:Hipocrite . Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Killed Secret account 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Speak (artist)
A user has persistently added information to the page Speak (artist) suggesting that the rapper was attacked by an eagle. I don't believe that this is defamatory, but I believe it may be some sort of joke added to the page to make a point. The user in question has repeatedly moved to delete the page, via PROD, AfD, and removing content against consensus. The user appears to believe that since Speak has been ridiculed for the style of his music, the page should not exist. I have tried to address this on the user's talk page and via calls for third opinions. I am reluctant to call for a ban, lest this seem to be a personality conflict between me and Speedman79. Cnilep (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not try to meet him in the middle, I often find that troubled users do have something to say, the issue could be the comparison to Borat who is an offensive stereotype. The comment...various commentators.. comparing Speak to the fictional character Borat. is only cited to what looks like one opinion piece that is not linked to and unavailable to read, as this Speak is not excessively notable I doubt if this derogatory nickname is widely reported, it is a bit derogatory to Speak and doesn't add anything to Speaks bio except humor, just take it out..I also don't like it when comments are..nevertheless or however or even though he was ridiculed he still had a sell out tour.. he simply had a sell out tour, not ...even though he looked like a frog the girls loved him. ...Anyway..I digress. I will make an edit and see what happens.Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits made by Off2riorob seem entirely acceptable to me. For some background on attempts to meet in the middle, see e.g. Talk:Speak (artist), including sections 'Neutral Opinion', 'Proposed additions', and 'Stop Inappropriate Deletions'. For the kinds of inappropriate content others have added and Speedman79 has been conscientious in removing, see e.g. this recent edit. Cnilep (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Crilip, I think there is not much there that he could still have an issue with. I saw some of the extended discussion, you have been polite and patient..lets see if the article stabilizes, I'll also watch it and if the eagle story is replaced or if needs be. I will have a word with him. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-published third party YouTube video as biographical source
There's a discussion going on at Reliable sources/Noticeboard about whether a YouTube video self-published by a third party can be used in the biography of a living person. Rather than reposting the thread here, it would be helpful if editors could provide some advice via the link above. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jalal Talabani
Studerby (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) The article for Jalal Talabani, current president of Iraq is quite clearly not a good quality Wikipedia article. The exact text is Donky 66 and mercenary agent for Iran, Syria, Turkey and USA. Former Iraqi agent and since then he was named Donkey 66 by Kurdish people. He stolen billions of dollars from Kurdish and Iraqi people'''.' This seems like a rant against the Iraqi leader. Also it has absolutely no references, headings or pictures/photos which I would like to be changed. The contributer is known as 123.243.203.58 and has made two other articles, Battle of Sagrajas ‎an 11th century battle in Arabia and more importantly, Massoud Barzani who 123.243... claims is the Kurdish Iraq President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.85.195 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles
User:Mcelite and myself (User:Surelyhuman) are having disagreements regarding heritage categories on the article for Beyoncé Knowles. We have talked about this disagreement with each other on our own talk pages, but cannot come to a mutual conclusion. Our conversation can be found here, and here. Since we can't come to a conclusion on our own, an administrative ruling seems to be the only solution to the problem. I have let user Mcelite know on his talk page that I've taken him up on his suggestion to contact administration to settle this. Could an admin please weigh-in? Surelyhuman (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, administrators don't make content rulings. What you want is [WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. My own view would be not to put people in a category of Native Americans unless that individual has claimed to be a native american, and the claim is attested IN THE ARTICLE and evidenced by a reliable source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Sellar
Anyone bored? Massively overdue for a cleanup to get the tags off the page. I've not done any searching, but refs are easy to find I'm sure. Keegan (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Brad Brock
Brad Brock is a typical local singer in a town of southern Florida. This person clearly does not meet the requirements to be in wikipedia as a noticeable person of interest to the world. They do not have a major contract and the sales figures are not verified by any reputable organization that tracks the sale of records by well known music artists. Clearly this is an attempt to gain notariety and advertisement online.-Robert Parten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.142.8 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with this ip, there is a bit of a karaoke air about the singer, I have trimmed out the fluffy broken citations and also removed the only citations at the two linked albums, they were broken- no wayback or to a myspace or something, I have added a search template to the talkpage, and done a search there is nothing there apart from facebook or myspace, I don't really know the music notability levels, someone a bit more clued could have a little look, imo it is AFD. On his myspace he is doing karaoke tues wed and thurs at the fire station club. Here's the external for the Karaoke details if anyone likes Karaoke. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone would like to comment, User Coffee has sent Brad Brock to AFD, feel free to comment here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

G. Gordon Liddy
OTRS has received an e-mail concerned with this article, specifically in this section, concerning implication of Dean's involvement, which our correspondent indicates was the subject of a libel suit (a quick search on Dean & libel turns up plenty, including, , and ). I bring it up here as courtesy to that correspondent in the hopes that somebody will have the opportunity to look into it and determine if additional/different sources are necessary or if content needs to be changed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (I see there is a note at Talk:G. Gordon Liddy which may more fully explain concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

There is a lot of uncites there, perhaps I should remove that and allow it to be replaced cited. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had a look and the content about Dean was a bit coatracky and rumourish, imo it was adding nothing to the bio of liddy which is imo not very good, liddy's article should be about liddy and not about john told harry and harry was friends with bill who recommended harry to johnny who was involved in the conspiracy... for what its worth to the article I have removed the content about Dean, I have left all the citations, he has his own article which is also imo not very good, it is all that history Watergate stuff, imo the content wasn't worth much but if someone feels it is valuable feel free to add it or improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Off2riorob (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Henry (wide receiver)
I just put a 6 hour Semi Protection on this article. Henry was in a traffic accident of some sort; rumors run from serious injury to death, and IPs are already adding a death date. Per BLP, we'll need to keep an eye on this one until more info comes out. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And, for added fun - Wikipedia is now cited (albiet by a blog) as a source to confirm that Henry has died. Which is an object lesson in precisely why we have BLP. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The six hour limit has expired, and anons are inserting unsupported claims again -- perhaps semiprotection should be extended? Baileypalblue (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page
There appears to be a potential for an edit war here, but I am only posting this to ask for an opinion. Is this diff, which resulted in an abusefilter tag of (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism), actually of any concern? I do not know if the referenced source is reliable, although it appears to be. The source however is using a subjective summary view by the writer rephrasing a book which has been denounced by band members, see Hammer of the Gods (book). The source relies heavily on accounts from the book and presents them in a sensational manner, using language that I found rather surprising for a major daily newspaper, it is not something I would expect to see from any major newspaper in the United States that I know of. If anyone has guidance as to whether this edit should be reverted, please respond to this post. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a catalog of "groupies" a rock star had sex with is an encyclopedic subject, absent any sign of significant consequences. Serious BLP issues, too, given that the accuracy of the underlying source has been challenged by the musicians involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Martin (U.S. politician)
This individual has stated, via press release, that he is suing Wikimedia over the content of his article. I've sent a message mentioning this to WMF attorney Mike Godwin, but if anyone feels comfortable reviewing the content of his article in the mean time for compliance with policy, it might be worthwhile to do so. Dragons flight (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: According to Mike, the Foundation had not received any notice of a lawsuit as midday on the 17th (PDT). Dragons flight (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some of the controversial stuff might be better if it was moved out of the lede, but all the claims appear well sourced (articles from respected and reliable newspapers, factcheck.org, etc.). He appears to be a vexatious litigant, according to the article and the sources that support it, so this would not be out of character. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, the article is simply a page of so called controversies, no wonder he doesn't like it..it's not really a BLP at all, imo it is awful and could do with a neutral uninvolved expert to rewrite it, perhaps it is all cited but we are supposed to write Bio's in a decent way and imo that one is mostly attacks, I don't know anything at all about the person and reading the article would clearly give me a very poor reflection of the person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the time you got to it, many of the throwaway specific controversies were removed. The man appears to be somewhat unbalanced, and expresses it through legal action. Precisely how are you supposed to balance that? &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 22:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, take an editor that doesn't hold the opinion that the subject is unbalanced, I am only suggesting a neutral rewrite of all the issues, it seems to be a list of controversial this and that, statements by his political opponents...but hey..it is all cited doesn't mean it is a fair write. Also this accusation in the lede is a bit much.. That he is a vexatious litigant.stated in this way in the first sentence as if it is a clear fact..that imo is a strong accusation without explaining who says this and why they say it. The more I look at it, especially the lede, it is an attack. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a couple of edits there mostly to the lede and retitled a section all basically to take a bit of weight out of it, feel free to have a look and comment or tweak a bit more.The guy clearly has issues but the focus and weight on the issues is imo a bit excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fear mongering
Various IPs and one new account have been adding Glenn Beck as a bullet point in the See also section of this article (history), and I've been reverting out of BLP concerns. Subsequent to this beginning, two refs have been added to the Glenn Beck article which refer to him as fear-mongering. I've nevertheless continued to revert, as it seems to me that having the dot point at Fear mongering gives the appearance that Wikipedia itself is endorsing the POV that Beck is a fearmonger which, apart from failing NPOV, is a BLP concern. I list the issue here to ask whether my continued reversion is correct and to suggest semi-protection. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that See alsos are meant as a navigational tool; the reader might wish to read a related article, even one which is antithetical to the current one. So the link's existence is not per se an endorsement of the attribution.  Is the sourcing in Beck's article high quality and agreed upon?  If not, then there is a BLP problem and I would recommend removing the link and the Beck content until (if) the sourcing and attribution in the Beck article are improved.  If so, then the issue is one of editorial discretion, the balance between the plausible navigational benefit vs. what can plausibly seen to be trying to make a point.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the link with extreme prejudice. This simply offends against NPOV - it is also far too culturally specific.--Scott Mac (Doc) Flagged Now! 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck
- Over the course of the last few months, a specific user has been putting obvious POV links to external sites, either as an EL or as a reference. This user is. Here are two prime examples, and both within the last week: Example 1 and 2. He also has made several obvious POV edits and reverts: Example 1 and 2. In addition, he has made every attempt to put in every negative plug he can get away with: Example 1 and 2. // J  DIGGITY  (U ¢ ME)  06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlin Romano
Article in its current form is very substantially weighted to criticism, whith substantial editorial NPOV, as well as an excessive number of critical blockquotes. As I have no interest in the subject and much prefer gnoming to content disputes like this, I refer the issue to others. Article is tagged, see talk. Studerby (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed some blocquotes and blogs used as citations. This still needs some cleaning up though. My brain is a bit tired now from reading all the philosophy stuff. Ludlom (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one, imo it looks a fair bit better after your work. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward M. Chen
We could use 3rd party input regarding some recent changes to the article. See and, for example. I think a lot of the "Controversy" material violates various policies, and anonymous user(s) from Northern California (75.41.57.180 in San Francisco, 75.41.56.242 in Martinez, 75.18.218.161 in Walnut Creek, 75.18.217.112 in Concord) disagrees. Please refer to article's talk page for some of our previous discussions. Billyboy01 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer might be to delete this article. The details of his career don't seem to make him very notable. Then he could be mentioned in an article about the political wrangling over his latest appointment by President Obama. I suggested this on the article's talk page.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There notability of judges has previously been discussed here. I don't think deleting the article is the solution (it would surely be recreated once Chen is confirmed or rejected by the Senate, so we would just be deferring resolution of the content dispute), but that's a separate discussion. Billyboy01 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say there is clear notability in a political sense, I have done a small rewrite to remove the weight out of the controversy section and renamed it, imo it is a lot more neutral now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've warned off the latest person to add criticisms sourced to "the American Justice Group" - an entity for which Google provides no concrete evidence that it even exists. bd2412  T 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ofra Haza
- This edit from 2007 has no reference and seems to be a violation. The editor who placed it is still active. I removed the offending content, but am reporting it here as it's been able to exist for over two years. The reputation of the (dead) husband has surely been affected. Lastly, perhaps that revision should be deleted? Basket of Puppies 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not BLP as the people aren't living, but it still needs proper verification. This isn't hard to find. There are plenty more.  Ty  03:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the AIDS parts for now since this is unconfirmed. We should not use rumors as wikipedia sources Cablespy (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

William Rainer
I don't really know where to go with this one but I would like to see this article made, seeing as Rainer is the CFTC chairman and a Living Person this seemed like a good place to start andyzweb (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not use the Article wizard 2.0 and start one yourself, if you have a problem doing that the Help desk is a good place to ask, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lez Zeppelin
.
 * - This page is being vandalized by someone with ill intent who is citing untrue information about the group, personally harmful information about the founding member of the band. This user (GirlWizard) is engaging in an editing war to undue all attempts to fix the vandalized information. // Daffodilcubed (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * - This user is repeatedly editing the article with malicious and untrue information that is harmful to the group, Lez Zeppelin. We require the assistance of an administrator to block this user or otherwise help control the edit war now taking place.  // Daffodilcubed (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of you are edit-warring. Stop and use the talk page before making any further changes. -- Neil N   talk to me  18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also being discussed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Libellous Case
FYI. Someone is always deleting the reference [http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/231771/judy-ann-santos-declared-the-face-soap-opera/ which is apparently comes from Manila Bulletin, the largest broadsheet newspaper in the Philippines, in Judy Ann Santos' biography. It tells that Santos is declared as the Face of Soap Opera and Queen of Teleserye by ABS-CBN.

While, someone is always including the link [http://goodtimesmanila.com/2009/03/06/official-titles-of-piolo-juday-claudine-marian-dingdong-etc-released under Claudine Barretto's Entertainment Awards. As indicated in its disclaimer, said site is a joke blog. Anything in the blog is not true.

For your strict monitoring. Kindly execute necessary sanction towards the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.204.81 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on my watchlist and will monitor the changes. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Leib Tropper
Tropper is a prominent charedi Rabbi. There have been accusations of evidence that he had an affair with a woman whose conversion he was supervising. Following those accusations, he resigned from one of his major's positions. However, the accusation of the affair and surrounding claims (including the claim that there are sex tapes which have leaked) have not been substantiated by any reliable source yet. I've just removed mention of the tapes from the article. A few eyes on this would be good. There likely will be reliable sources discussing this in a few hours so we need to treat this very carefully. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of this fellow, but the article on him was a mess; filled with negative stuff sourced to blogs etc. I've deleted the worst of it, but I suspect it will continue. I won't be around for the next while, so someone else might have to protect it if it does continue. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has now reported the fact that a notorious scandal-blogger claims the tapes exist and what he claims they contain. JTA when speaking in its own voice may be a RS, but surely when it merely reports what an unRS is saying it is no more R than that S, and the allegations can't be repeated in the subject's BLP.  -- Zsero (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a valid question, I think, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Since the point is more general, I'm going to open a new section on it down below. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Boyce
This article is totally unsourced and contains some things that might be considered negative. On the other hand the person does seem to be notable enough for a proper article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything troublesome there, the article just needs someone to improve it with some citations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I took out the sentences that might be negative. No problem if put back with sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ashok Jadeja
. This article appears hopelessly POV. Example: "But he is also a megalomaniac with a wily mind and soaring ambition who felt his humble surname wasn’t working for him." At the same time, the subject of the article does appear to be Notable, with several references in various publications. Even if the facts referenced are accurate, a significant or complete rewrite would seem necessary to fit the policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.59.65 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Significantly rewritten to remove POV (actually copyright violations of newspaper articles) and unnecessary details. Other eyes welcome. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we should be linking to the popcorn site (isn't it just copyvios?). Further, is the subject of this BLP remotely notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Link removed. WP:BLP1E might apply but this seems like a high-profile individual (note that I tend towards inclusion). Someone can take it to WP:AFD. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Kelly (Canadian football)
Kelly was fired by the Blue Bombers in the same evening, following an emergency meeting of the team's board of directors.[2]

This is not confirmed. The article referenced only refers to an emergency Board of Director meeting to discuss the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.33.109 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added another source confirming the firing. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  05:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Free Roman Polanski" Petition
This article has been prodded for the second time, it is a BLP nightmare imo, but that is not a reason to prod it, the article has been prodded for a second time, for now... is  this a strong enough citation to support adding to all these living people that they signed this petition? Off2riorob (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We need more articles in support of fugitive pedophiles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest you strike the libelous attack. (Not a pedophile.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What libelous attack? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a pedophile. Period. Strike it. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Diff noted of libelous comment on WP:BLPN by User:Baseball Bugs. (Irony noted.) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not libel anyone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well...lets get over the hilarity...again..Is the citation strong enough or reliable enough to support these names? Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can find other sources for this. eonline I'll keep looking Proofreader77 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a blog, I doubt that there will be this list in a quality link as there are many legal issues. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I said I'm looking but clearly it is full of notable names. The report is not false. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have sent it for discussion at AFD, please feel free to add a comment there . Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * UK Why the rush? Yet another Timewasting Afd. Withdraw it. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I already had to remove this BLP issue .Off2riorob (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my tone, but you wasted my time asking for sources, and then rushing to AfD. There is more important work to do right now, somewhere else. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were wrong to remove it; the case was accurately characterised, though he only admitted to a lesser crime. -- Zsero (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opinion, but the content I removed was for BLP protection and seems to have support as it has not been replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jensen Ackles

 * keeps adding a claim to the article that he is married to a Stephanie Ware. Apparently this is a hoax that started on IMDB and has been circulating around the Internet since 2006 . Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Account blocked as solely used for BLP nonsense.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

World B. Free
An IP user has been repeatedly introducing unsourced information on the name of World B. Free's wife. (See, for example.) I can't confirm this information anywhere online. The most recent media guide I can access with a profile of World B. Free (76ers, 2007-08) doesn't mention a wife, while it does mention the spouses/children of other team personnel: see page 33.

That said, it seems unlikely that someone would just make the name up&mdash;and if it is a relative adding the information, I'm worried that he or she will get upset if I'm reverting it. Can anyone offer some advice?

(FYI, a recently deceased friend of World B. Free was mistakenly described as his wife in several sources: . That might provide some context.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Libelious material of a living person
In an article about Julian Moti at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Moti there is a libelious passage concerning a magistrate in Vanuatu. The libel is compounded because it is factually incorrect. The relevant libel is found in the following passage:

In October 2008, The Australian Newspaper reported that Vanuatu magistrate Bruce Kalotiti, who heard the case against Moti in 1999, had been bribed by Moti to dismiss the case in exchange for Moti's paying for Kalotiti to study at the University of Western Sydney. The report cited university records and evidence obtained by the Australian Federal Police in September 2004. Kalotiti resigned from the bench as a result of the allegations and the evidence which supported them, gathered at the request of the Vanuatu government.[6]

The fact is Mr Kalotiti resigned well before the allegations arose and he has denied those allegations. See the questionnaire from the Solomon Islands government to the Australian government at http://www.tutuvatu.com/resource/Questionnaire666.pdf

Now that Mr Moti's indictment has been stayed as an abuse of process, you may wisht to consider your own position.

Would you please remove the above passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.89.26 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The source states:
 * Mr Moti was originally arrested in 1998, but Vanuatu magistrate Bruce Kalotiti dismissed the charges in 1999 amid allegations he was bribed by the Fijian-born Australian citizen with a promise to pay for him to later study at the University of Western Sydney. Documents obtained by The Australian show that in March 2001, the Vanuatu government issued a request to Australia that a search warrant be executed at the university to obtain evidence of "Moti's sponsorship of Bruce Kalotiti". But it was not until September 2004 that the Australian Federal Police searched the university's records and found evidence to support the allegations. The magistrate then resigned from the bench.
 * The article states:
 * In October 2008, The Australian Newspaper reported that Vanuatu magistrate Bruce Kalotiti, who heard the case against Moti in 1999, had been bribed by Moti to dismiss the case in exchange for Moti's paying for Kalotiti to study at the University of Western Sydney. The report cited university records and evidence obtained by the Australian Federal Police in September 2004. Kalotiti resigned from the bench as a result of the allegations and the evidence which supported them, gathered at the request of the Vanuatu government.


 * I don't see any material inaccuracies in the article text. The source cited by the IP objecting to the statement is found on a website presenting user-supplied content, and appears to need further verification. The Australian appears to qualify as a reliable source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the secondary citations and the content we have now seem to be fine, this primary citation would be better if it is reported in an independent WP:RS, for now lets wait and see how any changes are reported. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Chancellor - reports of his demise....
UK journalist Alexander Chancellor has informed the world and Wikipedia that he [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/17/alexander-chancellor-wikipedia is not dead. See today's Guardian]. I've pre-emptively semi-protected the article indefinitely. But it is also totally unreferenced and could do with some attention by clued and BLP sensitive people. It is likely to get a good deal of traffic today.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was detected by Special:AbuseFilter/117 and tagged as removal of category:living people. We need more people to check this tag and also this one, and maybe others at special:tags. Cenarium (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I came across Tom Churchill which I fixed since from what I can tell he isn't dead and strangely enough I think the claim he's dead came from someone with a WP:COI who may be his estranged??? son. Whether as a joke or because of problems he has with Tom Churchill I don't know. The Tom Churchill article itself appears to have been created by someone with a WP:COI and whoever this new user is has created an article on a son of Tom Churchill which is likely to be speedied. Sigh... Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rosemary Reuther
A relatively inexperienced editor has insisted on characterizing Rosemary Ruether as a "fringe, leftist" Christian theologian based on his claim that She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/about/structure.html), a self-described ecofeminist, and as a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), she is a conspiracy theorist." Another editor and I have been removing this characterization, because a) it's a WP:BLP violation, b) it's WP:NOR, and c) even if it were true, it wouldn't be appropriate to characterize her this way in the lede of an unrelated article. A third editor has removed his comment describing her as a nut job from the article's Talk: page. I'm looking for further input. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your view. The facts are presented in the article as it is. There is no need for WP to make a judgement.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You were actually discussing a problem in another article, not her bio.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Roy Williams dispute
A new editor wants to keep on adding the claim that Roy Williams ejected a fan from a basketball game recently. I believe that this is an incorrect statement and that the incident is largely a non-issue that should not belong on Williams biography page. Help from a neutral third party would be appreciated. Remember (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, any help on the topic would be beneficial... Please see our talk pages. I have agreed to not make any more changes.  As you will see in history, we have both violated the 3RR.  I consent to mutual consensus and discussion. Pepperweed (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of comments on the talkpage there, feel free to add a comment there . Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Efe_G_Ozturk
- This article is completely false. Efe Ozturk did none of the things this article claims. He was NOT a recruited high school football player, nor did he even play high school football. Furthermore, and more importantly, he was never a college level quarterback at Montclair State University, Rutgers University, or the University of Southern California. The statistics and claims of this article are entirely fabricated. // 69.115.148.185 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks very suspect to me. Especially the statement that a person needs a 3.5 GPA to play high school football.Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article down to a single-sentence stub, and PROD'd it. It appears that the claims about his football career are indeed not substantiated – he doesn't appear on the USC football roster, for example.  If the PROD is contested I'll take the page to AfD, for a clear lack of notability.  — <span style='background:rgb(40,40,120); padding:2px; padding-top:7px;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px #999'> æk <sup style='color:white'>Talk  09:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Tylman
While in Canada, Tylman pursued a career in commercial arts as an airbrush illustrator. His illustrations have appeared on billboards, bus shelters, the covers of several corporate annual reports, and in brochures. His work has been featured in advertisements published in newspapers and magazines such as Time, Maclean's, and Chatelaine. Among the corporations for which he provided illustrations are Petro-Canada, BCTel, and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Canadian Pacific Airlines with Wardair, Pacific Western Airlines with American Express, Energy Mines and Resources Canada, Tourism British Columbia for Expo 86, West Edmonton Mall, Tetra Pak, Sun-Rype, and The Province. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * – the quoted below paragraph of text with 10 confirmed secondary sources has been deleted from the article Richard Tylman (-2,491) by user . Please note that the article is written about me. – The 10 sources (see reflist) were drawn from footnotes to a Narrative featured at my official webpage linked from the article. (The Wikipedia internal links were added later.) User Pantherskin first run into this article recently due to his participation in ArbCom talk, where he learned about my real life identity. There's a strong suspicion of ulterior motives since my interaction with Pantherskin at ArbCom was negative thus prompting my complaint to ArbCom clerk about his behavior. Pantherskin responded by attacking the article about me instead, and accusing me of misconduct at ANI (case rejected). I myself still believe that we both can edit on good terms in the future, and I left a note to that extend on his talk page, which he didn't answer; however, Pantherskin did achieve his objective by upsetting me greatly, and I resent that. The most popular American and Canadian magazines are not primary sources, obviously. Earlier, at Talk:Richard Tylman I explained to a dynamic IP that my clearly visible signatures are featured there with my illustrations. The IP went to his neighborhood library (that's a lot of trouble to settle a Wikipedia score) and used a microfilm reader to find these artworks. He did find them; and, although the microfilm resolution was too low for the signatures to be readable, the IP agreed nonetheless that the sources should be considered valid. Now, Pantherskin resurrected that argument for the sake of argument, and engaged in a revert war with another editor. Please look at the paragraph in question. The information is totally uncontroversial, plus the artwork has been seen by a third party already. The illustrations in Time, Chatelaine and Maclean's, are examples of my assignments as an artist. There's absolutely no reason to cast – what Pantherskin calls – a "doubt about the verifiability of authorship". All artists routinely list their work along with their biographies, and so do writers, inventors, etc. There's nothing special about this one list of confirmed releases – quite acceptable by policy. The real dispute belongs to yet another unrelated internal feud at ArbCom. At the bottom are names of publications, issue dates and page numbers, featuring full-page color-separations. <hr width=50%>


 * It does seem a bit weakly cited, and also that there is a doubt that you are actually mentioned by name in these citations, I am sure you know that this content is correct, but is your name actually notable as regards the content or is that your knowledge, is it correct that the work is more notable than the connection between your work and your name? Why not to get over this hurdle consider a reduction of the comment including the strongest of the citations in relation to any references to your name? Something more like this: In Canada Tylman worked as an airbrush illustrator, his illustrations were used on billboards and in magazines and corporate brochures. [1][2] . Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Such material may be used as a source only if: (3) there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; (4) the article is not based primarily on such sources" (which it is not). I challenge anybody who's in doubt (meaning angry) to get a hard copy of Time (not a microfilm) and look for themselves. Or, would I have to scan my own signature from there and upload it here (which is just plain silly)? People who ask for this, obviously never dealt with real artists in their lives. Why such extremes? --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The real question is why, out of so many artists’ biographies in Wikipedia listing noncontroversial print media where their artwork previously appeared (including shows and installations without print whatsoever), suddenly, because of being an active Wikipedian I'm advised to abandon that right, as described in our policy in a following way:

P.S.: With regard to scanning and uploading of artwork, I would reproduce a complete page in Time (or Chatelaine) using a high resolution scan (~ 600 dpi). The originals are not in my possession. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An explanation why the claims about the authorship of Richard Tylman could not be very verified by an uninvolved editor has been provided by Poeticbent himself, see, quote "For your information—and for the information of those other Wikipedians like you, who might be reluctant to believe what they see—the actual artwork is always signed by the author, but not necessarily within the area reproduced by the client.". It should also be noted that it would be rather unusual to see an artists signature in published advertisements.
 * Furthermore, the way the sources are used qualify them as primary sources. They would be secondary if Time or Maclean's would discuss the advertisements, but they do not.
 * Lastly, I find I rather strange that you claim that we could edit on good terms in the future, and in the same post you continue to attack me and spread blatant lies about me. What rejected ANI post please - I never initated or commented on you at ANI? And how could I have responded to your complaint to the Arbcom clerk on November 21 already on November 1 by "attacking" the article on you? Pantherskin (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not seem that this is the appropriate board anyway as the issue is not the addition of badly controversial material. An appropriate board would be rather the COI board as the subject of the article is unwilling to let others edit or discuss the article, as is evidenced by the rather aggressive initial post here. Pantherskin (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the need to escalate the issue, the content has been removed and not replaced, I stand by my previous comment, that a rewrite trimming the fluffiness out of the comment and leaving whatever is strongly citable is a solution. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob – what if I scanned at least one serious artwork (and the signature, separately), and uploaded it to Wikipedia under the fair-use for this article's illustration? We both know that these are extreme circumstances triggered by in-house conflicts and not by the biography itself. As an active Wikipedian with an article I will always remain a ready-made target for my opponents especially those hidden behind anonymity and eager to pick an easy fight. For example, the fact that I extended my hand to user Pantherskin does not change who he is, and there will be others just like the ones before him. I'd like to resolve this merry-go-round not by backing away from simple facts about my life; but, by providing an actual real solution for everybody else to feel satisfied with. In an open-source format anything can be questioned including my identity (see the proof of Barack Obama's birth certificate story for the newest extreme absurdity), but an image with a signature usually speaks for itself (per above). I would not want to have to upload a printed certificate in order to have the right to list even a single noncontroversial detail about my former career, because most WP:BLP attacks are irrational by design. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not even have the decency to retract your most blatant lies and then you are coming here and claim that you extend the hand to me? Come one. A real solution would be if you would give up your bad faith towards anyone who wants to edit or discuss the article you created ourself in a way you do not agree with. That is the real problem here, not any imagined BLP attacks. You say that you want to upload the artwork, and the signature separately, but then how does this help in verifying that the artwork was published in the Time magazine or any of the other magazines? Pantherskin (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pantherskin does appear to have a point, it is hard to be an editor and edit it yourself and not recommended, attachment is guaranteed, about the actual content, I do find it weakly cited and fluffy, of course having been there and done the work you want to have the details here but the fact is the citations do seem to be weak, my suggestion to you Poeticbent would be to throw your biography to the wind and stop editing it, set it free so to speak, take it off your watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mind serious editors taking over any article, but the reason why we have to constantly watch after everything around here is because there’s a lot of misdirected anger and desire for revenge going round, not to mention ignorance and plain silliness. Just look at the things this guy throws at me (as an individual) here in talk. One has to grow a thick skin to deal with this level of WP:HA, WP:HOUND, and WP:EQ, so please see things as they are. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am see here a 50 50 dispute with you guys, the whole thing about the wiki is that it is never over...if you let it to the wind you will perhaps be surprised, if an editors removes something it can get put back later and if the is a editor making poor edits to an article, a random editors comes along and for no good reason starts improving it, it is only a suggestion..trust wikipedia policy and guidelines and look at the long term picture. It will be ok  Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am wondering how long this is allowed to continue. There is a patterns here of Poeticbent not only assuming bad faith whenever an editor comes to "his" articles and dares to add/remove/question content. It is evident from the editing history of the article, the Afd discussion, and also Poeticbents first post here on this board. I am not the first, and I will presumably not be the last. "Just look at the things this guy throws at me (as an individual) here in talk." - indeed look at what you throw at others, for the simple reason that they disagree with you. If that is what happens if someone dares to remove rather unimportant content, I do not want to know what happens if someone wants to add controversial content to your article. Pantherskin (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes your right, there has been enough discussion here as regards this issue, if there are personal issues unresolved the best place is WP:DR, if either of you needs a neutral go-between feel free to ask me on my talkpage. As regard BLP issues and as far as this noticeboard is concerned I will mark this resolved if neither of you object. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument needs to be taken to a different place. We exhausted our abilities to resolve it here amicably. User Pantherskin is trying to make a point at my expense. – Please note that the list of selected clients and jobs featured at the end of a living artist's WP biography is compliant with our policy. The policy states that a primary source (i.e. the subject's official website) can be used to draw on examples of his work, quote, if: "there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it" (hence the references provided); (4) "the article is not based primarily on such sources" (which it is not, take a look). I repeat, the article is compliant with our policy set at Biographies of living persons, and for as long as this policy is valid, acting against its spirit is unacceptable. The matter could actually be better addressed at RfC, because it involves Pantherskin's personal interpretation of a Wikipedia policy guideline, triggered by an unrelated dispute. For different examples of artists' clients and assignments listed in many other Wikipedia articles please browse through the following categories Poster artists, Graphic designers, Finnish graphic designers, Russian graphic designers, Iranian graphic designers, Lithuanian graphic designers, Albanian graphic designers, Czech graphic artists and others. There are hundreds of articles in main space which feature selected assignments by their living subjects. If you think that it’s not OK to include them in my biography, than please request a policy change. Otherwise, you cannot remove them unilaterally from this one article among many. Thank you. Off2riorob, if you decide to close this thread would you please indicate at the top, where in your opinion this matter should be taken next. I’d appreciate that. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this....Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:1: it is not unduly self-serving. and 2: the article is not based primarily on such sources. These two seem to apply to me, it reads a bit like a CV application for a job (self serving), and number two, the section is totally sourced to you, (sourced only to you) . I am minded to stand by my comments, here..Write something, condense it, a sentence about it and I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable, (I offered an example earlier) and as I said consider ceasing to edit your own biography unless there are any BLP issues with content, you'll notice Jimbo doesn't edit his, and the community voted to delete User:Shankbone 's biography and as for where to take this next, personally would not take it anywhere else, I would write a smaller less pushy comment and add it back...
 * "While in Canada Tylman worked as an airbrush illustrator, his illustrations were used on billboards and in various magazines such as Time and Chatelaine and corporate annual reports and brochures including BCTel and Energy Mines and Resources Canada. .. I am adding this to the article as imo it complies with all policy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . Would it be OK to bring back the references there as well? --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I definitely wouldn't add all of them, chose the best and strongest and add them, it is a small comment and we don't want a citation farm to support, you could add the citations related to the links that I chose., that would be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the wiki is open ended and that perhaps in the future stronger third party citations will appear and can be added then. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC

And this is how your revised link would look like on the page: ^ Tylman, Richard (2009). "Gallery and Narrative". Vancouver BC. Retrieved December 20th, 2009. "List of selected print media: Time, November 24, 1986, Vol. 128. No. 21, pp. 62-63 / December 8, 1986, Vol. 128 No. 23, pp. 8-9; Chatelaine, September 1986, Vol. 59 No. 9, p. 165; Business in Vancouver Magazine, June 18-24 1991, p. 7; The Official Guide to Expo 86 published by Beautiful British Columbia Magazine with Expo 86 Corporation, Victoria BC, 1986, p. 5" Thanks again. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at it a bit more..for now I wouldn't add any citation to the edit unless it specifically mentions your name, lets see if there is any opposition to the addition as it stands. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that a single link to my webpage where your examples were found is sufficient, but would you be willing to expand on your link to include a quotation from the same page mentioning where in these magazines your examples are featured? Below is the preformatted expansion of your link: <hr width="50%">
 * I don't see why not, and it adds some detail to the citation but does not add excessive detail to the comment. ✅ Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Lapin
Requesting some neutral assistance in editing this entry. As it stands, much of it is NOT written in W:NPOV; there are broken reference links; direct quotes are not sourced; and much of the information is simply not factual (or sourced). It looks like much of this goes back to activity in 2006. To date, I have received no responses to my inquiry on the talk page. I did a lot of research on reliable sources and attempted to edit the page, but my changes were immediately reverted. I've attempted to connect with the editor who undid my edits but, again, no response.

Is there anyone here who could assist on this issue? I'm not tied to my specific edits...would just really appreciate someone else taking a look and giving some thoughts on how to get it up-to-date and accurate in a way that will lead to consensus. Thank you!--Hmsc (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left the editor a note about this thread, perhaps he'll come and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am involved in real life activities before the holiday from work. If it can wait a few more days then I will explain it and we can work it out together. As a start, "rabbinic scholar" is a peacock word. A rosh yeshiva is a rabbinic scholar, every pulpit rabbi does not get that title. Lapin is known as a political commentator and a preacher of the prosperity gospel. Many peacock words were added. Next point- controversies are not to be removed. You may not like it there but it has already been fought over and had reversal battles.The fake awards were in all the national papers. To just quote his lawyered denial is POV. Looking at the history of the article, there seems to have been even worse scandals in LA that made him run from town. Much of the material added is PR, not encyclopedia. Quotes of "how wonderful he is do not belong on wiki. Links to Amazon or other commercial firms do not belong. You are crying NPOV but your version is definitely not POV and is probably conflict of interest. I am in more than semi-retirement from wiki, and I was not involved in the writing or editing of the original article. But when someone removed controversy and adds self-promotion and peacock words, then it gets reversed. If you want to entirely reedit it, then I can contact the original authors who know about the topic to work it out with you.--Jayrav (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Thomas (rugby player)
Please could the project take a look at the article for Gareth Thomas, a top flight professional rugby union player who has recently disclosed the fact that he is gay to a national newspaper. There is debate on his talk page regarding a disagreement regarding the worth of adding this fact to his lede. Good arguments on both sides, but we have hit a stalemate. We would appreciate your project's advice on the matter. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Section copied from WT:BLP Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be in the lede since he is notable for being an athlete and not his sexuality. Cablespy (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He has appeared on BBC National News discussing his decision to come out and the impact his sexuality had specifically throughout his rugby career. Leaky  Caldron  14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He has appeared on BBC National News discussing his decision to come out and the impact his sexuality had specifically throughout his rugby career. Leaky  Caldron  14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd not put this in the lede. But given this is verifiable information volunteered by the subject, this is really a matter for talkpage consensus like any other editorial decision, there's nothing here falling directly under the BLP policy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorization at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
At least five editors have agreed at the above article that the present categorisation scheme is presently distorting the views of a very large number of living scientists, that the article suffers through its categorisation scheme badly from original research and synthesis. The editors opposing are William M. Connolley, Kim D. Petersen and Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I have made three goes at removing the categorisation, only to have the reverts removed. In the case of some of the scientists, e.g. the Australian scientist Bob Carter, the views are being badly distorted, and in other cases the views are being mildly distorted, but there are no exceptions.

As editor Ronz pointed out, we should not need overwhelming support to remove so many BLP problems, but the situation is difficult, given that one of the opposing editors represents Wikipedia as an Administrator (i.e. SBHB). Sorry, my mistake. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed three separate versions, each of which would largely resolve the problem, and would have the added benefit that many future arguments about "which category to put the latest skeptic scientist X in". The simplest version is the uncategorised version, here:.

An uninvolved administrator is required to please enforce Wikipedia's guidelines with respect to living people. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hot potato anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking this game myself. I see three issues here.  (i) BLP.  If something is sourced well, then there is no BLP issue.  That does not preclude problems with WP:WEIGHT, style, etc.  I see a lot of sourcing there. (ii) misrepresentation of sources.  If the sources do not support the content, or are being misread, just fix the content, which in most cases on this page would be to delete it.  I sympathize that that can be difficult, because of the unweldiness of the third issue (iii) the inclusion criteria for this list is quite poor, in that it is so inclusive as to include nearly everyone who ever worked much in the field, if every utterance of theirs was captured in a RS.  Thus it loses utility: if everyone has attribute X, the attribute X is not of much worth.  Also, when I see the title of the list I do not think of such broad inclusion. I thus find the title misleading.


 * In summary, any BLP problem should be easy to fix (and does not require an admin). I have issues with the inclusion criteria and from seeing the talk page I note I am not alone.  However, I admit the issue of inclusion is based on interpretation of a spectrum of gray, not only black and white, so it is not immediately clear to me what the ideal criteria would be.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool comments, your seem to be saying the article could use a rename and a redefinition of the inclusion criteria. I had a look at the list, I dislike lists anyway, and this one is an article disguised as a list, they all have their own article where all there details and positions already are, imo it is more trouble than it is worth. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I don't object to the name nor to the existence of the list, in that such a list with that name is useful and is a benefit to the project. But yes, the inclusion criteria seems very poor.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm how are the inclusion criteria poor? Note that your "everyone has attribute X" is incorrect - please look through all the archived material where this would get thoroughly debunked, in fact it is extremely hard to demonstrate attribute X - and in cases where attribute X is ambiguous the scientist gets removed immediately (there is one case on the talk page at the moment). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, when I compared what I actually meant in that illustration with the talk archives, it wasn't even close to debunked (I am sure you intended the pun ), rather there was quite a bit of discussion and several editors who share my concern seemed quite a bit more perturbed about the whole thing than I will allow myself to get. Anyway here is why I think it poor.  It is begging to be used as a soapbox for climate change deniers by allowing a very broad brush for inclusion. Consider this discussion. Given that it points out the uncertainties in even the most simplistic climate components, you have several discussants, some of them noted academics, talking about this or that not being known or understood. I read the current list to allow for most of those people to be eligible (by the comments alone if hypothetically they were scientists and that source was deemed acceptable). Yet when I read only the title of the list, I would think very few of those discussants would belong there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - i've now read the discussion there, and none that i can see would be eligible. The probability curve that Phil is talking about is captured in category 3 (note that Phil is only talking about doubling CO2 from pre-industrial (280ppm) - which would be 560ppm - we're at ~480ppm with an increase of 2ppm pr anno. The inclusion criteria is for definite statements: "Humans are not the cause of warming", "Most warming is from natural sources" etc. Ambiguous statements (and statements that are contradicted by other sources by the same person) lead to exclusion - not inclusion. As they should be per WP:BLP.
 * The reason that Alex is complaining is that when we categorize on the page, we are weighting the scientists opinion (we have to - there are very rarely absolutes) according to the reliable sources attributed to him/her. So for someone S. Fred Singer we place into the "warming is natural" category based (amongst others) on his book (which argues that the current warming is part of a 1,500 year cycle) - but Singer of course also by this belongs in other categories, which are a natural consequence of taking that view (accuracy of projections questionable, not significantly negative, ...)
 * Finally i think you should look back a bit further in the archives, since the last couple of months (since the 4th AfD have been rather unusual :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Forgive me if I do not follow your suggestion to look back further, only because I feel the BLP issue has been addressed (and that article/list is not one I want to get involved in). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Truthfully, the title itself can be disputed. "Mainstream" is not only subjective, but it may actually be misleading. And no, I'm not going to get into a lengthy dispute about it. Global warming is a religion to some people and I don't argue religion.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the whole thing, the hot potato, it is easy to know that there are many many issues around this subject at the wikipedia and something needs to be done about it, perhaps arbcom, it is similar to nationalistic problems and religious disputes, awful to get involved in. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't try to start up a debate on this :) - but we base the mainstream on (amongst others) that all major national and international scientific bodies state that it is the mainstream opinion (see Scientific opinion on climate change). But as within any area of science there will be minority opinions and grades of agreement, so the lists purpose is specifically to be a navigation list to those readers who interested in reading about opinions that disagree with this. Some of these will be mentioned in Global warming controversy, but others will not be (because they are small minority opinions, or shades of grey that can't be capture in detail in such an article. Hope that clears it up abit ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kim, some organizations do agree with the notion of man-made GW. And some of them were founded with that sole cause in mind, so should they be given as much weight as orgs that have been around long before the GW flap? What it amounts to is loudest/most vocal= "mainstream". We could really substitute the word "popular" for "mainstream" and it wouldn't be any more or less subjective, but it might actually be more honest. You know what I think would make in interesting article? If someone looked to see how many of those proponents of GW were also talking about the "next ice age" that the "mainstream scientific community" was predicting just a decade earlier. Now THAT would be some fun reading.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? First of all i wan't pointing out organizations, but scientific academies (ie. bodies). I'm not aware of any scientific academy (you know like the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) that is funded for any single purpose, and i believe that every one of them predates the existence of the IPCC or the US GCRP. In fact in many cases (if not most) they predate 1900. Its not a question of who is "loudest", since there isn't any scientific body that has expressed a different opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe if you had been more specific, then I would have responded differently. Still, many members of those bodies have expressed their disagreement with the notion. I also see reports of scientists who claim that funding, grants denied etc was withheld when they went against the GW flow. When I see that, I have to wonder how often it occurs. But I'm done here.... not going to get sucked into a lengthy debate. Happy editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

At least five editors have agreed - you note the dissenters. Who, apart from you, are the other 4 assenters? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while we're here, it would be nice if you could leave out the admin stuff, since Boris isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Woo
OTRS received an e-mail related to this article, which doesn't seem to generally by a BLP concern but which was hit by some nasty vandalism in November, here, which caused some understandable dismay (to contextualize this, since mostly it seems harmless and stupid, in some circles "Loli" is short for Lolita). This may have been aftermath of a vendetta, to judge by this. The article seems clear now, but this vandalism was undetected for far too long. I've added the article to my watchlist, but would appreciate additional eyes, especially since I am traveling over the pending holidays (and sometimes miss stuff, even though I try to keep my watchlist under 1,000). We don't want this coming back. Really. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. On a related note, does anyone know of a way to get emailed when certain articles are changed? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The closest approximation is to add the page(s) to your watchlist, then add your watchlist feed to a feed reader. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri
There has been an edit war over this material,, which has resulted in full page protection. I will repeat the statement being added here for easier discussion:


 * "There have been calls for his resignation in an open letter from Lord Christopher Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding due to the conflict of interests in which Pachauri is making money from carbon credit trading."

The citations being used for this are as follows:







Are there any valid BLP concerns with this statement or its citations? --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me ask the question another way, from a BLP perspective would there be any reason not to include the above statement citing the indicated sources? --GoRight (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just a standard partisan accusation. If it has legs we can add it, otherwise see WP:NOTNEWS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
On the talk page I found Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907. And I found this exchange: "5. This is not contentious BLP case, but many are trying to hide evidences to transform it in a contentious BLP case, using WP as an instrument.
 * Please read WP:BLP carefully. The Embraer pilots and the ATC controllers are living persons, accused of possible crimes. BLP applies to information about living persons anywhere on WP. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying nothing that contradicts WP:BLP, but you are, please read them carefully. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

I think we need to examine what has been said on the talk page to see if it is original research and therefore violates BLP. The article itself isn't the issue - it's the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Crum375 has the issue well in hand. If you're asking whether we should redact or remove the allegations Sdruvss posted on the Talk page, I think they are written in a tone of intellectual discussion and are probably OK for now. It's clear we are not making those allegations; we are simply discussing whether they should be included in the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion in the Talk Page is if a NTSB report of an aeronautical accident is a primary or secondary source. WP:NOR clearly describes that, facing the accident, NTSB team, pilots, and controllers declarations are primary source and a report endorsed by NTSB organization, published in their online library is secondary source. Crum375 is trying to turn the subject of the article into a debate of the report by itself. By this reasoning, NTSB report would be a primary source. I, on the contrary, want to describe the accident (not its investigation) as the subject of the article. With this strategy, Crum375 blocks all edits that quote NTSB because NTSB would be a primary source. This is against WP policies, and turns the article biased and partisan because he uses selectively unreliable "secondary sources" (in his concept, because, in reality, they are tertiary sources). I hope WP understand that, and I hope others can help me to make it a better article. Sdruvss (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the report is a primary source. We need reliable secondary sources that interpret the report to use here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Spike, WP:NOR argues that "Primary sources are sources very close to an event, for example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". This characterizes explicitly that NTSB is a secondary source. And WP makes it clearer "A primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study". I highlight "was created at the time under study". What is under study is the accident of September, 2006 and the report was produced in December, 2008. In the Unisist Model of Information Dissemination that supports and is cited by WP, it says that primary sources make “Selection, Production and Distribution” and their product are books and journals (when published) and thesis and reports (not published). In this model the NTSB team of researchers is primary source. As can be noted further in the model, secondary sources make Analysis, Storage and Dissemination throughout Libraries, Information Centers and Data Centers. In this model, NTSB Library is the secondary source, they assure primary source intellectual production authenticity; they assure that the report (of a primary source) is endorsed by the NTSB organization. And, as it is absolutely clear in this model, that Tertiary Services (as WP) make Reviews, Syntheses, etc.. And more, we should not interpret the report to use here to describe the accident. The accident report is not the subject of the article, the subject is the accident. This is not a matter of opinion, and it is consolidated in academic research. Regards Sdruvss (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Would you concede that if we are making a contentious claim about a living person (such as the pilots or ground crew) that we should seek a reliable secondary source other than, or in addition to, the NTSB report? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As WhisperToMe and I tried to explain to Sdruvss on the article talk page, for contentious BLP cases, such as this case, even greater care is needed in source selection and use than normal articles. In this case, the NTSB and CENIPA investigative reports were written by the investigators themselves, and contain a large amount of raw and detailed information. These government reports are of very high quality but are primary sources, because they are close to the investigation itself. To analyze, interpret, compare or summarize them, we would need high quality secondary sources. In the current version of the article, we do rely on and link to the government reports, but use the secondary sources, such as The New York Times and Aviation Week to analyze, interpret and compare them, esp. their more contentious aspects. I believe this is the correct way to use sources, i.e. rely on the high quality secondary sources to interpret and analyze the primary ones to avoid original research. This article has undergone an extensive review by numerous experienced editors prior to its promotion to featured article, and any changes, esp. ones which could violate BLP or the sourcing policies, should be done carefully, to avoid losing that status. Crum375 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all making any contentious claim about a living person. Neither am I analyzing, interpreting, comparing or summarizing final reports. I strongly believe that reports should not be interpreted or compared. I'm quoting the reports to describe the accident, exactly as Crum375 did, and which is completely different of what is said above. And as WP says "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing". The subject of the article it is not report comparing; is the accident description. Sdruvss (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous bits of data in the primary government reports, many (if not most) of which are critical of living persons. To pick out individual pieces would be to promote them over other points and issues, thereby creating original research. In a contentious WP:BLP case such as this one, we need to let secondary sources do this selective analysis for us. Crum375 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that there are events and facts quoted from reliable sources that can change what readers think? Is that why I can't edit the article? This is censoring. Sdruvss (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Now Crum375 went too far. He wrote in Talk Page: "The main differentiator between primary and secondary sources is distance from the information being reported. So if a scientist collects data and reports on his results, it would generally be a primary source for those results because he is very close to them. If some other publication describes that experiment and puts it in perspective, it would be secondary". Now, he describes scientific research as primary source. If a scientist makes research, he reports his results in scientific journals (secondary source). He makes evident he doesn't know anything about primary and secondary sources or scientific methodology. I expect that WP takes needed measures to avoid this article manipulation and keep WP reliability. Sdruvss (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who read carefully this article talk page will verify that Crum375 is manipulating it. Wiki2wk (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, when Crum375 doesn't have arguments, he writes: "Sdruvss, as I tried to explain to you several times in the past, on Wikipedia we consider a primary report to be...". Sdruvss (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How would a report published by a scientist in a journal be a secondary source? It's still coming from the person who originated the content by performing the research. A secondary source would be, for instance, another scientist commenting on the original report. X X X antiuser 19:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Antiuser, This is a not contentious issue in academic environment and to scientific methodology. WP:NOR, secondary source and peer review explains very well these issues.  When a scientific research is submitted to a journal, it starts a process of validating the procedures and methods that were applied by the researcher. When the research is published in a journal, it turns to be a secondary source. Primary source is just what the researcher used to make his research. Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. I believe the issue at hand here is addressed by the first paragraph of the article on secondary sources:
 * Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.
 * In this case, the NTSB and CENIPA reports are considered primary sources because of their sheer size. The purpose of Wikipedia is to condense and provide an unbiased summary of facts and findings in encyclopaedic format, and editing is to be done as neutral and sensibly as possible. I don't see anything in that article that makes it, as you put it, "an annex to Joe Sharkey's blog". The only quote in the article attributed to Sharkey is his account of the moment the Legacy was hit by the 737. I have read Sharkey's blog and was as outraged as you are, but I believe the article is properly edited and provides a neutral point of view account of the accident and its aftermath. The information you provide needs to be interpreted and edited in order to fit into the encyclopaedic format of the article. Since living persons are involved (both pilots and ATC personnel), one must tread lightly when editing such extensive information. That's where secondary and tertiary sources come in handy. X X X antiuser 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear AntiUser, You said very clearly: the way the reports are used. Crum375 wants to use final reports as the subject of the article. He wants to analyze, summarize and interpret the reports. So its correct that they are primary source (material) to be used by a researcher (a magazine reporter, Pedicini for instance, that Crum375 likes very much), that makes news or a article in a magazine as Aviation Week (secondary source), whose publisher is used by Joe Sharkey. OK, but the subject of the article is not the Report of the Accident, but the Accident. Thereof, the primary source are the documents, artifacts, testimonials, declarations, rules, gathered during the investigation, which the team of researchers used to produce the report, and that had a peer review and was published by CENIPA and NTSB, becoming a secondary source. I claim not turning the subject of the article from the Accident to the Accident Report. All my interventions were to describe better the accident, the facts not in dispute by anyone. Nothing that was in dispute was included in the issues that I pointed. Issues not even specific of the accident, as the link between transponder and secondary radar, and that UZ6 has a heading of 336º to Manaus. Crum375 believes that these technical and geographic issues are contentious and advance a position. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sdruvss, the CENIPA and NTSB reports might be technically secondary sources, but for the purposes of encyclopaedic use within Wikipedia, they are to be treated as primary, since they are the closest possible to the facts. Crum doesn't "want" anything - the article isn't solely his work. He is a major contributor, as am I. In fact, a lot of the points you raised in the article's talk page refer to my contributions and sources that I myself have added - and I was using Globo.com as my main source of information in the days immediately following the accident (I am fluent in Portuguese and have some knowledge of aviation jargon and procedures). Whether Sharkey has links to Aviation Week or Pedicini, I don't know. The fact is there seems to be no bias whatsoever in the article. You are nitpicking at the smallest hints of competence by the pilots and glazing over everything else. That is neither neutral nor encyclopaedic. X X X antiuser 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear AntiUser, You use the expression: "You are nitpicking at the smallest hints of competence by the pilots...". Would you mind quote one of my comments that we can verify your affirmative. My "smallest hints" are: 1) That secondary radar relies on transponder signal not explained in the article; 2) Why controllers were confounded by aircraft level not explained; 3) "Unusual" flight level of aircraft, said by NTSB; 4) Distraction of the crew, described in many pages of CENIPA report; 5) Inexperience of crew with avionics. All these facts are deeply explained in CENIPA and NTSB reports, Estadao, Folha, Globo, Veja and all Brazilian media. They are not disputed by anyone and are completely omitted in your article. Regards.
 * Note: "Whether Sharkey has links to Aviation Week or Pedicini, I don't know", but you should know, if they are your "reliable source". Pedicine is the author of your reference, and he is cited many times in Sharkey's blog as "my correspondent in Sao Paulo". Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sdruvss, Pedicini is not the author of my source, neither is Sharkey's blog. My sources were Globo.com, Folha de S. Paulo, the BBC and CNN. All mainstream media sources - I just happened to use mostly Brazilian ones since they were updating faster and with more news than the international ones. As for what I meant by "nitpicking at the smallest hints" I meant that you seem to be clinging to the fact that the pilots' technical background and flight hours are mentioned in the article, and some of those are simulator hours. If you have reliable secondary or tertiary sources that substantiate your assertions, by all means, add them! Just make sure they're not blog posts or opinion articles, but bona fide news articles. Just be warned that dubious information or assertions that might violate WP:BLP might be reverted and brought to the talk page until a consensus is reached. That's how Wikipedia works. It just so happens that Crum has been the most active contributor to this article, so he's the one raising the (valid, by the way) objections to the information you wish to add. I'll gladly contribute to the debate once I have the time. X X X antiuser 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear AntiUser, you should note that the author of your source Aviation Week article is Richard Pedicini, who wrote the article you referenced (NTSB, Cenipa at Odds over Midair Accident Report) to analyse CENIPA/NTSB reports. Joe Sharkey, that runs a blog in pilots defense, describes him many times as “my correspondent in Sao Paulo” and this is how Globo describes Pedicini “The American Richard Pedicini [...] was on Friday (8) to the headquarters of the Superintendent of the Federal Police of São Paulo, [...], to assist pilots Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino. He attended the Federal Police in a suit, tie and panama hat and a mustache similar to Santos Dumont. "What better time to do a tribute to Santos Dumont?" he suggested. Do we need the reliable Santos Dumont spirit to analyze, summarize and interpret CENIPA/NTSB reports? And New York Times is where Joe Sharkey is hired and publishes his articles. Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not reference that article anywhere. Like I said, my sources were Globo, Terra, Estadão, the BBC and CNN. That one must've been added by someone else. The fact still stands, though, that Aviation Week is a reputable publication. If you want to raise an objection as to the objectivity of that source, you are free to do so on the talk page, but do expect resistance. I believe I might have found a compromise to keep the article balanced while addressing some of your valid concerns, and I will post it on the article's talk page. X X X antiuser 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear AntiUser, maybe not you but the WP Gol 1907 article. It is the reference 48. This issue is been addressed here. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

EDL
A question (and objection) has been raised as to material imncluded on a page about this organisation []. Does BLP apply to "to organisations when they are founded, run and consist of a membership of living people, especially when the allegations apply to those people."?Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already attempted to resist the inclusion of the content due to the quality of the sources, and if it is also now being resisted as a BLP issue it seems to be clearly controversial and One Night in Hackney has imo made a very good case for its removal under BLP protection on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So the answer is yes BLP does extend to orgsanisations. I also belive that the sources were considerd acceptable by community consnesus (at least on the BNP page).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the Reliable sources board, here is a link if people want to read that discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would point out thnat the material removed (and the sources used) make no mention of any living person, they talk about the organisation, they do not name any one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see that.. is this the citations and the content in question...: In an audio message, the BNP's Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a "Zionist false flag operation" and a "neo-con operation." They also claimed that the creation of the EDL was an attempt to provoke a low-level civil war http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/105162/Oh-it-s-our-fault-is-it-mr-griffin-We-cop-the-blame http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2009/09/putting-down-marker.html .Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Abecedare made this comment that still seems to be an issue? Daily Star article (rightly) attributes the comments to Griffin alone and doesn't even mention Darby. Am I missing something here ? Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you elaberate, what don't you see, that the sourde was largley considerd RS, and acceptable or that it does not name any one in connection with the accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be still attributing the comments to both men? Simon Darby and Nick Griffin are both explicitly named? Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the comment is not about them, it is being attributed to them. The page is not about that (though it is about a group they have been accused of having links to, links this comment is in part designed to disprove (on thier part)). So naming them as having made this comment cannot be seen as a BLP violation. As to restructuring the passage, that is unrelated to the question of the passage itself being a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, IMO One night in Hackney has made a very good case on the talkpage there, a good rule is if in doubt leave it out, lets see if other opinions are added here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue with this material. The EDL is not a living person. It would be absurd if criticism of a political organisation were to be removed on BLP grounds. The quote should be attributed only to the person who actually said it, however. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You completely misunderstand BLP. It applies to organisations which were founded, are run, and have a membership consisting of living people. I'm unsure about other countries, but UK libel laws apply equally to organsations see for example McLibel.


 * The allegations made by a person with a conviction for racist offences and a history of Holocaust denial fail WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE.


 * The source described Griffin as "bonkers" and his claims as "loony conspiracies". According to the source, the conspiracies in question are that the owners of national newspapers in the Britain secretly formed the English Defence League in order to "start a civil war on the streets of Britain, which would somehow allow Western countries to launch a nuclear war against Arab states". I'm sorry but those are incredibly serious accusations per BLP regardless of whether anyone is named or not, as it refers to various people who are clearly living. People do not have to be named in order to be a BLP violation, a comment such as "The United Colleges of Grimsby" are a fraudulent educational organisation seeking to rip off prospective students by supplying them with worthless degrees" then it is still accusing the people running it of criminal activity, even though they are not named. Whether people are named is irrelevant, if you accuse of an organisation owned and run by living people of anything controversial it's still a BLP violation. That's before we even go near WP:FRINGE, since the source describes the claims as "loony conspiracies". Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe BLP violating views such as these, especially when they relate to third parties. 2 lines of K  303  14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All organisations are made up of people. But BLP does not apply to organisations, regardless of whether they might be considered legal persons in any particular jurisdiction. See WP:BLP. Claims about the United Colleges of Grimsby, for example, cannot be excluded under WP:BLP. The just need to pass WP:V. --FormerIP (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you haven't read the discussion or the content in question despite having readded it. The allegations refer to specific living people, i.e., the people that formed the EDL, hence a violation of BLP. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, from WP:BLP: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebublican Jacobite: No. Any claim about an organisation might be indirectly a claim about its management, board, members, etc. To follow that line of reasoning would be to ignore the policy. No living persons are identified in the quote and there is no information which might allow for the identification of any individuals who the speaker might be referring to. There is no identifiable living person, so there is no BLP issue.
 * ukexpat: I don't understand the relevance of that quote from the policy. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to find a line in the BLP rules about stamtents that do not actualy name an individaul, and I could not find anything. The plociy reads as if its aimed at specific and direct statments, not general statment about an organisation. Now does the rule that states that the BLP rule does not extend to corperations also extent to poitical groups?Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was merely quoting from the policy to show that it does not apply only to biographical articles, a common misunderstanding. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But the policy also does not apply to corporate entities, now is the EDL such an entity?Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← WP:BLP may be construed, through custom and practice, as applying to any information which may have any significant impact on a living individual. Wikilawyering about the margins is a really bad idea, the best course of action is to err on the side of caution and to take the most conservative interpretation. If you want to ask for a definitive answer then there aren't many sources, I've asked Jimbo in the past and that's always an option, though I tend to reserve it for the most serious cases. Here I recommend that you tread extremely carefully with respect to groups that inspire strong feelings, which in practice means insisting on the best quality independent secondary sources and attributing all editorial statements and opinions. Be wary also of giving undue weight to any extreme POV. This is, incidentally, my general advice on the topic and not specific to the case at issue, which I have not yet looked at in detail. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Griffin was commenting on a group that he has been linked to. As such I would argue that his opinions whilst extreame are not undue, after all the EDL and the BNP have been claimed as secretly linked. |Now if Mr Griffins views on the EDl are not relevant (or are regared as fringe views) then surley the link between the two groups must be at least as weak (if not weaker), and as such only fringe theory. What we have at this time is a situation were Mr Griffin's organisation (which he is soley repsonsilbe for) has been li8nke dto this gruop but his views (repeated here[] and here [] Neither mof these are linked to the BNP. Also the material was attributed to Mr Griffin.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMo Guy has summed the situation up very well. Weak cites, related to living people, giving weight to an extreme claim. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guy was quite exlicit in saying that he was not attempting to sum up the situation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would say he has if you included his comments at the other locations this has been commented on. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean where he says "Explicitly attributed to Griffin it probably does not inherently violate WP:BLP"? (Sorry to go round quoting you, Guy). --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of people who have actually either not read or properly understood the source is quite staggering. The source says Griffin claims the owner of two newspapers (who is not a corporation and is very much living) is part of a conspiracy that aims to start a civil war followed by a nuclear war on Arab states. That he is not named isn't relevant, that's equivalent to saying "chairman of the BNP" doesn't refer to Nick Griffin! And even if you get round the WP:BLP problems, there's also the WP:V and WP:FRINGE issues. 2 lines of K  303  11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick Griffin is the person making the claim, not the subject of it. Nobody has tried to insert any information into the article about a newspaper proprietor. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So its a BLP violation if we attribute his quote to him?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should not use this single isolated weakly cited comment from Nick Griffen to assert the position that the EDL is a part of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying that if we keep the claimm that the EDL is a BNP front then Mr Gri9ffins views and statments on the EDl cannot be considerd fringe. He has been accused of being secretly in charge, as such his views must be considerd relevant and pertinant. This is not some random comments by some fly by night by-election joke candidate. This is a comment made by one of this countries most notable (but not for all the right reasons) ellected officals about an organisation he has been indirectly accused of setting up (in the article, the off article accusations are rather more direct). Quoted within more then one source (at least one of which is RS).Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)