Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive83

Talk:Carrie Prejean
- repeated unsourced accusation using a term with specific legal meaning on talk page in reference to an individual mentioned in article. Attempted to delete such references with explanation, but those edits were immediately reverted by another editor. // Nat Gertler (talk)
 * Admin NatGertler is attempting to control the debate about the Carrie Prejean article. Admin NatGertler believes that it is ok and proper to quote directly the hate-filled speech of Prez Hilton toward Ms. Prejean in the Wikipedia article in direct contravention of the BLP and NPOV requirements of Wikipedia.  He is for the full quote and there are editors who are reasonably against the quote.  Admin NatGertler is now using his Admin position to intimidate and control the discussion so that he can impose his POV on the article.  This type of tactic with editors has been going on for about one year in this article.  It was recently brought up on Jimbo's talk page and Admin NatGertler believed that to be inappropriate, etc.  Admin NatGertler has a direct conflict of interest in this situation and he needs to drop out and let another Admin handle it.  This type of bullying and intimidation by admins is unacceptable.  He is NOT a disinterested three party.  He is attempting to impose his viewpoint on the article, which violated NPOV.  Also, the direct quotation of Hilton's hate-filled speech is a violation of BLP.  And finally the constant piling on Ms. Prejean has turned the article into a coatrack.--InaMaka (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please calm down, do you have a citation reliable that attributes that this speech is a hate filled speech, if that is your personal opinion you need to stop asserting it all over the place. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I'm not going to "calm down" since I am already perfectly calm. You might not like what I said but that has nothing to with whether I am perfectly calm.  You don't know if I a "calm" or not.  I don't even know you.  I'm actually lying in bed right quietly as possible.  How is my emotional state have anything to do with Mr. Hilton's hate-filled speech?  That is silly.  Try sticking to the issue and not my heart rate.  It is not only my personal opinion, which I have a right to state, it also the opinion of the famous columnist Liz Smith and others. You can review Ms Smith's reference here: Liz Smith comments on Hilton's hate speech.--InaMaka (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its enough to make me apply for admin status, policy stops me commenting how I feel about this. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (1)"[H]e called her a 'dumb bitch' and drew a dick shooting cum on her face. [...] why hasn't anybody thought to call him on his [...] misogyny?" -- Anna North, Why Does Perez Hilton Get A Pass On Misogyny?, Jezebel, Jun 23, 2009.
 * Misogyny: a hatred of women. -- Merriam-Webster.
 * (2)"Robert Siciliano, a cyber crime expert, says Hilton’s sexist rant is feeding into a growing problem online—hateful, sexist, racist rants.
 * [...]
 * Hilton, a judge for Miss USA, lashed out on his website, calling Prejean the “B” word after she told him during the Miss USA pageant she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Since then, he’s taken the name calling to another level, saying in a TV interview, he really wanted to call Prejean the “C” word.
 * [...] Siciliano says it's a warning people like Hilton should heed before they use hateful words online." -- Carol Costello, Online hate speech, CNN, April 22, 2009. -- Rico  20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the deal for the uninitiated. The underlying debate is whether the Carrie Prejean article should quote that Perez Hilton called her a "dumb bitch" as part of his tirade in response to her answer to the question he posed at the 2009 Miss America pageant, which controversy propelled Ms. Prejean to the front pages of news websites for months to follow.  Editors have varying opinions on the talk page.  InaMaka has today taken the a new tack asserts that the term "dumb bitch" (which a search shows appears in other unrelated wikipedia articles) is hate speech.--Milowent (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (Minor edit added in light of below comment from InaMaka--Milowent (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC))
 * No. Milowent is absolutely wrong.  I have called Hilton's hate-filled speech "hate speech" for over a year.  I have stated this in the edit summaries, on the Prejean talk page, on Jimbo's talk page--over fifty times.  Now, that an Admin has come along and he is determined to be put the whole quote in the article that admin has decided that I cannot call Mr. Hilton hate-filled speech "hate speech" even though there are famous folks such as Liz Smith who have already called it that.  Also, Milowent leaves out of his summary the fact that at one point in time the article quoted the "db" quote five different times.  Also, Milowent is leaving out of his summary that Milowent and Admin NatGertler have been quoting Hilton's hate-filled speech directly over and over again in on the talk page and in Hilton's article.  So basically Milowent and Admin NatGertler have decided that they are going to take the tactic of stopping me from calling Hilton's words hate speech just Liz Smith did but it is ok for them to quote "dumb bitch" word for word.  And finally Milowent left out of his selective summary the fact that Jimbo has called the Prejean article a coatrack.--InaMaka (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Over a year, incredulous, wikipedia is doomed to be destroyed by such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To correct a couple of things here: No, I am not an admin. No, violating BLP repeatedly for over a year does not make it all right. And no, Liz Smith is not a reliable source on legal matters. You want to say Hilton's speech strikes you as filled with hate, fine. But the term you used has specific meanings in the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stalking" has a legal definition too, but I get 19,335 hits for "stalking"in Wikipedia talk pages. Do I need to cite "a reliable source on legal matters," before writing that someone is stalking me? -- Rico  21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Of course, you don't need a reliable source to state your opinion. People state their opinions all over the place on Wikipedia.  Editor NatGertler just wants to control the debate and shut down our BLP concerns.  But we all must remember that the article must be written from a NPOV and adding sensationalistic tabloid type of information in not allowed on Wikipedia and repeating the potentially defamatory material of another is NOT acceptable according the BLP rules.  At no time has Nat Gertler provided an explanation of how the quote makes the article better--other than it was said.  People say things all the time.  The only reason that Nat Gertler has given is that Hilton made the comment and we can reliable source it.  That is NOT an reason why it doesn't violate BLP or NPOV.  It is merely pointing out that it is reliably sourced.  This argument that "db" needs to be quoted in the article has not been fully explained.  Yes, it is sensationalistic and yes it is sexist and yes it is mysogonistic but it is NOT necessary or helpful.  We can express Hilton's hatred of Prejean's comments without quoting him word for word.  We do not have to create an attack page or a coatrack to do it either.  There are other less tabloid ways to get the point across without assisting Hilton in his attack on Prejean.--InaMaka (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If any accusation can be sloughed off with a "that's just my opinion"... well, we could do away with BLP policy altogether then. As for your inventions about my motivations and your blatantly false descriptions of my Talk page posts, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you wish to discuss concerns over the inclusion of the Hilton quote on the Carrie Prejean page, that should be a separate discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked at your talk page, and I don't see where InaMaka has made any descriptions of your Talk page posts.
 * I looked in the following sections:
 * T:Ssm (Talk:Same sex marriage)
 * Traditional_Marriage_Movement
 * Same-sex_marriage
 * SSM (Same sex marriage)
 * NOM (National Organization for Marriage)
 * Same_Sex_Marriage
 * Marriage
 * Please_comment_and_give_your_opinion_as_an_active_editor_of_homosexuality-related_articles_on_English_Wikipedia.2C_thank_you_very_much
 * Marriage
 * Question (about the bio of the leader about the National Organization for Marriage)
 * Proposed_deletion_of_Lauren_Ashley (another beauty pageant contestant that said marriage is between a man and a woman)
 * You say that they're "they are irrelevant to the topic at hand," but I have objectively proven that almost all of the editors that have fought for the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person have shown interest in gay/same-sex marriage. (Skip down to the bullet points.) You have consistently fought for using the 'encyclopedia' article to vilify Miss Prejean, who said marriage was between a man and a woman. Coincidence? -- Rico  03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Being that I have not fought for Carrie Prejean being an attack coatrack, but merely being precise on the items it covers, your supposedly objective analysis really does not impact me. I have not fought to villify anyone. It is not surprising that editors involved in gay marriage discussions will come to this topic, as there are relevant links back and forth in the articles. And the concerns about the description of my Talk page posts refer to Talk:Carrie Prejean, not any user talk page posts, and InaMaka's incorrect comment here "At no time has Nat Gertler provided an explanation of how the quote makes the article better--other than it was said. People say things all the time.  The only reason that Nat Gertler has given is that Hilton made the comment and we can reliable source it."; sorry if that confused you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rico has acurrately exposed Nat Gertler's biased editing patterns. I agree completely with Rico that Nat Gertler, and nearly all of the editors who share his left-wing poltical beliefs, have fought long and hard to use the article on Miss Prejean as an attack page/coatrack to further an agenda. It's no coincidence. One look at the history in the links Rico posted reveals this. It should be noted here that Nat Gertler successfully managed to get the Traditional Marriage Movement (a group who believes in traditional heterosexual marriage) article deleted. Coincidence? I don't think so. Furthermore, his edits on National Organization for Marriage is worrisome in my humble opinion. I strongly believe Mr. Gertler is unable to edit in a NPOV manner when it comes to any subject that opposes homosexual marriage. The Miss Prejean article is only one of many examples.  Caden   cool  18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That "Nat Gertler, and nearly all of the editors who share his left-wing poltical beliefs, have fought long and hard to use the article on Miss Prejean as an attack page/coatrack to further an agenda" flies pretty hard in the face of my actual record on this article. Checking the history, I've been editing on it less than a month. My edits during that time have included such things as repeatedly reverting the addition of discussion of breast implants to a section header, and such highly uncontroversial things as correcting punctuation errors, correcting the name of the pageant where it was misrepresented, correcting the spelling of "Christian"... and yes, there were places where I called for more precision, but it was part of the same effort, an effort to improve the article. And yes, I proposed the deletion of the "Traditional Marriage Movement" article, as I (and enough of the other people who voiced in on the AfD) couldn't find sufficient evidence that it existed as a notable "movement" - but I have helped with the article that replaced it, Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Milowent, here are some other things you left out:
 * You wrote, "I think Carrie is an idiot,", put in the article that "some reports have noted that teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for sending such tapes," and substituted polling for a discussion -- voting that it should be in the BLP that an openly gay gossip blogger called her a "dumb bitch."
 * You can't just write in the article that Miss Prejean is a "dumb bitch," but can report that someone else said it, if enough Wikipedians want that. Then an admin can come along and declare, "Consensus seems to favor inclusion", and restore the disputed content -- even though HARM states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and Biographies of living persons states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."
 * You argued, "'Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing'). I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article." Another editor thanked you for your "great objective research," and bought into your idea of "creat[ing] a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article."
 * There have been dozens of editors and admins that have not been editing to create an encyclopedia article, but to create an attack coatrack of a living person. -- Rico  04:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am proud of my work to defend this article and I am shocked and appalled at your selective mischaracterization of the total body of my edits to this article. I demand an immediate retraction to be published forthwith!   Yes, I do think Carrie is an idiot, yet I fought against the worst bile that was being inserted back when I was active on the article.  The "problem", if you will, was that reliable sources were reporting on the material you dislike.  When Carrie said she was 17 at the time she made the little videos (which she was lying about), that caused reports about how other teens have gotten in trouble for the same behavior.  And, yes, one rabid editor accepted my sarcastic suggestion that we create a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article.  None of the drama you are stirring up surprises me.  You can head over to James O'Keefe and attack my efforts to corral both extremes there as well.--Milowent (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you Milowent. What Rico posted above is quite true. Your body of edits speak for itself. Furthermore, by you calling Miss Prejean an "idiot" and your idea of creating an article called Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video, speaks volumes about you. I personally find your idea of such a BLP violation and your insults on Miss Prejean apalling.  Caden  cool  18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The underlying deal is that Miss Prejean said this and the openly gay gossip blogger, that asked the question, said this. -- Rico  21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the core of it all.--Milowent (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then she was exiled from the after-party. -- Rico  08:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Does BLP proscribe quoting what JTF-GTMO wrote about Abu Bakker Qassim?
Abu Bakker Qassim was a Uyghur captive in Guantanamo -- one of the first five to have been determined to be innocent, in 2005.

The initial determination that five of these men were innocent, while the other 17 had their enemy combatant status confirmed was controversial, because critics noted that that the five who were determined to be innocent, and the 17 who were confirmed to be enemies faced essentially the same allegations and essentially the same evidence. Back in 2004, when these individuals Combatant Status Review Tribunals were underway, some interagency memos were exchanged between Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and OARDEC. JTF-GTMO was the agency responsible for the Guantanamo captives detention and interrogation. OARDEC, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, was created in 2004 when the SCOTUS ordered independent reviews of the determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants".

I found one of the memos buried in a large file, and I put it on wikisource -- Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO. This memo has a short paragraph about each of the Uyghur captives.

I quoted some of those brief paragraphs in the articles of the captive it applied to. Here is what JTF-GTMO wrote to OARDEC about Abu Bakr Qasim
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher [sic] people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan.
 * Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher [sic] people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan.

Even though when the SCOTUS ordered that the Guantanamo captives access to habeas corpus be restored, the DoJ and DoD quietly acknowledged that they were no longer prepared to argue they had evidence to justify labelling these men enemy combatants, there are some US politicians and some commentators who continue to describe them as terrorists.
 * }

What JTF-GTMO wrote about these men is important. I suggest that we don't want to follow the practice prevalent in Stalin's time of making inconvenient information simply disappear.

User:Iqinn has removed those short paragraphs from the articels on the Uyghurs. On December 18, 2009, The edit summary for removing the section states: "rm - strong BLP concern - the removed part is a misinterpretation and misrepresantation of a questionable primary source - I see this issue as taken to the talk page where i left a message"

After he responded to the points left on the talk page another contributor reverted the excision 2 days later.

Three months later, on March 20, 2010, Iqinn excised the passage a second time, with an essantially identical edit summary. I restored it to status quo ante with the edit summary: "reverting per WP:Reverting -- see talk" Iqinn excised the material a third time, with the edit summary: "do not revet controversial material back into the article that violates BLP policies - fix the problems or discuss on the talk page" Another contributor subsequently changed it back.

On the talk page Iqinn told me I was "edit warring". He said he was going to bring the issue to BLPN. Ultimately, it doesn't look he has done so.

After that long preable I have a few questions:
 * 1) Does anyone agree that BLP authorized the removal of this material?
 * 2) How seriously should one take the advice of WP:Reverting, in general? And specifically, when should BLP over-ride the advice of WP:Reverting?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am trying to understand exactly what is the issue, is it this content? If it is then where is it cited to? Content removed in good faith and with the desire to protect living people should not be replaced without a community consensus here or on the talkpage of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher [sic] people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan


 * That is the passage in question.
 * The source is a 7 page document found on pages 28-34 of http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/publicly_filed_CSRT_records_1731-1808.pdf#28-34 and manually transcribed to wikisource by yours truly Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)




 * }
 * There seems to be no BLP problem here. It appears that BLP and the cited passage may have been misunderstood. Whether and how much of such a source is appropriate is for the article talk page, but this is labelled extract from a clearly relevant official source discussing a detainee.  As long as we quote and attribute it correctly and make clear allegations are just that, there is no problem.John Z (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But that is the problem here it that it is quoted and attributed in a misleading way. I have listed the problems on the Talk:Abu_Bakker_Qassim. But instead of addressing the arguments and problems the content has just been reinserted in a misleading way that violates BLP that should be discussed and fixed before reinserting. I have listed the problem on the talk page:

But instead of discussing the arguments they started an edit war and did not address any of these problems and did not engage into a discussion about these issues. IQinn (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if other contributors were to weigh in, and confirm or refute Iqinn's interpretation of whether this paragraph lapses from compliance with BLP.


 * I honestly believe that User:Sherurcij already addressed all the concerns Iqinn first stated on 2009-12-18, and repeated on 2009-12-20. Rather than offering meaningful and substantive counter-arguments Iqinn has simply repeated his original concerns, word-for-word, for the third time.


 * I dispute that I have misrepresented Iqinn's arguments.


 * As to whether the short paragraph in question was quoted in a misleading way -- the document has a single short paragraph on Abu Bakr Qassim. That paragraph is quoted in full.  So its use in that article is not misleading.  Iqinn hates his previous comments being quoted.  And he hates being paraphrased -- even when a good faith contributor's paraphrase is a good faith attempt to clarify what Iqinn really meant by a comments that was unclear, ambiguous, or interally contradictory.  I think it necessary to paraphrase Iqinn here.  It seems to me that Iqinn routinely calls the use of WP:RS "misleading", "unreliable", "questionable", "POV", when what he really means is that he personally  does not recognize what the underlying WP:RS says as credible.  He routinely uses these terms when I think he isn't challenging that our material is accurately and neutrally covering what WP:RS say, but when he doesn't want what those WP:RS say to be covered in the wikipedia at all.  I have tried to explain this to Iqinn in many other discussions -- WP:NPOV and WP:VER make our personal intrepretations of the credibility of what WP:RS say irrelevant.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * '''Uuuu... one more example of user Geo Swan's uncivil posts full of paraphrasing, lies, personal attacks and ad hominum arguments without addressing any of the six points concerning the content issue and without delivering valid counter arguments. User Sherurcij has reinserted this material without prior discussion, consensus and without fixing any of these problems.


 * Yes i can confirm Geo Swan constantly paraphrases other editors in a misleading uncivil way and he has done it here as well. Yes and people have assumed good faith for a long time and they have ask user Geo Swan in a friendly way many times to stop this undesirable behavior but assuming good faith has limits so he should be warned now that he can be blocked for this kind of uncivil behavior.


 * Once again stop your uncivil behavior and address the given arguments concerning the content issue. IQinn (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussions in fora in the wikipedia name space, and on articles' talk pages, are supposed to be confined to editorial issues, and not stray into issues of personal conflict. Iqinn asserts that he is being misrepresented so often I have decided not to offer specific replies to each assertion.  Instead I decided to link to a single reply on his talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to give a specific reply to my assertion of paraphrasing, lies, personal attacks and ad hominum arguments that occurred in your comment above. The post above is self evidence. To extend your ad hominum campaign onto my talk page won't help. What would help would be not to repeat your uncivil behavior in future debates. Please address the content issue instead of attacking people. Nothing in your reply here addresses the content issue. No valid counter arguments that addresses the six content problems that i have listed. IQinn (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Azeezaly Jaffer
This article needs a lot of work. Woogee (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Content was a copyright violation. I have stubbed it back to within an inch of its life, feel free to expand or prod, limited notability postmaster general in the US anthrax attacks, one event type stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Brown
The article on Ronald Brown (mathematician) contains some false statements, but in particular it states that I am openly gay:

I am unclear where this idea came from! I can name at least one other to whom this would apply. Let it be said here (but not on wikipedia) that my wife and I now live happily in Deganwy, having married in 1958; we have 8 children (one unfortunately lost in a climbing accident) and 8 grandchildren, much of whom form a happy band, who visit us regularly.

signed:

Ronald Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnieBrown (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * that appears to have been vandalism, or at the very least uncited content, which has been corrected by User:Off2riorob. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have removed the uncited claim of sexual preference and have added it to my watchlist, the article could do with a bit of improvement, if there are any wikipedian mathematics editors watching. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilda Solis
Regarding, the editor , an WP:SPA and I would guess WP:COI, has inserted four times — here, here, here, and here — material about Solis that is derogatory and contentious and poorly sourced and given undue weight. Three of the cites supposedly supporting this material are from labor union advocacy websites, which are not even close to being WP:RS. The fourth cite is a WP:PRIMARY transcript that contains a mention of a minor work rules issue being raised at a town hall meeting. No mainstream newspaper or other WP:RS has reported at all on this supposed matter. Yet User:Labor reporter believes it deserves two paragraphs in the Solis article, and in three of the edits it was accompanied by a spurious photograph of an inflatable rat. I have explained at length to this editor why these sources and material additions are no good at User talk:Wasted Time R, but he or she is willfully not getting it. (The discussion was held there because this editor has made the same edits to the United States Department of Labor article.) I have now run out of reverts on this matter, and am looking for BLP assistance. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronald F. Maxwell
Allegations of Anti-Hispanic views against Ronald F. Maxwell, with bolded rebuttal. (Wasn't me - All I wanted to do was categorize him as being a person from Clifton, New Jersey.) KConWiki (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe he really does hold certain views along those lines. In any event, I want to invite multiple sets of eyes to review that page. KConWiki (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, neither of those sources appear reliable. I've done some more searching around with this one and found this article from the Huffington Post. Interestingly enough, Maxwell does seem to support strict border control. What's in the article is definitely a stretch, though, as far as I can see. In the HP article, Maxwell appears to have similar beliefs. "[...] we must create the conditions, humane and non-coercive to be sure, to respectfully permit the millions of illegal aliens already here to re-patriate, to gradually find their way back to their own native countries, to their own ancestral homes, to their own special corner of the earth, under their own set of stars -- reunited with their own families -- with our financial assistance, with our understanding, and yes, with our love."  ceran  thor 18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this is irrelevant to the article, really, I'm going to remove that portion.  ceran  thor 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Cowlishaw
On March 31, 2010, Tim Cowlishaw mentioned his wikipedia article on a national television channel, prompting a lot of IP and new username vandalism. I checked out the article and found it was almost entirely unsourced, so I significantly pruned the article to what the external links provided could verify. However, User:Purplebackpack89 has consistently tried to re-add uncited material. I added references as best I could but much of the article Purplebackpack89 would like to preserve is totally uncited. I have been trying to keep the article from unsourced information, but alas, I have decided to take it here because of persistent readding of uncited material by Purplebackpack89.--TM 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Several points:


 * 1) I did not add controversial information, merely readded his birthdate (which he mentioned on said TV show along with his Wikipedia article) and that he had certain beats with the Dallas Morning News. The first is sourceable, second is in no way controversal
 * 2) Other editors made similar edits. Why is Namiba singling me out?
 * 3) started out in good faith about BLP policy; he ended up edit warring.  In a 24-hour period, he deleted Cowlishaw's birth date at least five times, and the information about his at least three times.  He also POINTedly PRODded and then AFDed an article I created.

Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject is not very notable is he, almost no coverage, a radio program and a link to a not reliable TV dot com mini bio (which I am going to remove now) and a link to the subjects blog Has he won any awards? The article has existed about 4 or 5 years. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention awards...Namiba deleted that as part of his BLP purge. Again, deleting uncontroversial information.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A claim of an award would need a supporting citation, why is there so little coverage about him? Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Purplebackpack - facts such as birthdates and awards absolutely need to be reliably sourced. The very first paragraph of BLP policy includes: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". The birthdate and award information are being challenged, therefore reliable sources must be included in order to restore the contested information. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The challenge of that information by Namiba is absolutely ridiculous. It should be dismissed, and he should be blocked for disruption.  There is no evidence to the contrary against a birth date of March 31, 1955.  Obama doesn't even have a reference for his birth date, and some people challenge that.  Why should some reporter have a reference?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies with the individual wishing to add or retore contested information. Restoring contested info into a BLP article without adding sources such as you have here is edit warring. You've been around long enough to know this. Is including this unsourced information to an article on "some reporter" (your words) important enough to cross 3RR (it seems you may have dodged a bullet in this regard)? Perhaps a tea break would be beneficial? Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't do tea. Full stop  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 21:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Barack Obama does include a reference for his birth date in the infobox and discusses his birth with references including to his birth certificate in the first section of the article albeit without mentioning the date (which isn't necessary given it's in the intro and infobox). Providing references in the summary is generally not necessary if the details are already in the article (which includes the infobox) and since the intro is intended to be a summary of the article this means usually it isn't necessary at all. Birthdates are perhaps the one exception since they are commonly not discussed in the article although as in the Obama case, they would usually be in the infobox. Incidentally, I suspect the Obama article has done something like this for a very long time, being a FA and all and in any case I looked at all the edits between now and sometime in 1st April, none of them substanially changed that portion. Also I'm not aware of many people challenging Obama's birth date, simply the location. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Silvy de Bie
- The most recent edit has added in a line about this singer dying on March 21, 2010, however there are no sources linked and Googling doesn't turn up any articles about this person dying. // 65.24.165.255 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is located at Silvy De Bie. Thank you for pointing out that bit of vandalism which I've removed. -- Neil N   talk to me  06:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created a redirect for the above capitalisation Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo
Urgent, please. , currently at AfD but unlikely to be deleted, has contacted OTRS and appears to be. Mrs. Bongo states that she is still the wife of President Bongo of Gabon and that the article has mis-identified the subject, also that it is false and inaccurate (though whether due to the identity issue or something else I don't know). Please help with investigation and cleanup, especially if you have library access to sources and good French (I believe Gabon is Francophone). Guy (Help!) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't use documents hosted on Scribd as sources in a BLP, can we? Can the facts ascribed to copies of documents hosted on Scribd be verified in any other manner? If not, I believe we should remove all information which can only be sourced in that manner. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't know, is the short answer. I don't think there's any suggestion these are falsified and the original cites are given. Can anyone validate them? Guy (Help!) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue is why we're using a court document as the one and only source for a bankruptcy proceeding Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO nothing uploaded to Scribd is a reliable source, if anyone wants to use that site as a citation they need to ask at the WP:RSN . I also agree with Nil Einne, a single primary court document is not enough to add content. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the bankruptcy section and sourced the rest directly to the Senate document rather than the copy on Scribd. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a primary source (see WP:NOR). Please replace with a reliable independent secondary source or remove any material so sourced. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike the above, I did it myself since m'learned friends are believed to be watching. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If the lawyers are watching, and consensus is clearly snowing to delete, I think it would be good if an admin could just snow-close this now. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The world may be watching but any weakly cited and disputable content has already been removed, what is left is not really controversial at all, snow closures are not in favour as I know, they remove the authority of allowing the process to run its course. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

150 changes to BLP policy in the last week, mostly by one editor, with few people discussing or overseeing
The editor seems to have a lot of chutzpa.

I really think this ought to be overseen. I can count the number of editors discussing all this on the fingers of my hands.

There seems to be a little ownership of the changes going on. -- Rico  21:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the BLP noticeboard and not a policy or guideline discussion page, please take any issues you may have to the relevant location, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the perfect place for a BLP notice. -- Rico  22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." &larr; If you have an issue with edits to a policy page, use the policy talk page. That's why it's there. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an issue with biographies of living people. -- Rico  22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but in such cases what editors usually do is come here and neutrally present a link to the discussion allowing and encouraging interested editors the opportunity to contribute to the discussion there, coming here with all that chutzpah stuff kind of muddies the issue, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you're confusing the requirement to neutrally word an RfC, or a request for a Third opinion, or what. Editors don't usually come here and neutrally make presentations.
 * People usually come here with an agenda, they don't try to hide it, and I don't blame them. It took us two seconds to get over to the mathematician's BLP and deal with the egregious BLP violation the mathematician asked about here.
 * If he'd written something neutral, we might not have been so lightning fast.
 * Furthermore, I don't take a position on whether the editor's lion's share of 150 edits in the last week were good or not.
 * I do think it's important for the community to know that an editor that has a lot of nerve is in the middle of making tons of changes to a major Wikipedia policy.
 * I have reason to believe that this editor may not be committed to BLP, or other policies for that matter.
 * I'm just concerned that so many changes have been made with so little consensus or oversight.
 * When many changes to a major Wikipedia policy are made, more eyes would give me greater confidence that there is wider consensus among Wikipedians.
 * Rather than being excessively bold here, why don't you go have a look yourself, and see if you agree with the hundreds of changes made recently? -- Rico  23:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ec.Well if you insist but this noticeboard at the top says this..This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period. It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not the place to discuss changes to BLP policy, and I agree it's technically OT, IMHO it's acceptable to link to the policy or its talk page if there are many undiscussed controversial changes and/or some active discussion in need of wider feedback because BLP policy is obviously going to be of great interest to people in the BLP/N. I do agree that it would have been better to word the comment more neutrally to avoid offence or dispute or people getting the idea the editor is coming here with an agenda/vendetta Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Travers
, he was part of a UN commission that found evidence of war crimes by both sides in the Gaza conflict, so predictably the Israeli press are attacking him. I removed a controversy section following  as being sourced from primary and partisan sources ("Israeli press attacks X, source Israeli press") and left a note on the talk page stating that any coverage of controversy should be from the standpoint of coverage of the controversy itself, should it be deemed such, in reliable independent sources with a reputation for at least trying to be impartial in this area. I also advised our correspondent to register an account, told him where to find this noticeboard and advised him to edit the talk page not the article, other than to fix obvious vandalism. This is a classic: Guy (Help!) 22:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Article appears to have stabilized, I have added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bert Tatham (2nd nomination)
I've just opened an AfD which I think raises some BLP issues so am posting it here in case anyone has any input either way. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Silviu Ionescu

 * - I came across this page while reviewing requests at WP:WHITELIST. The article concerns me but I don't have the time today that it needs to review it carefully. // A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * - see this page also. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan
- There is a dispute on the addition of one source in the article. The source claimed that an Argentinian judge has issued an arrest warrant on Jiang Zemin, former premier of China, and former Politburo member Luo Gan over their role in the repression of Falun Gong (a case itself initiated by FLG). My issue with the addition is that web searches on the supposed cases netted no results outside of Falun Gong media such as the Epoch Times. There is little verifibility and significant coverage of the event in the mainstream media outside of two articles, and Falun Gong itself is known to pull off stunts like this. // PCPP (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if this is significant in the context of Falun Gong but rather less so in the context of Jiang. "A lawyer for [Falun Gong] acknowledged it is largely symbolic", which it is. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew_Rankin
- I'm concerned about negative, apparently unsourced info in this article. It does look like there are 'external links' that should be references, so possibly it can be fixed up. I don't have the time to resolve it myself right now, but I think it warrants some attention, hence raising it here.  Chzz  ►  15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The page did not explain what distinguishes this individual form anyone else convicted for similar crimes (WP:CSD), had nothing other than negative content with no sources obviously available to provide anything to remedy that (WP:CSD and WP:GNG) and was about an individual apparently known only for a single event (WP:BLP1E). I have deleted it. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez
The following BLP-violation content was added to comedian George Lopez' biography:


 * "In February 2010, he referred to Sarah Palin as a "special needs" "[bitch]".

cited only to this short video clip. I changed it to this, to add context:
 * "During a stand-up comedy routine in February, 2010, Lopez referred to Sarah Palin as "la cabrona", and said, "Sarah Palin said that it is wrong for President Obama's advisor Rahm Emmanuel to use the word "retarded", but it's alright for Rush Limbaugh. When someone becomes irrational like that, complaining, not making any sense, it means only one thing: they're special needs."

...but frankly, I still don't see justification for even having this joke and punchline in a BLP, and have recommeded removing it completely until someone explains what it adds to the article. I would appreciate the input of others either here or on the article talk page. My own observations include:
 * The "source" is a videoclip of a stand-up comedy routine; a primary source with no context, evaluation or reporting, hosted on the FOX Nation blog. BLP requires high-quality sources.
 * The proposed content doesn't inform the reader. It's a joke about a politician (the #1 subject of stand-up comedy jokes), seemingly inserted into a biography just to disparage either Palin, Lopez or both.
 * It isn't relevant to the subject; isn't something significantly covered in any reliable sources about the subject, and also appears to be inserted clumsily into the inappropriate "Film and television projects" section. (See undue weight.)
 * Political personalities are the subject of stand-up comedy and talk-show jokes all the time. So why put this one joke and punchline into a biography? The only reasoning the original editor offers for inserting the content is, "And how often do you hear a major comedian on a non-premium broadcast channel refer to a major political figure as a bitch? If he wants to do that fine, but Lopez can't complain if a large number of his potential audience find it over the line." — which is no reason at all. There doesn't appear to be any news article anywhere reporting on why this particular joke and punchline are of any importance or relevance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From your report I agree with your position, a one line weakly cited comment about a living person that did not recieve wider reporting and it being given undue weight as regards negative portrayal of a living person. Remove as BLP undue weight given to a not widely reported derogatory comment about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor has re-inserted the comedy routine snippet, without justifying the edit. What would be the appropriate steps to take to insure the integrity of the BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left him a note and a link to this thread and an invitation to discuss the content here. He also added this link, it looks a bit bloggy to me, is this wikipedia reliable? http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/13/george-lopez-calls-sarah-palin-a-btch This one line derogatory joke is of no encyclopedic value at all, it is just an worthless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote is backed by two sources--by Fox News reporting (not an article, but a video clip with a corresponding reported headline), and an article on "Big Hollywood". The derogatory joke is encyclopedic because it is highly unusual for a major comedian on a major non-premium network to refer to a major political figure using a term as strong as a "bitch."  The reader is informed about Lopez' disregard for following comedic standards when it comes to referring to one of his political enemies.--Drrll (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to add the notable point that he makes rude jokes about politicians then find a citation that says that, leave the not notable specific insults disguised as comedy out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fox Nation blog cite merely indicates that a comedian told a joke about a politician (gasp!) with no further reporting, and the Breitbart blog isn't an acceptable source for anything but opinion, and not even that where BLPs are concerned. Your own personal opinions about what is "highly unusual"; "derogatory"; what terms are "strong"; and what constitutes "comedic standards" and "political enemies" may be of interest to some folks, but this is a biography about Lopez. If there is significant information about Lopez' disregard for comedic standards or political enemies worthy of insertion into a biography, certainly you can find and cite the high-quality sources required by WP:BLP.  And instead of quoting a couple of uncomplimentary phrases from a comedy monologue, try informing the reader in neutral, encyclopedic terms of whatever it is you feel needs to be conveyed, with proper sourcing, of course. (See also this.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xenophrenic and Off2riorob - it's a BLP vio. The material is poorly sourced, and violates WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:WELLKNOWN. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Ronn Torossian
Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. Mosmof and friends are ganging up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked after a bit of reverting, this is really not a big BLP issue, there are no clear violations, all the content is cited and pretty much ok, it is a content dispute and weight, this is going to need more talkpage discussion to find the middle ground. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob Enderle
Criticism section suffers from POV, OR and WEIGHT issues. I know nothing about technology and microsoft/apple criticisms. Please someone take this and watch it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins; Twitter
Some editors would like to include the day and month of this broadcaster's birth. The information is sourced to responses to and from his twitter account on and around his birthday. See the logic here. The Twitter account is not officially verified but is linked to from his BBC homepage suggesting it is legitimate.

Background: when in the past, the month and day was deduced based on a comment that his birthday was the first day of Lent of a particular year, the subject complained via OTRS and the information was removed.

Hawkins (via an IP) has apparently objected again to the inclusion of his date of birth in the article."It's none of your business" "Just delete the bloody thing and mind your own business". Unfortunately, he has also encouraged his twitter followers to vandalize the article, so it has been semi-protected.

Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources (he has twice referred to the year, however). In any case, Twitter is hardly the best source, in my view. I think BLP policy is clear that if "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year", but other editors disagree. I would be glad of the opinions of other editors about this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He has revealed the date, more than once, on his publicly-available Twitter account. This is a reliable source, and that has been explained to you already, on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is your opinion, and indeed have included a link to your explanations in the first paragraph. The point here is to get the views of others interested and experienced with BLP matters, including appropriate sourcing/OR for these kinds of articles.--Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not merely my opinion - it's fact, supported by Wikipedia policy. Your bald claim that "Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources" is false. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Where has Hawkins (or any other source) officially given his full birthdate? Where has he or anybody else said "My birthdate is xxxx". Anyway, all of this ignores the fact that BLP policy (which cannot trumped by any other policy/guideline) clearly and directly states that we should omit the date/month in cases where the subject objects. Hawkins has. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite true, the policy states the we should omit this info where the subject objects to it being published, it does not say that we should omit the info where the subject objects to it being published on Wikipedia . The twitter account clearly meets WP:SPS, and thus the actual day and month of birth, as posted by the subject of the article himself, is verifiable. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:DOB. "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" This is the exact quote from our BLP policy; it specifically does say we should omit in a situation like this, where the subject has complained about the inclusion on WP. --Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The way that the quoted policy reads, is that if the subject objects to the info being published at all, but it is published anyway, then Wikipedia should defer to the subjects wishes. This is not the case. The subject of the article wants to control what is and isn't written about them on Wikipedia. This is the real issue here. Does Wikipedial allow a BLP to dictate to Wikipedia what can and can't be written on Wikipedia about them, or does Wikipedia stick by its guns and say, that info is in the public domain, it is verfifable and sourced, so therefore we should (and will) include it. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DOB also states "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:
 * have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release"
 * Which is the case here. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) You are right that generally the subject does not get to control WP content. This is an exception, however, and I think you are misreading the policy. There are no qualifiers to the instructions about deferring to a subject's wishes about the inclusion the full date of birth, which is written in the context of privacy issues. I also think that you are putting a lot of faith in a series of tweets, none of which actually say "my birthdate is XXXX." --Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No; the exact quote is "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Nether notability (already established) nor privacy (the subject has willingly put the data into the public arena) is an issue here. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The important point is that you are failing to address is "If the subject complains". He has.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Neither applies here, as shown. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an important "or" in there; "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains". Both criteria are not required; in any case a quick look at the AFDs will show, that for many editors, his notability is in doubt. --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either or both clauses are still in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Notability in this case has been extablished, as the AFDs show. Privacy is not an issue, as Hawkin's own publication of the date shows. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Hawkins has used his own, publicly-available Twitter account to say, on 1 March, "today is my birthday". You removed the citations showing this form the article. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * dif please, with this exact phrasing.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This Twitter post made on 1 March 2010, contains the phrase "Thank you for all the lovely happy-birthday tweets". This Twitter post also on 1 March 2010 states "Hooray for birthdays!", thus establishing that 1 March is JHs birthday. It is already verified and not disputed that he was born in 1962. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those say "today is my birthday" or "my birthday is March 1st", do they? That's what I asked for, in response to Andy's claim above. You are (probably correctly) deducing that March 1st is the day, but maybe he was thanking people the day after his birthday and celebrating then too. Unlikely perhaps, but without a definite statement from Hawkins or another source, this simply isn't good enough. But once again this is almost moot, as BLP requires us to err on the side of caution by not including day/month info where the subject objects. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would he thank twitterers for the happy birthday tweets if it wasn't his birthday? If they'd got the date wrong wouldn't the likely response be "Thanks, but my birthday is on...". This Twitter post made on 2 March 2010 also references his birthday the previous day with the comment "didn't celebrate birthday with junk food orgy!" I think the evidence is clear enough in this case. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are misinterpreting the objection. The subject of the BLP does not object the his birthday being published. If he did so, then I would support keeping it off Wikipedia. The subject of the BLP only objects to the info being on Wikipedia, he is quite happy for it to be plastered across the internet elsewhere, and has published the info himself. The bigger question (above) is the one that really needs to be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) There is absolutely no evidence that Hawkins has "plastered his birthdate across the internet". A few ambiguous tweets don't cut it. And yes, even so, our BLP policy does allow subjects input about what is in their WP bio with regard to the month/date info, the first google hit for most people. If you don't agree with the policy, that's fine, but you need to try to change it. And that can't be done here. This is my last post here, and I hope others will weigh in. In the meantime, I will re add the year of birth since that seems well-sourced and appropriate per BLP policy. --Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * there is no ambiguity to the tweets,. Please stop making misleading claims. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite the policy requiring the exact wording you now insist on. Or stop inventing rules. Hawkins has publicly said on 1st March, that that day was his birthday. What part of "you removed the citations showing this from the article" did you miss? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No answer? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Question
The real issue here is not the inclusion or omission of JH's date of birth; it is the issue of control. It is whether or not Wikipedia allows living people who are Wiki-notable to dictate what is and is not said about them, or whether Wikipedia stands up to these people and says "as long as our policies are adhered to, we will publish what is deemed to be suitable per consensus of Wikipedia editors", as I originally asked above.
 * No we don't want to go down that road of allowing subjects to control their content by tweeting in uncomfirmed accouts and we need to avoid the idea that just because we don't have a birth date that that is some kind of problem, it is not, just leave it out. Twitter is not by its very nature a reliable source and asserting that it is imo is a lowering of verifiability standards. Celebriwiki Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, there is no doubt as to the ownership of the twitter account, which therefore meets WP:SPS. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a big supporter of twitter, the fact that he has to announce his birthdate on twitter in an attempt to correct them on wikipedia is a joke, any links to twitter is a degrading of what wikpedia claims to be, accepting that this twit is acceptable asserts they are all reliable, perhaps it is me that is in the wrong place. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No assertation is made that all twitter posts are reliable. We are specifically addressing this particular case on this particular article and none other than that. I take it that by "twit" you mean the post and not the poster. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Perhaps you are. Can you provide a citation for your assertion that he was making an "attempt to correct them on wikipedia"? Meanwhile, Twitter accounts which are provably owned and controlled by a person are perfectly acceptable as sources for things said by that person. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No they are not at all they are worthless and should never be linked to, if I find a twitter lnk I remove it immediately. This particular case is a joke, do you think that his birthday is some kind of fantastic educational content and we have to add this tweet as a reliable claim because we just have to know what is the exact birth date of this minor radio person, wikipedia is lost. Off2riorob (talk)
 * Policy says such links are acceptable. Feel free to lobby to change it. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed only, twitter accounts can be verified like our OTRS system..Almost no twitter acounts are verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hawkin's Twitter account is linked to from his own page on the BBC website. No greater confirmation can exist, or be required. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less if his twirter account is tatooed on his arm, linking to his tweet that he claims to be his birthday as a reliable place to find out or report his birth-date from is imo valueless and detrimental to the quality of the wikipedia. Supporting this as a reliable citation asserts that all tweets will have a discussion like this, johnny has tweeted on his twitter that he was born in Texas not California and it is clearly him, big discussion and change to johnny was born in California, laughable, johnny who is 24 was born in California (cited to johnny on twitter).Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. It's not WP policy; like said: feel free to lobby to change it. And your latter point is false logic.  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob, as was discussed in the last round of arguing only a few days ago, Twitter's beta 'verified account' program is not the only acceptable method of determining the ownership of an account. Insisting that the only verifiable accounts are those that have that spottily implemented feature, which is used only in cases where there have already been problems with impersonation  (and sometimes not even then), is pointless and counterproductive.  If an account's ownership can be reliably sourced it doesn't matter if it's twitter-verified or not.  Your opinion that Twitter is 'worthless' as a source is not supported by policy, and your apparent insistence that because people can post lies on Twitter the entire service is unreliable is fallacious.  Yes, people can lie.  They can do it anywhere.  That's why we have carefully written rules on when and how to use a self-published source.  As long as those are followed, there's no danger of falling down any slippery slopes.  The question here is not whether the account is verifiably his - it obviously is - but whether the information can or should be used when the marginally-notable subject apparently objects to it.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 05:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is more than marginally notable. He has presented a show on a national radio station in the UK, and won a major national music award. I'd say that "moderately notable" would be a better description. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he is not at all well known in the United Kingdon, his viewing figures suggest that without this internal discussion, there is only bots and a couple of family and friends viewing his wiki article. Off2riorob (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Our internal stats can determine friend-and-family relations? Whoo! Which way's Signpost - we really should be shouting about this innovative AI development. Also, please could you point to the apparently-new policy, that viewings stats should determine article content? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
There being no further responses I propose that we reinstate the full DoB to the article. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is where all this is leading, desired addition to Lady ga ga tonight.. I am just wondering, do you support this  addition? Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On March 28, 2010, Lady GaGa chatted in a cbox on one of her fan sites, GaGaDaily. She announced that she had already written the first single off of her new album http://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gaga-in-the-gagadaily-chat-box/. She said will be "the greatest of her career" it's "an anthem to our generation." She also revealed that she will announce it's title on that fansite. She later confirmed it was relly her on her Twitter page http://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/11220130969.
 * Utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is relevent, it is exactly what you are supporting and encouraging, it is the wikipedia that you support, self certification and promotion by subjects through their twitter account using the wikipedia to publish it. So, no I don't support it at all.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal, with the proviso that if a better source can be found, then that source should be used instead. It has been adequately established above and elsewhere that the twitter account is JH's, and therefore can be used per WP:SPS. Mjroots2 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the full date of birth either here or at the talkpage of the article. The same two editors Mjroots and Pigsonthewing have been arguing vociferously for inclusion here and elsewhere and have received zero support, while 4 editors have opposed it for various reasons (Off2riorob, me, and Jonathunder and Mattgirling). More importantly, since no local consensus can overturn BLP policy, I'll also point out once again that the proposed edit would violate our BLP policy (which has been recently clarified), which unambiguously states that "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth...err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained. It's not going to happen. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SLP1, you still misrepresent the policy. The subject does not object to his DoB being published. He has even published it himself. He only objects to it being on Wikipedia and that is because he objects to the very existence of the article. He is still trying to control his article, which is the one thing that is not going to happen. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not misrepresented policy. I may understand and interpret it differently than you do, but that's a very different matter. Please be careful with your claims.
 * Note that the BLP policy, in the context of privacy of living persons on WP says, "where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth" ie inclusion on WP. There is no expectation that he must "object to it being published" anywhere/everywhere as you suggest. [I'd also, as you know, disagree that he has ever in any real/direct way published the day/month, but that's beside the point here]
 * I realize that you are concerned about Hawkins controlling the article. If I saw signs of that I would support actions to prevent it. But that is not what has happened here: the subject has objected to the inclusion of his full date of birth on WP (twice, 6 months apart, with peace in between). BLP policy accepts that the inclusion of this material may be considered a breach of his privacy. Hawkins is within his rights to complain to WP about it, and as he has we are obliged by policy to respect his wishes. --Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread seems to have considerable tendentious argumentation by Andy Mabett and Mjroots2. The date should be removed unless there's a definite reason to include it, i.e. it's inextricably connected with some well-documented incident of encyclopedic notability.  A made-up example might be if Hawkins ran for president of the USA and there was a Supreme Court case about whether he was old enough to take office, because his 35th birthday fell on inauguration day.  That would make his birthday notable.  The operative words from WP:DOB are "widely published by reliable sources", which doesn't mean a few twitter posts.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been shown by WP:SPS, the source is useable, although I do recognise that a better source should be used if one can be found. For the moment, the Twitter post is the best available source. This is a difference of opinion over interpretation of policy, that's all. You'll notice that there has been no disruptive editing of the article while the discussion has been going on - no repeated insertion / deletion of the DoB. It looks like we'll have to find a much better source, then the issue can be addressed again. As has been made clear, JH does not object to his DoB being published. His objection lies with having an article on Wikipedia at all. He claims there are inacurracies in the article, but won't say what they are or provide proof of what they are. I don't want the article to be wrong in any details, but we can only work with what the sources say. The best we can hope to do here is ensure that WP:BLP and WP:V are adhered to. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez
The following BLP-violation content was added to comedian George Lopez' biography:


 * "In February 2010, he referred to Sarah Palin as a "special needs" "[bitch]".

cited only to this short video clip. I changed it to this, to add context:
 * "During a stand-up comedy routine in February, 2010, Lopez referred to Sarah Palin as "la cabrona", and said, "Sarah Palin said that it is wrong for President Obama's advisor Rahm Emmanuel to use the word "retarded", but it's alright for Rush Limbaugh. When someone becomes irrational like that, complaining, not making any sense, it means only one thing: they're special needs."

...but frankly, I still don't see justification for even having this joke and punchline in a BLP, and have recommeded removing it completely until someone explains what it adds to the article. I would appreciate the input of others either here or on the article talk page. My own observations include:
 * The "source" is a videoclip of a stand-up comedy routine; a primary source with no context, evaluation or reporting, hosted on the FOX Nation blog. BLP requires high-quality sources.
 * The proposed content doesn't inform the reader. It's a joke about a politician (the #1 subject of stand-up comedy jokes), seemingly inserted into a biography just to disparage either Palin, Lopez or both.
 * It isn't relevant to the subject; isn't something significantly covered in any reliable sources about the subject, and also appears to be inserted clumsily into the inappropriate "Film and television projects" section. (See undue weight.)
 * Political personalities are the subject of stand-up comedy and talk-show jokes all the time. So why put this one joke and punchline into a biography? The only reasoning the original editor offers for inserting the content is, "And how often do you hear a major comedian on a non-premium broadcast channel refer to a major political figure as a bitch? If he wants to do that fine, but Lopez can't complain if a large number of his potential audience find it over the line." — which is no reason at all. There doesn't appear to be any news article anywhere reporting on why this particular joke and punchline are of any importance or relevance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From your report I agree with your position, a one line weakly cited comment about a living person that did not recieve wider reporting and it being given undue weight as regards negative portrayal of a living person. Remove as BLP undue weight given to a not widely reported derogatory comment about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor has re-inserted the comedy routine snippet, without justifying the edit. What would be the appropriate steps to take to insure the integrity of the BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left him a note and a link to this thread and an invitation to discuss the content here. He also added this link, it looks a bit bloggy to me, is this wikipedia reliable? http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/13/george-lopez-calls-sarah-palin-a-btch This one line derogatory joke is of no encyclopedic value at all, it is just an worthless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote is backed by two sources--by Fox News reporting (not an article, but a video clip with a corresponding reported headline), and an article on "Big Hollywood". The derogatory joke is encyclopedic because it is highly unusual for a major comedian on a major non-premium network to refer to a major political figure using a term as strong as a "bitch."  The reader is informed about Lopez' disregard for following comedic standards when it comes to referring to one of his political enemies.--Drrll (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to add the notable point that he makes rude jokes about politicians then find a citation that says that, leave the not notable specific insults disguised as comedy out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fox Nation blog cite merely indicates that a comedian told a joke about a politician (gasp!) with no further reporting, and the Breitbart blog isn't an acceptable source for anything but opinion, and not even that where BLPs are concerned. Your own personal opinions about what is "highly unusual"; "derogatory"; what terms are "strong"; and what constitutes "comedic standards" and "political enemies" may be of interest to some folks, but this is a biography about Lopez. If there is significant information about Lopez' disregard for comedic standards or political enemies worthy of insertion into a biography, certainly you can find and cite the high-quality sources required by WP:BLP.  And instead of quoting a couple of uncomplimentary phrases from a comedy monologue, try informing the reader in neutral, encyclopedic terms of whatever it is you feel needs to be conveyed, with proper sourcing, of course. (See also this.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xenophrenic and Off2riorob - it's a BLP vio. The material is poorly sourced, and violates WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:WELLKNOWN. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Ronn Torossian
Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. Mosmof and friends are ganging up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked after a bit of reverting, this is really not a big BLP issue, there are no clear violations, all the content is cited and pretty much ok, it is a content dispute and weight, this is going to need more talkpage discussion to find the middle ground. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob Enderle
Criticism section suffers from POV, OR and WEIGHT issues. I know nothing about technology and microsoft/apple criticisms. Please someone take this and watch it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Page
I think this article needs to be locked so only reputable editors can work on it. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like there are a lot of fans of Beck hovering on the page, blocking edits and making edits to paint him in the best light. There also appear to be lots of critics trying to post negative things about him. As a reader, I feel the article is not a well balanced one. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That won't happen unless there is current and continuing vandalism, and the place to request it is WP:RPP. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For background you might note Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Although the OP is requesting protection, it appears to be the result of a content dispute.  It may be that another set of eyes or a new voice might help out there.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I only made one contribution to the page. But this problem is something I've complained about long before that. I will admit I am in the middle of it, so may not be objective. But I truly believe there is a serious problem with fans and critics cruising the page and having a disproportionate impact on its content. LynnCityofsin (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Shane Salerno
This (Shane Salerno) is a page that seems to dodge the bulk of the protocol outlined in BOL. For starters, there aren't any references. Or, if their there, they aren't cited properly Also, the content is self-aggrandizing in tone, and suggests it was written either by a publicist or the subject of the article. Concerns had been madeon the talk page, I made some changes (axing some superflous material) and it was quickly reverted by an anon who wrongly justified the move as reverting plagiarism. The last thing WP needs is another edit war, so in an attempt to avoid this I am seeking some assistance here. Thanks in advance to those with more proficiency at this than me (not saying much). Jim Steele (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A Question about Biographies of Living Persons/Wikipedia Policy
I've been going over a few biographies of various living people, and I've noticed a trend. They always tend to be very light on the criticism sections, if they have one at all, even if there is notable criticism on the person in question. Sometimes, the criticism will be there in sufficient detail, but buried in subsections in the most boring possible way, without any 'criticism' section of its own. If someone doesn't read the entire article, they might not even be aware of it at all, its effectively buried. Hu Jintao, for example, is about as brutal as they come, and sourcing that should be something any 8 year old could do with half an hour of searching...but if you read his article, he sounds like just some boring guy. I'm not criticizing that article in particular, but this sort of thing seems to be a trend among biographies of living persons, and I thought I'd ask about it. It presents a serious credability problem for wikipedia as far as any notable living person is concerned. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The lack of dedicated "Criticism"/"Controversy" sections or subarticles is deliberate. All such material is included in the normal biographical sections they occur in, just as they do in a regular biography that you'd read in a bookstore or library. That way you have to read everything about what a person was doing, in all the relevant context, even if it is "boring".  Having a separate "controversies" or "criticisms" article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism.  When the United States 2008 presidential election was underway, and there were about 18 or so candidates in the early going, a special effort was undertaken to rid all candidates' articles of separate controversy/criticism sections — see here for more — and the same has become a trend for  other political figures' articles.   Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Owner of attack site on a person attempting to influence BLP content on same
This website apparently exists to defame videogame developer Derek Smart. The site lists "Bill Huffman" as its owner. An account by the User:Bill Huffman has been, over a long period of time, been trying to influence the content in that article. Note this exchange on the account's talk page. The person behind that account is apparently operating a second account on Wikipedia to keep his/her Derek Smart and other edits separate. I'd like to ask for an independent review of this situation to see if anyone else feels that something isn't right about what's going on here. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're in luck, because Arbcom independently reviewed this as part of their Derek Smart case, and they found no grounds to take action with respect to Mr. Huffman. I don't see any problem either, particularly since he never edits the Derek Smart article. He only edits the talk page, which is what WP:COI says he should do. - MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the ArbCom case. I, of course, accept their decision on the issue.  The person in question's use of a second account is being addressed elsewhere. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a follow-up note. The ArbCom finding did not give permission for this person to edit Smart's BLP article.  The finding only noted that the person behind the account was operating an attack site on Smart and made no specific recommendation about what to do about it.  Perhaps one is in order. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I can't find any evidence that Mr. Huffman has ever edited Derek Smart. --Orlady (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP calling an author a liar on his talk page
has called an author, David Oestreicher, whose work is used in our Walum Olum article and with whom the IP disagrees, a liar on the basis of his interpretation of what someone else has written somewhere. I removed this as a BLP violation and he has put it back. And since the publication of an article extensively endorsing Oestreicher's work in the journal American Literary History it's pretty clear he meets our criteria of notability, not that that should matter. Dougweller (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller has engaged in multi-year blocking and covering up every edit. The sources are as follows :Newman's article also calls attention to "the capstone of the Walam Olum’s publication history as an authentic document".DOES THIS SOURCE MEET YOUR "NOTABILITY" REQUIREMENTS: The Multilingual Anthology of American literature: a reader of original texts with English translations. Marc Shell, Werner Sollors. New York University Press, 2000.
 * Doug embraces Oestrichers interpretation of a letter from Napora, claiming that Napora "Recanted". When presented with direct evidence from Napora stating "I Never Recanted Anything". Doug claims that this is a violation of policy. Looks more like Doug continuing his battle to cover up the FACTS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read Blp ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP, who has edited the article in the past under at least one other IP address and an account, is as in the past cherry picking statements. The 'capstone' bit is from an article which uses the Walam Olum as an example of a literary hoax to, as the article now says, " study the thinking and cultural assumptions of earlier researchers (for example by examining how they treated features of the Walam Olum which should have been clear evidence that it was a fake". Without that context the excerpt is extremely misleading. The Napora thing is another red herring. The bottom line is that this attack on his talk page was a BLP violation. I note that he's toned it down now although he continues to distort the 'capstone' issue and to attack me on the article talk page, but that's what he's been doing for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt (new issues as of 10 April 2010)
"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."

- Wikipedia "Biographies of Living Persons"

The article was created in 2006 about a relatively obscure computer author solely as a repository of information damaging his reputation. In a previous BLP I got it cleaned up, but shortly thereafter a critical Reception section was restored with an unsupported and NNPOV claim regarding all of Schildt's output.

This claim was ultimately based through a chain of cites and a copycat attack on another Schildt book on a single poorly-written document which has been online for 15 years, "C: the Complete Nonsense", by one Peter Seebach, a person with no academic preparation in computer science whatsoever according to his own admission. This article is not a "high quality secondary source" since it starts with a statement showing strong bias and NNPOV: "C: The Complete Reference is a popular programming book, marred only by the fact that it is largely tripe."

CTCN claimed to find "dozens" or "hundreds" of errors in what has turned out to be the third edition of one and only one book by Schildt, "C: the Complete Reference", 3rd ed., a book that went out of print on 2000; because of the popularity of the third edition, a fourth edition was published in 2000.

The page references and content of CTCN, from its publication circa 1995 to this month (April 2010) were all about the third edition. Although "dozens" or "hundreds" were claimed to exist, only 20 were listed although they were identified as "currently known". Of these 20, only 6 were genuine errors.

The author and maintainer of the page, despite numerous complaints over the years, never updated the page between the publication of the fourth edition in 2000 and this month of April 2010.

As a result, Peter Seebach's personal opinions, infected by a malicious bias which amounts to a motivation for libel under the law, were cited in the article between its creation in 2006 and this month, damaging Schildt's sales and personal peace of mind in a way that was maliciously intended by Peter Seebach.

This week (ending 11 April 2010) Seebach has written a new attack on the fourth edition and he has changed the Schildt article to reference the new attack in order to cover his tracks, after a considerable amount of criticism on comp.lang.c this year, coming from independent and educated sources.

Under Biographies of Living Persons, wikipedia is being used to enable a personal campaign of malicious libel.

The article was created for the purposes of libel, since being a computer author alone does not make one a "public figure" in the sense defined by the SCOTUS in its decision HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). This important decision allows offensive and malicious speech that is hyperbolically and satirically false when directed against important public figures and it states that "the First Amendment does not recognize a false idea". If Seebach and the copycat were "lampooning" a public figure they would receive protection under the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, in this case, it's my belief as a layperson that the First and Ninth Amendments, where the latter reserves a common-law right to privacy including protection from public shame, combine against Seebach. Because "the First Amendment does not recognize a false idea" the First Amendment does not recognize, outside of child pornography and little else, a "bad" book. Therefore, Seebach cannot argue that a NNPOV set of highly questionable "truths" about the practice of uneducated programming artisans constitutes a defense against libel involving wikipedia and his use of it.

Therefore the entire article needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.68.35 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Katharine, Duchess, of Kent#Recent years
This section seems very unsourced. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  06:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a few, nothing too controversial apart from she is alleged to like rap music, the whole article could use an interested editors attention. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy
Considerable publicity has been given to emails which climate change sceptics allege show professional misconduct by a number of named scientists, most prominently Phil Jones. A longstanding summary in the lead section noted both the allegations and the views of academics, climate change researchers and independent reports which stated that most or all of the allegations were baseless. Some editors took exception to following the description in sources of those making the allegations as climate change skeptics, and editors endeavoured to find improved wording and discuss it on the article talk page, However, on editor seems to hold a radically different view of BLP which involves deleting all content in the lead reporting the views that accusations are to a greater or lesser extent baseless, leaving only the allegations made by the climate skeptics. Very slow progress is being made at Way forward to reach a consensus, but the editor editwarred to remove the balancing views which I believe are essential, and as involved editors are inhibited by the 1RR restriction, balance has not been restored. I remain very concerned about this unresolved BLP and NPOV issue in the lead section of a prominent article, and would welcome outside views. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved outsider, I am curious as to why 1RR would inhibit the restoration of balance. If there are more editors on one side of the debate, and each has 1RR restriction, wouldn't their combined weight override a single nay-sayer? What am I missing? Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was someone who went to 3 or 4 R for some reason and got blocked. But his/her final changes were undone about 20 minutes after the last edit so I'm not very sure. Perhaps some more changes were needed but everyone who could had already done 1R Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The questionable changes in the 4R were only partly undone at the time: findings by MPs were restored, but not balance in the first paragraph. Discussions at the "Way forward" section showed no great obstacle, and a version put forward there and reiterated in a No case to answer section led to sufficient agreement to reinstate reasonable balance once 1RR permitted. The editor who went to 4R accepted this version on return from the block. It's still under question (on the talk page) if we're giving too much detail in the lead of accusations which third parties have found to be baseless, it should be possible to resolve that in normal talk page discussions. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it's resolved, but not that there were BLP violations, other than a few added by the AGW apologists, now gone. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

 * - This may be the first self-reporting on this board ever. :-) I created this article, and wish for someone to look it over for any obvious weasel words, neutrality, or defamation problems. I have taken much care to cite and verify every single sentence or clause. I created this stub because the subject has gotten a huge amount of local and national press coverage - in New York, Montana, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania - and I think our users would look for an objective, well-cited source. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't like it much, it is not really a well rounded biography of a notable persons life is it? Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comes close to WP:BLP1E I think? -- Neil N   talk to me  17:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it more. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it meets your approval now. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is better after your work. It is cited and written in a decent way, for me the one event and what looks to me although in the reporting there were at the time some countrywide coverage, its imo a case of vastly local notability published to a wider audience through the wikipedia to the clear detriment of a semi notable living person, or a person notable only for a single controversial incident, for which there seems to have been no legal action against him at all or neither has he been sacked from his position? and for which the subject also denies any wrong doing at all, and for this tittle tattle tabloid controversy wikipedia gets a detailed article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That article is terrible. Sorry. It's about a character peripherally involved in a news story, not even the central character in the story - on whom we don't seem to have an article. This is not Cardinal Ratzinger, it's some guy who was a supervisor of a school district. If the case is notable then write the case up and present it as such, don't pretend to write a biography about some poor schmuck who's known for one incident of poor judgement. This is one of the worst ideas for an article I can remember. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sent to Article for deletion for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg Mortenson
Greg Mortenson: I want to permanately remove my name from Wikipedia due to continuous insertion of non-appropriate photo with a grin: contensious in rural Afghanistan where I have worked for 17 yrs

GREG MORTENSON I am requesting Wikipedia to permanately remove the article of my biography from Wikipedia due to continuous insertion of a non-appropriate photo with a grin that could be contensious in rural Islamic society, where it is innapropriate and inflammatory.

Continued re-insertion of this (now more than three times) is a security risk for me, and violate three time insertion' Wikipedia rules, which are not being followed. I don't have time to police this, so please do not put up another article on me. Thank you. Greg Mortenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregMortenson (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete removal of the article may be difficult as the topic seems quite notable. Perhaps you could supply a more tasteful photograph. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought so too so I restored the article, minus the photograph being discussed (the entire article had been blanked which did not seem encyclopedic). Weakopedia (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps under the circumstances we could after seven days delete the picture to stop it being replaced again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know why the photo is contentious in Afghanistan? Does anyone know if the person complaining is actually Mortenson?  Just curious. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so, seems a matter of showing good faith, the picture has been removed, so.... Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The picture in the article now is not the one he complained about? Looks like he's grinning to me, kind of Mona Lisa-like. -- Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing about grinning but It does seem to be quite restricted as far as interpersonal greetings and meetings goes, it is best to only occasionally look someone in the eyes http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/afghanistan.html . Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes that is a new picture, non grinning type. Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like an otrs came from his company for the new picture, but the old picture is still in use on two foreign language wikis http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:GregMortenson2008.JPG and http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:GregMortenson2008.JPG Senegalese and Hebrew. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I can compare the old and new pictures, there's certainly a big difference. The current picture is more, uh, subdued. -- Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Generic advice to subject: if you don't like the picture the best bet is usually to send us a better one with an appropriate license. That seems to have happened here, or something close. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alek Keshishian

 * - This article has only one source, the Internet Movie Database. Yet, it has an entire paragraph, none of which appears in at least the free portion of IMDb.  In particular, it has the rather startling sentence:  "While studying at St. Paul's School in Concord, NH, Alek realized he was gifted with the ability of telekinesis."  I don't know if I'd call that statement "contentious" (as per Wikipedia's policy), but it is certainly unusual and bold.  I've never posted to this board before, so I have no idea if I'm doing it correctly or if I should be reporting it at all.  I certainly don't know how to fix the article, short of looking for source material on Mr. Keshishian, and, thus far, as an "editor," I've stuck to minimalist changes to articles. -- Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That startling sentence was added with this edit – looks to me like vandalism. Thanks for calling attention to it; it's now been removed. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for figuring that out and fixing it. Thanks for also adding the undersourced warning. -- Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seymour Itzkoff


The subject objects to a link to the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, which seems on the face of ti a reasonable concern. I removed the following external links, neither of which seems appropriate in a biography:
 * Seymour W. Itzkoff profile via lrainc.com
 * Seymour W. Itzkoff via Institute for the Study of Academic Racism

He is also critical of the fact that we list only a small and controversial subset of his 22 published books, and requests deletion. Esentially his concern is that this biography, focusing on a small but noisy subset of his work, raises that to a level of undue significance. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * His only concern now is the selected bibliography? Here is what purports to be a more complete list of his works:  http://www.reviewscout.com/Seymour-Itzkoff.  Or, alternatively, Itzkoff could provide a complete list.  In any event, I don't see how a list that is clearly marked as "selected" conveys any particular message.  On an unrelated subject, where is/was he a professor?  Everywhere on the web, it identifies him in the same way ("American professor"), but of what and where? -- Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, his major concern is that the overall tone is dominated by one controversial facet of his work while the bulk of his work and career is completely ignored. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article only got three edits all last year and there has never been a discussion on the talkpage, the article has existed for four years. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Guy, I wish you'd be more specific about the part of the article he objects to, but assuming you can excise the objectionable part from the article, wouldn't that be better than deleting the article? -- Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to be more specific. He objects to the fact that there is a "biography" which is, essentially, just a discussion of the controversy over his views on one single topic. He has a long and largely uncontroversial career in the field of education and psychology. What's hard to understand? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Article for deletion discussion is here Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Callan
was stubbed in January, the subject seems angry that it's not been built up again. Anyone who feels motivated to do someone a good turn, please have a go. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Guy. Just added a couple of things with reliable sources and made a few improvements. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP in user space at MfD
. More eyes, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi
This is a request for extra attention to Reza Pahlavi and Yasmine Pahlavi. Reza Pahlavi is the heir of the Shah of Iran, a defunct throne, and Yasmine Pahlavi is his wife. User:RezaPahlavi asserts that he is the subject of the bio and that he "owns" them. He is editing the articles actively, and also claims copyright on some (apparently) professional photographs. The matter of the editor's identity will have to be handled through OTRS, but we should try to avoid other problems that would require their attention.  Will Beback   talk    01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please contact my Secretariat's office at to confirm identity. We are happy to confirm identity and ownership of all copyrighted materials and bios for both Reza Pahlavi and Yasmine Pahlavi.  Thank you. RezaPahlavi (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You will have to contact Wikipedia permissions via the process set out at WP:IOWN - the OTRS volunteers are the only ones who can deal with this. In any event, you do not own any article on Wikipedia, even if you do establish your identity. – ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you much. And just to clarify, I used the word "own" in reference to the updated bio my office put on my Wikipedia page, which I indeed did write and did give permission for another site to use - which was then called into question as a possible copyright infringement based on that other site's usage. That was the where the term "own" was used. Not for the Wikipedia page, specifically. Many thanks. RezaPahlavi (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if an editor owns the copyrighted material, it is still a copyvio if large parts are copied into wp. The only way for the material to become acceptable (for wholesale inclusion as opposed to just sample quotes) would be for the material to be released under a free license, for example based on the creative commons cc-by-sa license. Crum375 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, if textual material is not copied verbatim, but only paraphrased from one or more copyrighted sources, then there are no licensing restrictions. For images to be used, they would have to have the appropriate WP-approved licensing, such as the cc-by-sa. Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:COI is more relevant than anything else. People should not be editing articles about themselves, nor should they be directing people that work for them to do so.  The proper way to get an article about yourself changed is to declare your conflict of interest at the article's talk page, and make proposed changes on the talk page, where they can be evaluated before being added.  Its not that people add relevent information to articles about themselves, its that because of the problem in maintaining an appropriately neutral tone when writing about oneself, it is better if proposed additions are vetted before being added.  -- Jayron  32  05:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Sambrook
There has been an OTRS complaint in regards to this article. It would be nice if someone could take a look at this article and make it compliant with policy. It would make the email correspondence much easier. Thanks in advance, NW ( Talk ) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's uncited and although there is nothing that looks as if it is desperate for immediate removal it could be stubbed back, it could use someone who is knowledgeable about cloning and cancer type research. I also left a request at the talkpage of the Science and academia WikiProject Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject does not like the fact that he's on Wikipedia at all, so please be sensitive. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a bit better now, User:Crusio has added a few citations that support the content. If anyone is a molecular scientist feel free to wade in. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that the subject doesn't like to be on WP (I sympathize, I had muy own bio deleted through AfD...) But his bio would never get deleted at AfD. The single fact that he's a member of the national academy of sciences of Australia satisfies the notability guidelines for academics. His hugely-cited book would also be enough. Then there are lots of influential publications ad such... Can you perhaps give an indication about what exactly he doesn't like? If it is nothing controversial (and I haven't seen anything controversial at all), I could try to re-word the entry to accommodate his concerns. --Crusio (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my view as well, so we need to be sensitive and ensure that it tells a fully-rounded story of his career. We should be scrupulously fair always, but especially when the subject finds the mere existence of an article to be a problem. Thanks, Crusio, for helping out. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT Jews
I have just pruned out every entry in List of LGBT Jews which was either not sourced, or not sourced to a reliable source. There were no sources that they were LGBT, nor even that they were Jewish. I'm not sure if any of the remaining sources are reliable for both categories, if anybody wants to do some research, then please go ahead. Woogee (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks to me, at first glance, as though you have pruned the list too heavily. Surely there is no doubt about Allen Ginsberg, Sarah Schulman, Tony Kushner or Dana International, for instance. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for these, and for many others. I'll see what I can find. RolandR (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrea Dworkin was Jewish and Lesbian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment-I also left a note at the LGBT project talkpage regarding this list and there is a degree of discussion there. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also for discussion at AFD here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only must the sourcing show that they were LGBT, it must also show that they were or are Jewish. Woogee (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lierre Keith
I know nothing about Wikipedia and how all this works. I've tried to familiarize myself with your rules before posting this. My name is Lierre Keith and I am a writer. I was publicly assaulted while speaking last month. Immediately, a Wikipedia page was created about me, and if you look at the history of the page it was created to report the assault. That's all that was in the entry. A few other facts about my life were added later.

I am trying to get the report of the assault off the page. In the whole course of my life, everything that I've written and done--that's what gets a mention? It seems to me that is a news event, not something for an encyclopedia. Hundreds of public figures are assaulted, threatened, and protested every day, but it doesn't get included in their Wikipedia entries.

This takes on a note of urgency for me, as the harassment/stalking has continued. The threats are escalating--they are now threatening to throw acid in my face. One thing about stalkers that is known for sure is that they thrive on attention. Every public bit of notice they get is only encouraging their obsession with hurting me. Please, I would prefer to have no entry on me at all. But if it has to stay, can you at least take down the line about the assault? You're rewarding their behavior and giving them more fuel for their obsession.

My Wikiepdia name is "smallword" ********************* Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallword (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, smallwood. Please take a little time to read this Biographies of living persons/Help and with a declared Conflict of interest, people should not be editing articles about themselves, simply make your case on the talkpage as I see you have been doing, the pie incident appears to be out now with only the citation remaining. I see the article was only narrowly kept as no consensus recently, If you think that this article is causing added risk of harassment to yourself then you might want to report your concerns and possibly request deletion... here...

From the policy page.. you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help. Please e-mail [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org] with a link to the article in question and specific details of the problem. For more information on how to complain, see here, and see here for how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sapir Academic College
The user User:Cautious has been making repeated BLP violations on the article Sapir Academic College (about its president Ze'ev Tzahor), which I have reverted. I have taken the liberty of blocking the user for 48 hours after repeated notices and warnings to his talk page. The user apparently also edits under the IP 178.183.224.24. I ask that someone put the page on their watchlist and takes action if blatant BLP violations are repeated. Thanks in advance, Ynhockey (Talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming non-notable person in Russell Crowe
I have tried to make clear to an editor that per WP:BLPNAME, we do not name non-notable private persons in articles, yet this editor persists in inserting the name of a private citizen who is not notable into the article. He continues to return this information to the article,    despite having been told and the rationale explained. Instead, he claims that I don't know the policy regarding naming such persons. Could someone please comment on this? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BLPNAME says "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Thus I would exclude the name here, even though it's appeared in many news stories on this one incident. This is particularly the case because the incident was not initiated by the person in question (i.e. they were not seeking publicity), but rather by the article's subject. Rd232 talk 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its locked, fully protected, personally in this case I would leave this name in , I think it is well enough known and was globally covered that inserting the name is fine, I recognised the name when I saw it, so there can be no harm as such. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would leave it out. The person is not notable for any other reason, and adding the name adds absolutely nothing of value to the article. As per WP:BLPNAME, it should be left out. Dayewalker (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We routinely add such names, I have resisted the insertion of such names more than once and consensus was against me, the policy and the community just does not strongly support the excessive restriction of widely published names of not notable people that the addition of which is appears non controversial and not detrimental to the individual. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here. WP:BLPNAME says "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." To me, that's the bottom line. This non-notable person's name adds nothing to an article on Russell Crowe's life. In fact, including it could be seen as giving undue detail to a single incident to Crowe's life. Dayewalker (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been quite clear, from my experience community consensus is for the inclusion of such names and the policy you are quoting is not strongly against it when there is no clear detriment to the person and (tomorrow) if you want me to I will present hundreds of such names (don't quote me on hundreds) but lots and lots that are included in articles right now. As regards your mention of undue weight, the content is already in the article with or without the name there is no change at all to the weight of the content.Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't, there's no need for that. We'll just agree to disagree here. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * otherstuffexists, yes but when the otherstuff that exsts is in the majority then it does have a value and it is clear from the usage of such names that there is community support for the incluusion of such non controversial, well known names. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As I said above, I respectfully disagree. Even if there is consensus to add the name (which there doesn't appear to be on this page, or the article page), consensus doesn't trump policy. Dayewalker (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My experience, at BLP/N anyway is the opposite from O2R. We generally exclude such names particularly when there hasn't be widespread continuing coverage and the controversy is largely one sided. P.S. I would say that I didn't recognise the name. P.P.S. I would welcome say 5 most similar examples from O2R Nil Einne (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think the most relevant part of WP:BLPNAME - "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."  If the name is removed from the article, does the content still give the same information about Crowe?   Yes, it does.  Our understanding of Crowe is not diminished by the name being removed, and it is not increased by the addition of the name.  In understanding the event and its impact on Crowe, the name adds nothing of substance.  Rossrs (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent was Paula Dubois, the not notable at all private person who editors insisted to name during what must have been a time of great grief for a mother whose son had only just died in controversial circumstances Kristian Digby . Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Craig Evans the man that threw an egg at John Prescott . Neither of these names add anything at all to the articles in question, but the names are there. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How many wrongs does it take to make a right? It's interesting that you mention Kristian Digby.  You and I both commented at length at Talk:Kristian Digby against the use of his mother's name without purpose, and the editor who disagreed ended up saying that he was prepared to accept that her name not be used.   I was prepared to accept that his mother's name be used if there was a good reason for doing so, but a good reason was never presented, in my opinion.  And yet it's in the article.  The talk page discussion did not support its inclusion so that's not an example of consensus determining the use of the name.  It's more an example of consensus being disregarded, at least in terms of the talk page discussion.  I don't recall if the matter was brought here.  Rossrs (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter was not brought here and it was inserted and supported during the discussion, the reason given was that the name was given context by adding that she went to the inquest..usually the names are inserted without any consensus as such, mostly so few editors are bothered about an issue that it is simply inserted without question, in this case a few editors seem to be bothered but the community as a whole imo want to insert such names and they do insert them at will, and unless they are challenged by a few editors that are bothered the name sits in the article, this is all I am saying. I can link you to multiple similar situations were I have resisted such additions, Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you're right. Often the names are added at will, and often the inclusion stands because it faces little or no opposition.   We can't catch every instance of this taking place, but if we believe that it is against the policy and guidelines that have resulted from considerable thought and discussion, we should support those policies and guidelines and oppose those instances that we see.   If people want to keep adding non-notable names at will, they should consider having the guidelines rewritten or updated.  Individual editors may be ignorant of the policies or they be apathetic or they may disagree with them, but that doesn't negate the policies.  Being outnumbered doesn't make our viewpoint wrong, only less likely to be taken seriously.   I know from the Kristian Digby discussion how fruitless it can be but I'd rather the Russell Crowe situation be discussed further, and maybe one day this will be the example that is held up to deter the addition of non-notable names.   Rossrs (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy violation or not, I think the name itself detracts from the encyclopedic, neutral tone of a well-written article. In a consensus (as opposed to a BLP) issue, I'd vote against its inclusion.FellGleaming (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Four points. 1. Consensus can change. 2. Consensus is local (otherstuffexists). 3. In providing comparable examples, bear in mind "person initiated event or was to blame for publicity involved" as a factor. Thus the Prescott guy would be distinguished from the Crowe guy. 4. To clarify a point made above about "not adding value" and "undue weight": I would say the name has negative value as it is not in itself relevant to understanding the incident as it relates to Crowe, and on the contrary distracts from what is important. It is (in the Crowe bio context) noise, not information; chaff, not wheat. Rd232 talk 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 is a good point which I also tried to make albeit perhaps not so well explained ("and the controversy is largely one sided"). I agree that people do tend to add names, and to some extent that may seem to set consensus but when the issue comes up, there's usually consensus or close to it to remove the name (from my experience) after sufficient discussion particularly from those who understand BLP (by this I simply mean those who are aware of BLP and understand it well enough they're not going to make a clearcut BLP vio or think such a vio is okay). I have to agree with Rd232 that this is to some extent a case of otherstuffexists in that there's a lot of non ideal behaviour which is unfortunately difficult to change, but doesn't IMHO really indicate we should encourage or accept it when it comes up Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob Tallman

 * - A cleanup tag was placed on this article due to statements in the section entitled Early years which could be viewed as attacks. While sourced, they place undue weight on the subject's religious belief and do not seem noteworthy as he is not a convert to the clergy where such incidents might be viewed as inspirational. Morenooso (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels


Subject is essentially being accused of claiming a position and title (state climatologist of Virginia) he did not hold. Other editor(s) are misrepresenting source to support the POV that the position in question did not exist. The relevant text from the newspaper source is at:


 * http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2007/09/27/michaels-resigns-as-state-climatologist/

Quoting and highlighting the relevant sections: "Patrick Michaels has officially resigned as the Virginia state climatologist, a position to which he was appointed in 1980.

Controversy arose in 2006 about the validity of Michaels’ position, when Gov. Tim Kaine’s office claimed Michaels did not hold a governor-appointed position and said his views did not represent those of the Commonwealth. At that time, state officials said no evidence could be found that a governor had appointed a climatologist since 1980 and that the ability to appoint the climatologist shifted to the University in 2000."

This seems rather clear. The position was governor-appointed in 1980, when Michaels received the title. In 2000, the responsibility to award that title shifted to the University (Michael's employer) and in 2006, the new governor clarified his office no longer handled the appointment.

However an editor is misinterpreting this as "the position itself did not exist", and expressing it in language prejudicial to the article's subject. See diff:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Michaels&action=historysubmit&diff=355699691&oldid=355675003

The article is on CC probation, so I am leery about reverting this violation myself. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the content from the lede....

a position he was appointed to in 1980and resigned from in 2007 amid uncertainty over whether he still officially retained the position

It is presented in the lede and totally unexplained in the text, it is quite a serious claim and should be expanded on and explained in the text, who did hold the position then and who said he did not hold the position and what was the outcome. The citation goes on to say Regarding the upkeep of Michaels’ office, a replacement has not yet been found. this was after he resigned, he clearly did hold that position and that should be made very clear, the people who claimed that he did not need naming and the situation requires explaining. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I must disagree with Rob, who is in error. It should be removed from the lead as a contested claim on a BLP. Extremely good sourcing and consensus for this claim must be established before restoring it - and then, it should be to the article body, not the lead, unless and until consensus exists that this is important enough not to constitute a violation of WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not clear, I do not support this in the lede at all, explained and cited a bit better I may support it same as KillerChihuahua in the article body. I actually removed it and referred editors to come and discuss here but user WMC replaced it saying he didn't see anything wrong with it but as yet he has not come to discuss it here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the clarification - I have struck my error. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, the typed text can be poor representation of the thoughts. I actually removed it with this edit summary I don't think this is a fair representation of the detail, and not anyway in the lede, there is a thread for discussion opened at the BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article text is still making the improper claim. Am I correct in assuming it should be removed? FellGleaming (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is support here so for for its removal from the lede but it is not really an desperate situation, better to wait for more discussion as you have already removed it once today and the article is restricted to 1RR. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gone from the lede. The discussion in the rest of the article remains, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria
On Talk:Ariel University Center of Samaria has repeatedly called an Egyptian judge on the International Court of Justice an ***** I have removed the phrase once and asked Amoruso not to reinsert it, only to have Amoruso reinsert it and reply "I read the egyptian's judge opinion and in my opinion, he's ************** (emphasis in original).  nableezy  - 04:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Amoroso's behavior is completely unacceptable. I suggest he be blocked if he continues with this libel.  Zerotalk 05:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I had reverted the first instance with clear indication that it was a WP:BLP violation. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion in a talk page. Complete Non issue, and I think users who brought this here should be blocked, as well as the usually disruptive user, Zero, who is trolling here. I clearly stated it's my opinion. It's called free speech - I believe his statements were ********. It can't be libel because it's an opinion, and it's ridiculous. Note that Nableezy is also lying - I haven't repeatedly called him an antisemite. I said he's ********* and then added that it's my opinion, and then explained it again. So it's just twice, not repeatedly, and it's expressed as an opinion. Perfectly legitimate. I say Close this quickly, move on and reprimand nableezy and Unomi for disruptive behavior. Amoruso (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't that the point, it is your opinion and as such you should not be expressing it on the talkpage, you should only comment regarding improvements to the articles and regarding claims you can cite. I also don't think opining of such controversial uncited claims is correct on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a non issue because This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. That's not even the case. Its not the talk page of the person, it's about a university in Israel. We were talking about the relevance of a very controversial and political and biased ICJ decision. This is what the U.S. had to say about it:

On July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring "the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case."

Misuse, narrow political purpose, objections of every member of the G8. And in my opinion, the Egyptian opinion in particular (and he was accused of bias even before the case.

"Israel claimed that Article 17(2) prohibited Judge Elaraby (btw, I never mentioned him by name until now) from sitting as a judge because “he [had] previously played an active, official and public role as an advocate for a cause that is in contention in this case....Israel complained about Judge Elaraby’s 2001 interviewwith an Egyptian newspaper “two months before his election to the Court, when he was no longer an official of his government and hence spoke in his personal capacity.”41 The newspaper quoted Mr. Elaraby’s comments that “Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, and the occupation itself is against international law” and that Israel’s territorial claims were fabricated to create “confusion and gain[] time.” That is clearly an antisemitic statement in my opinion - claims that Israel has fabricated things to create confusion in the world are repeatedly stated by antisemites. anyway, judge Burghental said about this: "although a “formalistic and narrow” construction of Article 17(2) had not been violated, legitimate concerns existed because “this question cannot be examined by the Court without taking account of the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict” and because the outcome would depend upon “the validity and credibility of [the parties’] arguments.” 45 Against this backdrop, he reasoned that Judge Elaraby’s remarks created an unacceptable “appearance of bias”46 and that the Court had “implicit” power to ensure the “fair and impartial administration of justice.”"

It is at least arguable that if a judge is appearing biased against Israel and still takes the case he's ************* Amoruso (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but with BLP applying on the talkpage just as much on the article do you not see that if you could not cite it and insert it into the article you should not be opining it on the talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So if I can't cite "the judge's opinion is ******" I can't say "the judge's opinion is ******** in my opinion" on a talk page about a university in Israel? Amoruso (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is correct, at least it is as I interpret BLP policy. It is your interpretation and opinion as a not notable person, if you had a citation from a notable person and in a reliable citation the notable person opined the same thing then that comment could legitimately be discussed for possible insertion in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * in what article? I'm explaining why in my opinion the ICJ case was not relevant to the issue, and I mentioned how the egyptian's judge (without even mentioning his name) opinion appears ******** to me. I don't see what the problem is. Amoruso (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that WP:BLP applies not only to articles but to every page on Wikipedia. You cannot call a living person an antisemite without solid reliable sources calling that person an antisemite.  nableezy  - 15:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're misrepresenting what I said. I'm not calling him an ******** as fact, I'm saying that his comments are ******c in my opinion. He comes off as an ********* in my opinion. I don't see anything on WP:BLP about opinions, and this would seem to reflect the same standard in libel laws across the western world. "Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable". anyway, this is all I had to say about it. Amoruso (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a court of law, and you dont have free speech here. You cannot say such things on Wikipedia without sources that do so. Saying "it is only my opinion" does not allow you to say whatever you feel. This really is not that complicated.  nableezy  - 17:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating that a person is antisemitic because they argue that the Government of Israel has fabricated territorial claims (over what is internationally recognized as being occupied territory) is a bit far fetched in my opinion. You are seriously cheapening the term anti-semitic by using it in this fashion and I think you should consider retracting or at least redacting comments you have made to that regard. Unomi (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and that's your opinion. Insinuating that Israel has fabricated territorial claims regarding its homeland of 3000 years in order to create CONFUSION is ********** to me. ******** often say that Israel or Jewish power create confusion around the world or disaster to advance their agenda.  and that's my opinion. that's how free speech works. Amoruso (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "free speech" does not apply to talk pages per WP:FORUM. Editors opinions about the subjects of WP:BLPs on talk pages are unwelcomed, unneeded, and against policy. Please use the talk page to discuss how the article can be improved. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [copied from user's talk page] Amoruso, you do not appear to be listening, and to an extent people are pussyfooting around, so let's be really clear here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, and the most important thing you need to know about it is that if you insist on engaging in commentary that is identified as violating the policy, that is, is polemical commentary about living individuals, then you may be blocked from editing. There are a whole raft of essays and guidelines covering this area including WP:TRUTH, but the most important is WP:BLP and also WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is not for, including being a forum for discussion or an experiment in free speech. You have two choices: you can understand and dial it back about ten notches, or you can carry on and I will block you. This is not because of what you believe, it's because of what you are saying and about whom. If you want to blog that stuff then you're welcome, just please don't bring it here, OK? Guy (Help!) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, this is a noticeboard for discussion about BLP issues, keep your opinions to yourselves and don't opine uncitable personal opinions on talkpages and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP is pretty clear on this issue, unless there is WP:RS that specifically states he is an antisemite or issued antisemitic rulings, then such text amounts to WP:OR and must be struck from the article. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize that I didn't understand the scope of BLP. What I always meant to say was regarding the opinion rendered, not the person, and I think I made it clear, but that too seems to be a violation of the same policy, which I didn't realize. I realize that and was given a warning by an administrator on my talk page. Why then did a 2nd administrator take action because an involved editor went and asked him to? I think a warning suffices.. I never meant to violate BLP, I interpreted it incorrectly. I should have read this policy more carefully. It doesn't warrant an indefinite ban over my edits. Amoruso (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely topic-banned
I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy Unomi (edited,  Sandstein   16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) on my talk page and have reviewed it. Taking into consideration I am in application of WP:ARBPIA indefinitely banning Amoruso from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict (to include all broadly related pages, discussions and content, with no exceptions for BLP or vandalism reverts). Any violation of this ban, especially in order to disrupt, may result in an indefinite block. This sanction can be appealed as provided for at WP:ARBPIA, but I will not review any appeal directed at me personally before six months have elapsed.  Sandstein  19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * that it is a violation of WP:BLP to express derogatory personal opinions about identifiable living persons on Wikipedia, including on talk pages, notwithstanding any right to free speech editors might have under their national legal systems (see Free speech),
 * that  has in this instance repeatedly violated WP:BLP and refused to undo this violation even after multiple warnings (some diffs:,  , , , , )
 * that Amoruso has been previously blocked twice for WP:3RR violations in the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area in 2006,
 * that he was blocked in 2008 by for two months for the following reason: "Very abusive sockpuppetry: Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso. Next block should probably be indef",
 * that this sockpuppetry case showed that Amoruso had used multiple accounts to create disruption in the  Israeli-Arab conflict topic area,
 * that Amoruso was subsequently informed about possible sanctions under WP:ARBPIA,
 * that a brief review of his recent contributions indicates that his main activity on Wikipedia is to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is a general mode of project participation that conflicts with WP:NPOV,
 * that all of this is contrary to WP:ARBPIA's direction that "editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators",
 * that users engaging in abusive sockpuppetry especially in a particularly sensitive area are normally indefinitely blocked or, if they are not, are normally allowed (as here) to continue to participate only on a "last chance" basis, and that Amoruso has forfeited that last chance by way of this most recent disruption,
 * but that an indefinite block appears to be not yet necessary given that Amoruso's disruption appears to be limited to the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area, and that therefore a topic ban is in order as a less restrictive measure,


 * I don't understand where this came from. "I have been alerted to this matter by Nableezy on my talk page". What do you mean by that? Why would someone go to your talk page and complain about another user when it's been dealt with here? I go into wikipedia, look at my talk page, see a comment by an adminstrator, which I would have complied with, and then your message. I commented on your talk page about past discretions, and the fact that I didn't understand why this was BLP. It's simply a matter of telling me to remove it, sorry. Amoruso (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt alert Sandstein of anything, I posted here and notified you.  nableezy  - 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. A robust response, and we've not really given the user time to react to the warnings and clarifications over BLP, but as far as I can tell it's based on more than just this one incident, yes? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The harsh sanction is puzzling to me too. It appears that Amoruso has not been given ample time to respond to complaints or indeed understand what they were all about. Amoruso is a prolific contributor on Israel-related topics and improved countless articles in the past in non-controversial topics related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, therefore, the ban is also counterproductive. Apparently at least one stale issue (sock puppetry) was brought up to strengthen the case, even though Amoruso has not edited in a long time under any user name and the sock puppet issue has already been dealt with. I ask for the case to be reviewed, and am sure that Amoruso will acknowledge his mistake as he reads the BLP policy again (it has changed over time, which is likely why he didn't realize he was violating it), and refrain from violating BLP in the future. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this might be a case for a suspended sentence. If Sandstein is reading this still, perhaps he could comment on that. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandstein has indicated that he will not review an appeal filed earlier than 6 months from now. At any event the current appeal at AE is malformed and will need to be reformatted. Unomi (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He can change his opinion and reverse it without a need for a formalistic approach. I presented him with new evidence (WP:RS on which BLP was based on), and with a sincere apology. Amoruso (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso has also made an appeal at WP:AE. So as not to duplicate the discussion I will respond there to the salient points raised here.  Sandstein  16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Judge, jury, executioner
Sandstein, I appreciate the detailed reasons that you use to justify your judgement (and you have noticed I take your judgement of me in stride) but it's clear that you have exaggerated on this case. Very peculiar that this judgement comes down in the range of less than half a day(?!). 11 hours using only input from anti-Zionist editors who violate one of your (if not multiple) commandments to promote the views associated with one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict, on a daily basis. This is the BLP page and not the Arbitration page. You are out of line here and I suggest that you take a break from the I-P conflict at this time. This one is classic rage that should go on the Admin noticeboard. --Shuki (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I fully support Sndstein's actions in this case, Amaruso was getting a lot of advice and was just not interested, in fact he continued asserting the violation here, as is revealed he also has history in the same topic field. Off2riorob (talk)
 * I realize I was wrong. I didn't get any advice from a neutral or administrator. I started discussing this with you, and I thought we were still inquiring about it. What advice should I have believed from the users rv'ing me and attacking me? I really had no idea that this was a violation of WP:BLP. An indefinite ban over a mistake? If an administrator would have told me to comply I would have. Amoruso (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do feel for you but it may be a good thing, there is a big wide wikipedia out there and there is a lot of work needs doing, constructive work, not adding something that is removed the next day and on and on. it is only a topic ban, you are still free to edit the other 99.99 percent of the wikipedia and you will get a review in a few months, your wheels haven't dropped off. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say I am shocked at the way things are going on here. Nableezy who initiated this discussion has been blocked numerous times in the past for his bad conduct. Nableezy is well-known to be a politically motivated editor. His main contribution to en-wp is introducing political propaganda, usually anti-Israeli, to articles. He hardly hides it, and yet he managed to organize a group of supporters who team up with him. He and some of his friends "hijack" articles and prevent any change which they don't like. They also intimidate users who challenge their conduct (I am among them). In this case, he managed once again to drag the en-wp community into holding a "kangaroo trial". This is one of the lowest moments of this community, and believe me, I've seen some low moments before. What does it take for people to tell Nableezy, Harlan Wilkerson and several other editors to release en-wp of their grip and let people edit articles for the benefit of free knowledge? What does it take to make people here realize that the NPOV rule that used to be cherished so much here is becoming nothing but a sad joke at the hand of Nableezy? This is not Wikipedia anymore, this is merely a faint shade of what it used to be. If you want it to finally die, let Nableezy continue his rampage. DrorK (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The behavior cited here does not match the sanction. Unless there's something else going on regarding the community (or certain editors) being fed up with the editor, this seems to reflect either over-zealousness regarding BLP or else a misunderstanding of the conception of antisemitism as it pertains to Israel.  On that last point there is a frequent, albeit much criticized, belief in some circles that anti-Israeli opinions equate to or derive from antisemitism.  We don't need to get into that here, but it is neither unusual nor surprising that someone would think such a thing.  The discussion in question was tangentially related to the article content, but seems to have devolved on both sides to the usual bickering about the legitimacy of Israel's territorial claims.  At any rate the editor in question simply did not understand that BLP prohibits name-calling on talk pages, seems to get that point now, and has apologized.  Sanctions are supposed to calm disruption, not punish for past behavior, so what's the justification here?  Bringing up years' old trouble seems to support the assumption that (some) people simply want to get rid of an editor they are tired of hearing from.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.. For the record, I await his response of course but here's my apology to user:Sandstein and an explanation that my mistake was based on an WP:RS who used the same word prominently. That WP:RS was in the Jerusalem Post and referenced in an article in Florida Law Review.Amoruso (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Amoruso canvassed Hertz1888 here. Factomancer (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Asking one user of an opinion is not canvassing. I think you're proving Wikidemon's astute remarks. Amoruso (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem that Amoruso has apologized and now now understands about "personal opinions/freedom of speech" on talk pages ect is not "good/acceptable", so a ban or whatever is being called for is overkill/punishment, imho. This can always be changed or reviewed in a few weeks/months, right? Anyways, good luck to all :) --Tom (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for information, I have been canvassed via e-mail by Amoruso, in which he states " could you have a look at yom kippur war article and perhaps alert wikiproject israel? i'm concerned that it seems that egypt was victorious in the war, both by picture in the lead, caption and actual statement of who won the war "strategically" based on one misreading of one source... this is in contrast to reality where israel won decisively. don't mention me, i'm currently topic banned". пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Arroyo
His article is being subject to an IP using it as a coatrack to make some statement about the Iraq war, and perhaps vilify Arroyo's religious fidelity. Similar edits have occurred in the past at other articles of related people, e.g., George Weigel. I have reverted a second time but do not feel like escalating into editwarring. A few sane eyes on the article would be helpful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for 3 days, per the general trend toward liberal semiprotection of WP:BLPs. Perhaps that, combined with an invitation to the IP to participate on the talk page, will move things forward constructively. MastCell Talk 03:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarabeth Tucek

 * (Copied from WP:ANI)

There are current issues on this article, relating to the subject's date of birth. The only verifiable information I have found is a late 2007 interview, referring to her age as 34 and implying a DOB circa 1973. However, several editors (or perhaps one), currently identified as, is attempting to insert a claim that she was born several years earlier, based on personal knowledge. I have asked for sources, but the editor has not replied to my messages except to add a hostile message on my talk page here. In addition, the subject of the article (or someone claiming to be her) has sought to remove any mention of her DOB from the page (and at one point asked for the article to be removed). My reaction to all this, apart from seeking fruitlessly to engage the editors in discussion, has been to remove the contested DOB info from the article per WP:BLP, and revert changes which re-insert it. I'm not sure whether to go for protection of the article, blocking of Mjo5650, or both. Advice, or suitable action, welcomed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about a twitter tweet confirmation? If the user is adding uncited birth date claims and refuses to produce any citations then simply revert and warn and report, there is a lot of quacking unconfirmed accounts there....the subject is semi notable and their exact day of birth when weakly cited is of no value anyway. Personally for what its worth in this situation I would support replacing the cited interview interview implying 1973, she is approx this age and a editor who simply insists on personal knowledge and cites that on request have not been produced should not be allowed to removed a cited claim. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter would not be a RS. I would remove the DOB/age material.  If it is only one person who is inserting the material, warn that person and then block.  If it is several people/socks then semi-protection might be appropriate.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As regards twitter -I have been involved recently in more than one discussion where twitter as a self published source for non controversial content in regard to the twitter account holder only and as such for a subjects birth date was supported by consensus as reliable and acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Willie Soon


- The continual reinsertion of material that violates BLP, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page. The problem centers around the following source which is being used to impugn the scientific integrity of a BLP.


 * 

This source has several problems.


 * It's a personal letter by one individual, not fact-checked, being used to speak to the actions not only of the letter's author, but other people as well.
 * It's not visible on the author's own site, but on a self-published advocacy site which may have modified it, deleted portions, or otherwise modified its meaning. Further, this group is clearly hostile to the article's subject who is being impugned here.
 * The letter's version of events conflicts in subtle, but important ways from reliable sources already in the article.

See below for a WP:RS on the same incident. It is the official statement which appeared in the journal involved in the incident. It differs substantially on the number of people who resigned, and the reason for doing so (not a direct protest to appearance of the paper, but because Von Storch was requested to validate his subsequent editorial retraction with the full editorial board first, which the journal's publisher (as seen in this official statement published by the journal) would not allow:


 * 

Diffs of the most recent revert is below.

Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * I've protected the page to stop the ongoing edit war until others can sort this out. Sorry I don't have time to do more than this, but I'm embroiled in my own battles currently (see above). --causa sui (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have time to attend to this? The article is on protection now, but with the offending material still in place.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 12:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Schulman
Unsourced BLP. The claims that were there previously were not sourced to the provided sources, so I removed them. I just got reverted by an IP editor with no prior edits. I have re-reverted. Woogee (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted another IP adding claims that aren't supported by the references they added Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kelly O'Donnell
An IP user has been adding some controversial info to this article (diff), citing newsbusters blog.

I do not believe that this is an acceptable reliable source.

Fortunately, following some warnings, the user has taken the discussion to the talk page.

I would greatly appreciate it if others could comment, in Talk:Kelly O'Donnell.

I have posted here specifically as it is a BLP issue, and on RSN for reference validation; I hope that I will not be accused of board shopping; I am not involved with the issue, but am a neutral third-party trying to keep the discussion on-track.

To keep the thread clear, please comment on the article talk. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Bavarian throne
I saw this edit, and there is nothing I can do because neither for the original information nor for the new information any sources are offered. Some obvious problems: In the past I have observed similar problems with the poor sourcing and maintenance of such list articles in the scope of WP:ROYAL. Since this facilitates the work of hoaxters and fraudsters, I think we need to start enforcing some minimal standards. Hans Adler 08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about a fiction. The Bavarian throne was abolished in 1918, and there appears to be no chance that it will ever be revived.
 * The article is a single huge BLP violation. It lists 21 living people and makes an unsourced claim about each person on the list.


 * As Bali ultimate said in WT:ROYAL: Template:Former monarchic orders of succession "appears to be a navigational aid to entirely unsourced, unverifiable claims." Hans Adler 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted repeated vandalism to Prince Luitpold of Bavaria (b.1951) back in March. This looks like more of the same.  Woogee (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, I missed that this was basically a revert of an edit by a one-edit account, and that there was previously a similar edit, also by a one-edit account.
 * Still, most of these extrapolated successor lists don't have any real significance, and I guess most of them are not notable at all and should be deleted. Hans Adler 09:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Summer Watson
, subject has an issue with the article referred second-hand to OTRS via Jimbo, ticket 2010041710015426. She complains of someone who she refers to as "stalking" her, adding material stated to be false such as her being born Rachel, which is apparently her middle name not her birth forename. I suspect it is, rather, an obsessive fan whose sources of information are tittle-tattle of dubious accuracy. I have taken first steps to contact her and establish what the problems are, but it appears that may be the user to which she refers. I have not done anything yet about that account as I don't have full details but please watch the article, I think it's fair to say that reverting in anything prurient about her personal life, or changing the name. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The user continues to revert the information back in, I have informed them that they may no longer edit this article. We do not need WP:SPAs on biographies. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up to that solutoin. Durova  412 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner
I removed some text from which was allegedly introduced by Dom Joly - if so it was a while back I think. I also semi-protected the article due to fairly constant low-level stupidity, more or less inevitable given the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lara Jones
has sadly died of cancer aged just 34. OTRS ticket 2010041710009121 from a family friend. An obituary is expected in The Times, in the mean time I have added a notice from the local paper. I have no reason to believe this is anythign other than completely genuine as what detail there is matches up. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WRT claims material has to be excised because it is "dehumanizing"
The wiki-id User:Iqinn often asserts that material referenced or referenceable to WP:RS had to be excised because it was "dehumanizing".

As I wrote here, I have been frustrated in my attempts to understand which wikipedia policy, guideline or established convention Iqinn is relying on in characterizing these passages as "dehumanizing". (User:Iqinn's reply here)

Here is one of those edits.

In many other instances they have objected to sections of articles that provides references to WP:RS that document that an individual has been referred to using a variety of alternate names, asserting both "dehumanizing", and WP:OR. I plan to ask about that at WP:NORN. WRT to the "dehumanizing" aspect, it seems to me that no one would object to referencing that Joseph Stalin's real name was "Lavrenti Djugvali", that Mark Twain's real name was "Samuel Clemens". I honestly don't understand their objection here.

I'd appreciate input from informed, uninvolved third parties.

Thanks in advance! Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all i would like to ask user Geo Swan why he did discuss and address the given arguments on the talk page where a discussion about this topic has been started? Talk:Ismael_Ali_Faraj_Ali_Bakush. IQinn (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Geo Swan's view here. The information that Iqinn is removing isn't "dehumanizing" or original research (it would have to be an "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources", which it is not). There is a matter of whether or not the information in Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif#Identity is too trivial to include, but that is a not an OR or BLP matter. NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone with a bee in their bonnet. This material looks to be reliably sourced and neutral, I don't see the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sections like this Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif#Identity creates an idea that is not stated in any of these RS. That is OR by WP:SYN. Such a sections dehumanize the detainees as it deprives them of their individuality. These sections have been mass added just by one editor who is listing any misspelling from mostly primary source he can find. Notable alternate names of the detainees have been added to the infobox. These "Identity" sections are encyclopedic and unnecessary. IQinn (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What idea do you feel he has created ?  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The wrong impression (idea) that the "Identity" of the detainees is in question. The identity and name of the detainees are not in question and well documented in reliable secondary sources. IQinn (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While the "dehumanizing objection" doesn't hold up, the fact remains the original section strongly appeared to be poisoning the well, rather than simply identifying alternate names of the article's subject. I have made an edit to clean it up.  If another editor wants to restore the material I deleted in a more appropriate section (such as detailing what DoD documents refer to him, and how and why), that is their prerogative.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy on verifiability says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". What role should my personal notion of what is "the wrong impression", or any other wikipedian's personal opinion of what is "the wrong impression", play in choosing what belongs in an article?  I don't think any of our personal opinions of what is "the wrong impression" should play any role in what belongs in article space.


 * The personal opinion expressed above that: "[T]he identity and name of the detainees are not in question and well documented in reliable secondary sources." Sorry, this personal opinion is incorrect.  For some of the Guantanamo captives genuine doubt about the captive's identity did exist.
 * Shed Abdur Rahman / Abdur Sayed Rahaman was one of the 38 captives whose CSR Tribunal determined was not an enemy combatant after all, who claimed he was the victim of mistaken identity, because his real name had a vague resemblance to the name of senior Taliban leader.
 * Abdullah Mehsud, Mullah Shahzada and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar were the first three former captives to be identified as former captives who "returned to the battlefield". The official account of their early release was that they tricked the camp authorities about their real identity.
 * Abdullah Khan was identified as Khirullah Khairkhwa by American intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, for the first two years he was in US custody, even though the real Khirullah Khairkhwa, a famous individual in Afghanistna, bad been captured years earlier, and was present, just a few hundred yards away, in another compound in Guantanamo.
 * So, no, I can't agree that their identities have been unquestionably established. I think the record shows that, for some captives, confusion over their identity unquestionably existed.  So, what about the other individuals?  If WP:RS don't document identity confusion then nothing in article space should state captives were held due to identity confusion.  I honestly believe these sections don't state any of the captives were held due to identity confusion.
 * I think we need to proceed from the assumption that we should respect our readers' intelligence, and trust that if our material is neutrally written, cites WP:RS in a fair manner that doesn't distort the meaning of what the WP:RS say, then we can't characterize the conclusions our readers come to as "the wrong impression". Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe there is a question over the person's identity, then we may be violating BLP by inserting material that isn't even about him. The article isn't named "Detainee 215", after all.  But the reality is that there is no identity question: transliterating from Arabic to English is more art than science, and the person falls well below the bar for notability as well.  Merging all these detainees into one single list-oriented article is certainly appropriate.  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 19:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you are certainly entitled to have doubts about the notability of Fahd al Sharif. And, if you think the article should be deleted, you are entitled to voice that opinion at afd.  I see you have someone nominated the article for deletion.  So, would it be possible for us to confine questions of whether Fahd al Sharif, or any other individual, merits deletion, to other fora?  Could we confine this discussion to the specific question of when it is appropriate to assert a referenced passage is "dehumanizing" and whether BLP authorizes that characterization?  Thanks!  Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a lot of primary sources there? Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif It looks like a report of court records, are these detainees individually notable, is this person really notable in independent citations? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

<- He wouldn't identify himself using any of those names since his name is written in Arabic, no ? So, perhaps his name in his language should be in the article just like other biographies. Would that help at all ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a whole bunch of details from court records collected together. Is that a correct thing to do on wikipedia to create a BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope and frankly who gives a shit about arabic->english naming variations in a collection of court records. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you.. .I thought the general idea was to report what other people had reported about people, not to be the primary reporter of court documents and legal documents.Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we don't matter. A secondary source needs to care, not us. That's what I thought anyhow. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to request those participating here help resolve the question as to when it is appropriate to justify excising material based on assertions that it is "denumanizing".
 * Who cares about Arabic -> English transliterations? Without references that verify that a transliteration is actually, verifiably, the individual in question, diligent readers and other contributors, can't confirm that our references actually all refer to a single individual.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should individuals with Arabic names have their names represented in the Arabic script? Sure!  Do you know how to find an WP:RS that sets out the name in Arabic script?  I do not.  I know that some articles on individuals with Arabic names have had a tag placed on them, requesting wikipedia contributors fluent in Arabic to render the name into the Arabic script.  I believe that in almost all cases these volunteers have done this by using their experience, and judgment, and making an educated guess.  The reliability of these educated guesses is going to have to vary, based on the individual volunteer's fluency, the trickiness of the underlying names, and the (unknown) reliability of the original rendering from Arabic into English.  I don't want to criticize any of the volunteers who offered their best guesses as to how these individual's names should be rendered back into Arabic -- but aren't their best guesses what we would normally call "original research".
 * Even if, for the sake of argument, we found a rosetta stone -- an official document, from, lets say, the Saudi embassy, that listed the captives' names first in English and then in Arabic, why wouldn't we still need to list, and reference, the variant transliterations used in English language WP:RS? This is, after all, the English language wikipedia.  Almost none of our readers are fluent in Arabic, almost none of our contributors are fluent in Arabic, so even a perfectly reliable Arabic transliteration is going to help someone who finds a reference elsewhere to a name that might refer to this individual is the same name as one that was used in an WP:RS that we know refers to this individual?  Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The mention article is not the only one - let's not forget that we have (had) hundreds of these sections that has been mass added to Guantanamo detainee biographies. Here are some more examples. ,,, , and there are even worst examples. We have 600 - 700 hundred of these BLP's and they are often solely based on primary source and in addition these primary sources are often heavily redacted. IQinn (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sent to AFD for discussion, here Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

My initial question here concerned an edit summary that I was concerned was making a questionable interpretation of BLP in this edit to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo. Most of the comments here concern Iqinn's defense of [their edit to [[Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif]]. While I find the other comments very interesting I hope people won't forget my request for opinions on the claim that it was "dehumanizing" to list the variants of the Uyghur's names on an article about the Uyghurs.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I ask you before why he did discuss and address the given arguments on the talk page where a discussion about this topic has been started? Talk:Ismael_Ali_Faraj_Ali_Bakush? Where we started a general discussion about 'dehumanizing' in the Guantanamo section specially the concerning the Identity sections. I think it has been done here now. For the addressing of the this edit to Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo i suggest that can be done on the articles talk page by discussing in detail how many names we include for each detainee based on the sources. IQinn (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated above the reason I asked for third party input here on your use of the term "dehumanizing" is that I have been frustrated because, even though I have tried hard, I could not find an explanation, anywhere in your responses, of how the material was "dehumanizing" that complied with my understanding of our policies, guidelines and established conventions. If you interpreted this as a personal attack then that was a mistake.  For all I knew the consensus here would back your interpretation of what is dehumanizing.  But, by asking for third party input, even if you are right, and I had a blind spot that was preventing me from understanding a valid point you were making, some other person might be able to explain this, where I have found your explanations didn't help me.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)