Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive87

William Foley - Whitefish Mountain Resort
William Foley conducted a hostile takeover of a regional ski resort in Whitefish Montana. The resort had been built and maintained by local stockholders. After 2 stock splits, one conducted in secret in order to deny stockholders their rights of transferal, the community was growing weary of this conduct. William Foley is now an important part of the Big Mountain history and should not be constantly reverted in order to sanitise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.60.2 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need for sanitization. However, pushing the POV that this was a hostile takeover is a problem.  Introducing silliness like the reason one of the shareholder selling being due to his kinky sex and drugs bit is not good either.  It may well be that mentioning him is a good idea... but it would need balance, and would need to actually say what the sources say.-  Sinneed  15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the takeover is a minor issue, unless your one of the embittered shareholders..a minor comment could be agreed on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is widly believed that Foley received notice that the Dasen's stock would be available through Judge Stadler who handled the case and often drank in Foley's Whitefish bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.89.38 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and that statement alone breaks wp:BLP. Stop.-  Sinneed  15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Laurawelker
Violating BLP on the following (both in the articles and the talk pages):



Yworo (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Heurelho Gomes
The correct name of the goalkeeper is HEURÉLIO DA SILVA GOMES and not "HEURELHO". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizarromg (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are both to be found, the tottenhan player page and you think they would know his name have Heurelho http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/players/player_profiles.html Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Larkhall
has posted comments about a named person on, see DIFF I have reverted, but wp:REVDEL or even wp:OVERSIGHT may be required. Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * REVDEL'ed. Oversighting not necessary, IMHO, but other admins are free to submit if desired.  Account blocked indef as VOA. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Larry Sanger
This forced change added misleading text and unreliable source from Sott.net. The recent edit is WEIGHT problem for a BLP and the material is discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Larry Sanger. For the material at the criticism article see Criticism of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, any of about 100 references can be used including the coverage at Fox News. It is about time it was covered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You ignored the clarification and did not elaborate about this is criticism so it belongs in the criticism article and not the BLP. There is an unreliable source from Sott.net. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with one source why are you deleting the entire section that has 4 sources? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You not explained your opinion of Sott.net., you have ignored for the second time the problem about the misleading text that does not have the clarification, and I already explained this is about criticism so it belongs in the criticism page. Do you think the text is misleading because it does not have the clarification. It seems you don't care. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem editor has returned and has ignored the problems again. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a "problem editor" you complained about Sott.net and I removed that source added by another author. That was your complaint about BLP, so the tag comes down now that it is no longer in the article. If you have other complaints you need to articulate them better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You did not remove the unreliable referece. You replaced the unreliable reference with another unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's consensus on the talk page for including the content, there are multiple sources, and the incident is certainly notable. Most significantly, not a single specific criticism of the text has been offered anywhere; only efforts to expunge any mention of Sanger's letter to the FBI, groundless wikilawyering, and empty rhetoric. And as the "problem editor" comment above indicates, some name-calling. Rvcx (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Content appears fine to me, small comment, neutrally and conservatively written and well sourced notable issue in Sangers life and not given excessive weight in his Bio. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob ignored there was an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob has continued to ignore there is an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob alleged "Content appears fine to me, small comment, neutrally and conservatively written and well sourced notable issue in Sangers life and not given excessive weight in his Bio." But Off2riorob did not respond directly to the concerns about the clarification or the unreliable source.
 * Off2riorob has made comments on other threads on this board but has continued to ignore there is an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is strickly criticism that is already mentioned in the criticism article. See WEIGHT. This is clearly a BLP violation when there is no clarification. Editors continue to ignore my concerns. I request admin oversight. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quack, do you mean that it's criticism of Wikipedia or that it's criticism of Sanger? Certainly the fact that Wikipedia has been accused of distributing child pornography is relevant to Criticism of Wikipedia, but the fact that Sanger sent a letter to the FBI is relevant to Sanger himself. Given the coverage the Sanger has received as a result, this certainly seems notable enough to merit at least a single sentence in his bio. Further, I have no idea what "clarification" you're looking for; once again could you please explain in detail what your objection is? Frankly, I'm bewildered (and annoyed) that this discussion needed to be brought to the notice board instead of you simply explaining your objection on the talk page. Rvcx (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Misleading text is a BLP violation against Sanger. See Criticism of Wikipedia that explained the clarification. There is no need to repeat a story about criticism in a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Quack—answer the questions and articulate your objections or just drop it. What do you find misleading about the text? I can't even fathom the logic that anything related to any kind of "criticism" is a BLP violation. As I've said, this isn't criticism of Sanger. What's more, Sanger's letter to the FBI need not even be viewed as criticism of Wikipedia—he's repeatedly argued that he thought he was legally compelled to send it. The current text is extremely neutral on this count. Rvcx (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As previously explained, there is no clarification. You can read the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton has now added an unreliable reference about discussion logs. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't unreliable, that is the organization that Sanger chose to make his actions known. He chose to contact that organization with news of his actions and they are posting his original email to them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unreliable and does not verify the text and it does not explain about the clarification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not shown how the reference is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is specifically about criticism and not written from a neutral point of view, and the clarification that is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article was left out of the Larry Sanger page. If editors want to violate WEIGHT they should at least write something that is factually accurate like what is written in the criticism page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep using Wikipedia phrases like NPOV and unreliable-source, but to be honest I haven't a clue what changes you are lobbying for. I think you want the section removed because you think it looks bad for Sanger, or you are Sanger. You need to make it clear what you are lobbying for and not just regurgitate the names of Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard Arthur Norton ignored the comment made by Jclemens. Richard Arthur Norton did not remove an unreliable source. He replaced an unreliable source with another unreliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jclemens was pointing out that as a primary source it is more reliable as a reference for that fact, not less. I ignored it because I agree 100%, nothing more needed to be added to his cogent logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, don't say anything that could be understood as suggesting that the QuackGuru account is controlled by Larry Sanger. That's an offensive claim (for Larry Sanger), obviously false, and to some extent BLP applies on talk pages. Thanks. Hans Adler 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton ignored that Jclemens wrote "It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions." That is clear to me the reference is an unreliable primary source according to Jclemens. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is still an unreliable source added by Richard Arthur Norton for no reason. QuackGuru (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton also added a BLP violation to the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You can read the references and you can read where there is consensus for the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia. This was repeatedly ignored by Wikipedians at this talk page and at the Larry Sanger page. The entire event is of such small importance to a person's life, it is not sensible to include it at all. It's just recentism to include a new paragraph everytime the media gets excited about something Larry Sanger did. Frankly, filing a complaint to the FBI seems exciting but is not notable to a person's life. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Issue with Arthur Jensen
I had thought that our previous two discussions about this ( and ) had made some progress. That is sort of true in that the absurd claim about Jensen seeking separate curriculum for blacks and whites has been removed and, so far, stayed removed. But the issue has come up again. (Thanks MathSci!) So, we both need to discuss this one specifically and brainstorm about ways to solve this more permanently. (This discussion I started at WP:BLP has not gone very far.)

I deleted the second sentence of this section from History of the race and intelligence controversy.

Joan Freeman, a psychologist specialising in gifted education, wrote that Jensen found that after matching up black and white children according to socioeconomic level, although the IQ scores of black children were distributed over the whole range, their average score was 15 points less than that of the white children. As she wrote, "He proposed that different forms of education, more appropriate to their kind of intelligence, should be given to black children. There should be less conceptual flights of fancy and more rote learning for them."

1) I have no problem with the first sentence. That is, in fact, what Jensen (1969) reports. 2) I deleted the second sentence, not because I doubt that Freeman herself wrote it (MathSci is very reliable when it comes to these details) but because Jensen (1969) does not, in fact, propose "different forms of education" for "black children." Doesn't WP:BLP require that we delete false claims about living people even if those claims are made in reliable sources? David.Kane (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not interested in truth, only verifiability. In short, if you're capable of digging up enough sources displaying the same bias, you are free to paste that bias with reckless abandon into every article even tangentially relevant to the topic, and as long as it is politically correct, you can present it as fact and in Wikipedia's voice. It doesn't matter if someone can demonstrate the bias for what it is, s/he will be found in violation of WP:OR or some such policy if s/he contests the neutrality of the material, and possibly blocked for disruptive behaviour. Double-plus good, I say.
 * Apparently, David, you forgot to check your ability to think critically at the door. Tsk, tsk. -- Aryaman (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not interested in truth, only verifiability."
 * This is one of the worst fallacies abroad on WP at present. WP doesn't work in this way, merely some blinkered editors. WP:V can be useful to elucidate truth, but the moment any of us start to see verifiability as a substitute for truth, it's time to stop writing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see why the race and intelligence articles are so problematic on Wikipedia. Secondary sources in the field of psychology tend to marginalize the hereditary intelligence hypothesis through consequentialism: "if you accept X, then the natural result is Y". I expect a part of this is a defense of psychology itself (which is under threat to cede some of its historical territory to biology and statistics), and another part is an understandable societal reluctance to acknowledge racial differences (fearing that small differences in the means of two distributions will be misinterpreted as evidence that the distributions are largely disjoint). As a BLP problem, it's similar to attributing consequentialist arguments about evolution to Darwin, e.g. "Darwin thought it was all right to kill the poor and weak and to breed a master race, and so does anyone who believes evolution", and consequentialist arguments about free markets to Adam Smith, e.g. "Smith thought that people should be greedy and exploit others". The trouble is, both Darwin and Smith were merely scientists observing and documenting a phenomenon, not political activists trying to implement the societal changes attributed to their theories—in Wikipedia terms I suppose the relevant policy would be assigning undue weight to the "advocacy" side of their lives, combined with a tendency to synthesize theory with the social policy supported by that theory. Unfortunately, it's the secondary sources that are placing the weight and performing the synthesis here. If it's acceptable for Wikipedia to echo the cultural zeitgeist, even when that zeitgeist misinterprets people and their work, then most of the material about Jensen should remain—only those few cases where Wikipedia performs additional synthesis and adds additional undue weight (which has occurred as editors have tried to "summarize" sources by removing caveats, context, and nuance) need be fixed (usually with a minor rewording). If that's not acceptable, then I suppose we'd need to attribute every synthesis that isn't directly supported by primary sources (which is a huge pain in the ass, and very hard to reconcile with WP:OR). My one piece of advice is that the interpretation of race and intelligence primary sources may be different in secondary sources devoted to biology, genetics, and statistics (of which there are fewer—most of the non-specialist literature on intelligence is written by psychologists), so looking these out may be valuable. Rvcx (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is completely irrelevant personal musings that are also erroneous. The hereditarian hypothesis is mostly supported by (a small group) of psychologists, it is mostly rejected by anthropologists, biologists and geneticists. Jensen, Rushton and other hereditarians often try to paint themselves as victims of "political correctness" who are stigmatized for their relentlessness in their search for scientific truth. Secondary sources usually do not fall for that martyr trick, but rather expose their actual arguments and the faulty analyses on which they build. Arthur Jensen is not simply looking for scientific truth, but is actively advocating policy changes within education. To deny that is simply counterfactual. (The very fact that Jensen found it relevant to describe race differences in IQ in the Harvard Educational Review speaks clearly to the fact that Jensen means to base educational policies on race) Secondary sources place more emphasis on those arguments because they are both largely unethical and based on faulty science.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Maunus has adequately demonstrated that the POV-pushers are not confined to the hereditarian side of this field. Rvcx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
 * I would ask you to back up that accusation with diffs of me working towards a less neutral coverage of this or any other topic or alternatively apologize and strike your remark.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I base my comment purely on the above. Whether you consider something "unethical" is irrelevant, and I find your eagerness to dismiss all intelligence research as "faulty science" worrying. Frankly, the "hereditarian hypothesis"—the notion that some part of the variance in intelligence (at least as measured by IQ tests; no need to dwell on whether the term is well-defined) is heritable—is pretty well universally accepted in academia. The disagreement is mainly over how much of that variance is heritable, how much is due to biological environment, how much is due to social environment, how much is due to educational environment, etc, as well as what (if any) policy implications this should have. I do, however, agree that a "strong hereditarian hypothesis"—that intelligence is determined solely by genetics—has very limited support. In fact, I'm not familiar with any researcher (Jensen included) who has proposed it. Rvcx (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rvcx, I think you’re confusing two different things here. You’re correct that academia almost universally accepts the idea that variance in intelligence between individuals within the same ethnic group is strongly heritable, but within the context of race and intelligence, the term “hereditarian hypothesis” generally refers to more than this.  This term usually refers to the theory that genetics also contribute to the differences in average IQ between ethnic groups, which is much more controversial.  For variance in intelligence within ethnic groups to be strongly heritable does not guarantee that within-group variation is heritable also; see Race_and_intelligence for an explanation of this.


 * Incidentally, I don’t think Maunus is POV-pushing. Even though there have been plenty of situations in which he and I have disagreed, I think his overall pattern of contributions to these articles shows that he cares about legitimately improving them rather than just inserting his point of view into them.  And he sometimes makes mistakes, just like the rest of us, but that on its own doesn’t justify not assuming good faith about him. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite right that I was addressing the hereditarian hypothesis with respect to intelligence in general, not specifically between races; I apologize for the confusion. Hereditary racial differences are not as universally accepted, although I still find it quite tendencious to suggest that they are widely rejected. Regardless, my intent was not to debate the "truth", but rather to try to identify the sourcing problems causing so much controversy in the editing process, and to highlight to danger in editors using "ethics" as an excuse for undue weight. There's no question that ethical concerns have driven much of the secondary-source coverage of (or reaction to) intelligence research; that's not an excuse to misrepresent the views of the scientists doing that research. Rvcx (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Kirsch
I am the subject of this entry. It seems to have been cobbled together from various biographical materials on me, some of which is correct, much of which is incorrect, and all of which seems to be written in a style inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.171.102 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you be specific about which information is inaccurate? As nothing is cited, anything can be removed at this point if you let us know where the problems are. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=364664027&oldid=364651388
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel&diff=364664027&oldid=364651388

There is a dispute at this article concerning the adequacy of sources being used to support a section on one of the leading members of this organization. I would be grateful if other editors could take a look and offer their opinions. CIreland (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it this content....

During a radio broadcast in 1996, Smith was asked, "[at] some point there was a prediction of Christ's return through Calvary Chapel. Is that real? ... Did that happen?" Notwithstanding the published books, Smith responded, "No! Never, we all, we do believe he is going to return soon, never any date, no, never any date, because no man knows the day or the hour.http://calvarychapel.pbwiki.com/f/Smith%20-%20Date%20setting%20denial%20-%20TEMAA.ram

with these hidden references to the broadcast


 * http://www.seekgod.ca/raptured.htm
 * http://calvarychapel.pbworks.com/1981
 * *[http://www.finaldaysproject.org/newsletter/archives/letters/2005/letters.html
 * *[http://www.cgalliance.org/forums/archive/index.php?t-6223.html
 * http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/06/apocalypse_soon.html

If it is, I see what looks like the primary interview (which I have not clicked on) we are not here to report primary content, and a bunch of not reliable citations, so ..no, imo there are not adequate. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the material. The "interview" is a short (30 sec) audio clip hosted on a this wiki; the hidden refs are blogs, forums etc. CIreland (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also a clear case of original research: the radio show quote is being combined with an unsourced "Notwithstanding the published books" editorial comment in order to make the point critical of Smith. Not appropriate content, most especially in a BLP, as currently presented --Slp1 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, content as presented has multiple issues. Even if we reported primary reports (which we don't), we could not do it in a balanced way with a thirty second cherry picked snippet of a lengthy interview. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of two minds on the subject. I am an editor on the article and have never heard these claims before so I don't think they're reliable. I have not had the opportunity to verify the source. There are several conflicting policies on Wikipedia here. The first is the one the anonymous editor has been claiming that wikis are not acceptable sources, but this is a broadcast and there is the template so it seems that first-hand material is acceptable under some circumstances, and the policy states that it is valid when the subject of the article, in this case the lead pastor of the church, is speaking about themselves. If the clip states what it claims to it is clearly not WP:OR. The second is using using an external source that requires a plug-in, and real media is such a plug-in. Third is, whether this church is a biography of a living person or if it's a theological issue, in other words, should this really be discussed here. My final point is that the author who originally added the material has a marked bias against this church. The author has been asked several times why they have this POV but refuses to discuss it. The anonymous editor has the opposite POV and has reverted a lot of apparently valid material several times. The anonymous editor has also reverted much dubious material. I have prolonged this edit war based on my understanding of policies around media clips. I'm more neutral on the topic and my relationship to the church is explained in the article's talk page, but I will summarize it here: I have an interest in the church for its place in the history of Christian music and an old friend of mine is a pastor of a church. (comment was added by User:Walter_Görlitz)


 * Hello Walter. Thanks for your comments. Here's a few clarifications.
 * I agree that primary sources such as a radio broadcast can be used on Wikipedia, but only with great care and caution (especially in BLPs) "because it is easy to misuse them" (see WP:PSTS; WP:BLP). This primary source has been misused because of evaluative commentary "Notwithstanding the published books" which has been added to lead the reader to believe that Smith is a liar, not to put to fine a point about it. It's a very clear BLP issue.
 * The radio interview is also not "reliably published" as required by our no original research policy. While the interview cited may well be Smith speaking, it could also be a fake, made up by an opponent. The wiki on which the clip is hosted is a self-published (and incidentally anti-Smith) website and per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:SPS cannot be used, even as a host. If the interview was hosted on a news site (say) or Smith/Calvary Church's own website, then you are correct that, with great care to avoid cherry-picked quote farms, Smith's own words could potentially be used, as long as no interpretation/evaluation/analysis is made.  Secondary sources (in part to show that the information is actually significant enough to include in WP) would be strongly preferred.
 * I don't think the plug-in issue would be considered an obstacle to inclusion.
 * Dealing with editors with biases is difficult, I agree. More neutral editors need work together to find the neutral middle way. In this case, I believe the IP editor was correct about the inappropriateness of the material. --Slp1 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thanks to everyone involved with this. You have each voiced your objections to the material more eloquently and completely than I have been able to and it is gratifying to see that the apparent motives behind the material addition is transparent to others besides myself.
 * I should also note that this material has attempted to be added directly to Smith's wiki page Chuck_Smith_(pastor) and I reverted that this morning, as well.
 * To respond to Walter: hopefully I have been very clear about my POV on the issue while also trying (it's hard) to retain an even keel on edits.  As for any thoughts that I have "reverted a lot of apparently valid material several times", I absolutely agree that I carefully watch the content and understand how this perception could result (fairly or unfairly.)  I've probably watched this article for 4 years now and definitely try to enforce quality reference standards; removing unsourced or poorly sourced content until it can be vetted and sourced, especially if it casts a negative light.  My personal take is that an editor who wants to add material should do the groundwork to source it properly rather than adding material and then demanding that others do the dirty work.  As you have seen, that philosophy sometimes results in conflict.  I can only hope the article is the better for it.
 * Finally, I apologize for the edit warring. Given the nature of previous communications with the other editor regarding quality research and sources and and the fact that these communications seemed to be ignored in adding the disputed content, it appeared to be the only option.  In all of these years of wiki editing, I've had very little experience with the noticeboards.  This has been an education for me, as well. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a few considerations:
 * In terms of Calvary Chapel, I think it is important to recognize that he changed his mind on eschatology, and on his belief system. He preaches considerably on end time prophecy and eschatology.  His books are definitely verifiable (he had them published).
 * The radio broadcasts -- come on, guys, is anyone really suggesting that someone went to the chore of finding someone that sounded like Chuck Smith just to create the radio broadcast? Although that is a possible explanation, I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. There are innumerable commentaries on his radio broadcast, and I added a couple as hidden so anyone that had questions could easily find the information (because of the IP user's constant reverts and ignorance of using the Talk page; and so the casual reader didn't have to look at them; and to reduce any bias).
 * In terms of Calvary Chapel & Chuck Smith, this is not a "living person," this is a company -- that is, an Inc. It is the same as looking at something that came from BP regarding the oil spill in the Gulf.  As far as I know, no one is criticizing the person Chuck Smith.  All the references should be considered in terms of the company Chuck Smith, Inc., the owner of Calvary Chapel, Inc.
 * I tried to quote as much as practical, without just putting his whole books up there, and attempted to do so without leading the reader any way in particular. I selected "notwithstanding" because it was a lot less heavy than phrases like "in spite of" or "despite."  Notwithstanding appeared to be the most neutral.
 * Questioning the user with the comment "we are not here to report primary content," I don't think that is correct. Most of the Calvary Chapel wiki is primary content from Calvary Chapel, and from what I recall, that is allowed.
 * Since Walter asked again, here is my position: I am interested in Christianity. Recently, Calvary Chapelites I have known have asked me to come to hear their speakers talk, which started me searching on what is a Calvary Chapelite, which brought me to Chuck Smith. From what I've read, Chuck Smith's organization has grown very large and claims a christian bent -- and from what I've read, it appears that Chuck Smith's organization has grown largely without any checks and balances from outside his own organization.   The more I searched on the internet about the organization, and the man that started and currently runs the organization, the more I found that only "good stuff" was discussed on Wiki -- certainly from a biased point of view.  As other users have posited (please visit the talk page), the Wiki articles appear to be marketing propaganda.   Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * None of your citations are reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sliceofmiami. There seems multiple misconceptions here. You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of WP. It is not to publish the observations you have made about how he may have changed his mind about eschatology. By all means get your own blog or website if you want to publicise this kind of original research.  We only use reliable sources here, and an anti-Smith wiki (and the self-published blogs, websites and fora) simply aren't acceptable as sources.  This is not a question of preference but of policy, and is non-negotiable.  And yes, Chuck Smith is a living person, and any material about him, in any article, is covered by our WP:BLP policy. Once again, this is not open to debate. If you find the articles about Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith unbalanced then by all means balance them with material published in books, newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals etc. Those would be appropriate sources of comment and criticism where self-published sources and your own research is not. --Slp1 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason that only good stuff may appear on the article is because Chuck isn't that bad of a guy and CC may not be a bad place. There are certainly many criticisms of CC, but there are of many Christian movements and certainly of denominations. There are a great many bad things that could be said of Calvinists or Arminians, of Pentecostals or Presbyterians. The criticisms usually come from other camps trying to make their camp look like the best choice (or God's choice) and they emphasize what's wrong with it based on their world-view, philosophy, or theology. That doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's not theirs. Most of the criticisms you've had are misunderstandings. The one that comes to mind is that CC believes that the pastors should answer to God. You keep adding-in the phrase only which isn't the case. Scripture can be used to show that the pastor must answer to God for their leadership. They do have elders and others in the congregation to whom they are accountable as well as pastors of other churches. I think you're trying to find reasons to not go to a CC not to find out what's good about them. This doesn't address the current issue but is a concern nonetheless. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. SoM:  I think it is also very likely that the criticisms and POV that you seem to have adopted are probably colored by the quality (or lack thereof) of the websites from which you have fished for such criticisms.  If you only go fishing in the muck, it's pretty likely that you're only going to end up with mucky fish.  (Okay that's a horrible analogy, but hopefully the point is clear.)
 * I see that now I am being accused of "ignorance of using the Talk page". However, we have been clear on the talk page that wiki's, blogs, etc. are not suitable references.  If we say it once, we should not have to continually say it on the talk page.
 * CC is not without its legitimate criticisms and issues. The eschatology section that existed before your edits was a fabulous example of how to do it right.  66.177.182.247 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Kind of liked the mucky fish analogy, cute. And thank you for participating. Sliceofmiami (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) On legitimate issues and criticisms -- Wiki's policy is that all points of view should be covered in the amount of the exposure of that point of view in literature.  I started my research based on word of mouth, and then on googling for what other people believed.  You are right, there is quite a bit of literature on negative issues associated with Calvary Chapel.  Please add the information so the page is not an advertisement, but instead a legitimate encyclopedic entry.
 * 2) Walter, if you research, CC pastors do not report in any way to the elders.  The elders report to the pastor.  Accountability at the local church level is extremely difficult.  On the other hand, division does not happen because there is only one voice.  Please research this, it is quite interesting.
 * 3) Only good stuff appearing -- this is not a legitimate case.  I think that a more reasonable explanation is that the people that are under the authority of chuck smith are more protective of him than the people that have left his organization are able to reason back.  My personal experiences have been that it is difficult to reason with a person that has been immersed in any religion, and that includes Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel.  Please do some research about people that have left the organization, who present a case (be it right or wrong) about why they left his care.
 * 4) In terms of Chuck Smith's radio broadcast... I still do not see how a real Chuck Smith audio recording is invalid source material.
 * Hi SoM. Once again, I fear you have a misconception about the purpose of WP. What you've missed out in your description above of what WP is all about is that this the place where we report "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  (emphasis added-see WP:NPOV)  The key is starting with reliable sources, not personal websites, blogs, foras etc, and working from there.  Where has it been published in a reliable source that Smith has changed his mind about the end of the world? Not evidence that he has, but someone making that exact observation in a reliable source. Unless someone has made this point, we can't include it. WP is actually a very boring place; you can't do your own investigations and research here, and can only to summarize what other people have said about the subject in reliable sources.
 * I am very confident that a snippet of a radio broadcast hosted on a Wiki would not be considered a reliable source for our purposed. But if you want to check, you can ask other editors at the WP:RSN. --Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Followup: Talk pages?
I have a follow-up question related to this discussion, but I'm not sure if it belongs here. While reading WP:Burden, I came across a surprising nugget: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page", which also included a crystal clear quote by Mr. Wales, himself. The thing that shocked me is the part about the talk pages - I always thought they were (nearly) sacrosanct per talk page policy. But my quoted reference from WP:Burden seems to suggest that poor references and any material based on such references could potentially be stricken from talk pages, as well. Is this correct? Or am I misreading? Thanks in advance for your time. 66.177.182.247 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages get a good bit more leeway to discuss borderline things, but things that are clearly not appropriate can be removed. In this case, where he's being accused of having changed his mind on a religious matter, yes, I can see this being appropriately discussed on the talk page.  Were he being accused of a crime, (e.g., inappropriate sexual content with a minor under his care--seems more than a few clergy get accused of that) that accusation would be fair game to remove: we don't report accusations of crimes in most cases, only criminal convictions that have been noted in the press. That make sense? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification! 66.177.182.247 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Escort Ireland - more eyes needed
A new user initially posted on a different forum, but I thought I would cross post here as a more appropriate forum to bring more eyes to watch for the insertion of names of living people without proper sourcing. Active Banana (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Troublesome, valueless little not notable stub, better off deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like this edit on the talk page may need oversight. I'll go ahead and report it for removal. Yworo (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Yworo. I have sent it for discussion at Articles for deletion here Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Macindoe
Just wanting a second opinion on this page which is currently being edited by a User:TimMacindoe. Edits are mostly fine although s/he is removing any "citation needed" tags I place. I don't want to have an edit war so am asking for opinions/advice/help. Mattlore (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When you see a user with the same name as the article, it's a good time to use the   template. Yworo (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that Yworo, hadn't seen that template before and don't usually deal with these conflicts so thought I'd just refer it to here for some extra sets of eyeballs. Mattlore (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Issues Related to Arthur Jensen, with reference to handling controversial claims from reliable sources about living figures
I have been involved in a series of disputes about contentious claims made about Arthur Jensen, a living person. Although the details differ in each one (see the box for background), the most common pattern seems to involve:
 * 1) A claim made about Jensen, often about his famous 1969 paper entitled "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?". Full paper is available here.
 * 2) The claim appears in a reliable source. The latest example involves a quote from Ornstein (1982), an academic paper.
 * 3) In the view of some editors (at least me), the claim made in the reliable source is contradicted by examining Jensen (1969) directly. Some of these have been egregious but others, like Ornstein, are much closer calls.
 * 4) The view attributed to Jensen is "contentious" (to quote WP:BLP) is two senses. First, some editors disagree that Jensen held those views. Second, the view is extreme, generally some version of "Jensen argued that blacks should be treated differently than whites" rather than his (in my opinion) actual view of low IQ students should be treated differently than high IQ students.
 * 5) I delete the edit, noting that it is "contentious" and asking for discussion and, I hope, consensus at the Talk page.
 * 6) Others insist that I am wrong to delete any material which is correctly attributed to a reliable source. The fact (if true) that it contradicts Jensen's own words or that it is extreme is, other editors claim, irrelevant.

For now, I am not seeking opinions about the content dispute. Indeed, I think that Ornstein is much more reasonable than some of the previous deletions that I have made. In fact, after discussion, I could imagine keeping it. Instead, I am seeking opinions from uninvolved editors about the generic way I should handle contentious claims made about a living person. Specifically, is my current practice of immediate deletion (following WP:BLP, followed by an attempt to engage in discussion at the appropriate Talk page justified? Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You should probably realize that given you have a strong POV in this area, your attempts to allege you are merely following BLP are likley to be disregarded, and given close scruitiny. As such, unless the BLP violation is flagrant and obvious, you should stop reverting content you don't like. Hipocrite (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, while re-adding this material for the second time, you’ve stated in your edit summary “BLPN has come to a conclusion that this is acceptable material”. How is that possible when nobody other than you has commented in this thread, and your own comment is just saying that David.Kane’s policy-based arguments should be disregarded because he has a point of view about this topic?  Do you seriously think that a single comment which refuses to address David.Kane’s points should be considered “consensus”? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because the long and detailed discussion of your last post on the very same topic is still above on this page and hasn't even been archived yet? Yworo (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean “my last post”? My only comment in the previous thread about this was explaining to Rvcx what the “hereditarian hypothesis” means in this context.


 * If what you mean is David.Kane’s last post, I don’t see how anyone could be assuming that discussion has reached a consensus, especially not a consensus that this material is acceptable. Of the five people who’ve commented, the only person who thought it was acceptable was Maunus.  Varoon Arya’s comment about this was sarcasm, in case you can’t tell. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The non SPA editors have agreed every time on every one of the BLPN postings. Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And so have non-SPAs such as Rvcx, Off2riorob, Ncmvocalist, Varoon Arya, Andy Dignley, and Jimbo Wales. What’s your point?  Does your lack of respect for the editors who disagree with you automatically create a consensus for the opposite of whatever they say? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the fact that you are a fringe POV pusher makes me disregard everything you say. You misrepresent what the various indiviudals you list above said. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)I agree that there is a BLP concern here: there are cases where secondary sources are performing unjustified synthesis of the primary sources, and I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia should handle that. Further, there are some cases (including the one on this noticeboard that initially attracted my attention) where it's actually Wikipedia perform additional synthesis of these secondary sources, which is clearly against policy (although usually quite easy to fix—my concern was addressed by changing just a couple of words). I should also point out that the above comment is clearly a personal attack and ignores content issues. I suggest you strike it out. Rvcx (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources when written by respected scholoars are allowed to make all the syntheses they want. What we are not allowed to do is second-guess them and say which scholars have correct and which have faulty interpretations of what Jensen's opinions are.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a personal attack. Does Captain Occam deny he is a SPA? A POV pusher? Further, I echo Maunus here - Secondary sources are supposed to synthesize primary sources - please read No_original_research - "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. ... Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have to agree with this. WP:BLP is intended to prevent the addition of unvetted opinions about the subject that might expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. Reporting what a third-party published secondary source says, which has already been vetted by the publisher of the material, does not so expose Wikipedia. The published third-party opinions have already been vetted. As an encyclopdia, Wikipedia would not be the target of any suit, the author and publisher of the secondary material would be. Wikipedia is protected when accurately reporting cited third-party opinions. This seems to me to be a misuse of WP:BLP in a content dispute. Yworo (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My point (which I think Jimbo supported much more strongly) is that this isn't always the case: even otherwise excellent secondary sources can make unjustified interpretations of other people's work. Normally minor errors in secondary sources are addressed because other sources correct them, but in this case there are two problems with that. First, when one or two sources perform a particular unjustified synthesis but others don't, the omission in all the other sources is hard to cite as a "conflict" between the two. Second, there is a tendency for secondary sources (particularly when produced by the same community with the same biases) will make the same unjustified inferences. The notion that Adam Smith, for example, discounted the value of altruism is incredibly common in popular secondary (or, in truth, tertiary) sources, but it is blatantly and demonstrably false. There have been a few essays on the fact that it's false, but they're tough to find and not difficult to dismiss as WP:FRINGE because they're so much less popular than the "Smith liked greed" sources. So (for Smith at least—let's leave the Jensen debate out of it for a moment) we're in a quandry: lots of secondary sources say that Smith said something, but even a cursory reading of his actual work demonstrates that this is a mischaracterization. A potentially libelous mischaracterization. Repeating such mischaracterizations as fact would be a BLP issue if Smith were still alive. As I've said, I'm not entirely sure what the answer is, but I am sure the issue isn't quite as simple as we all wish it were. Rvcx (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You alledge, then, that Orenstein mischaracterizes Jensen. However, I was able to find primary sources (from the Jensen peice) for all of Orensteins secondary sourced quotes. As such, I have to ask - where is the mischaracterization, except in the minds of people who wish Jensen didn't say what he said? Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) If you read the above you will find that I allege nothing of the sort; I haven't dug into that particular bit of text—only the ones about which I commented in the very first thread. My one day digging through the sources, however, suggested that Jensen's work had been widely over-interpreted and that he had become a tar baby for race and intelligence politics: his work definitely supports a lot of political advocacy that he himself doesn't seem to have directly endorsed. This isn't at all uncommon for academics whose work draws political attention. I'm trying not to wade into the content debate, but rather to point out that one of the reasons the content debate is not progressing is that some editors think anything they find in a secondary source is fine to include, and others (Jimbo included) think that where BLP is concerned primary sources are (also?) necessary. It might be worth separating the policy debate from the content debate. Rvcx (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are not responding to content on this noticeboard, please go to a relevent policy page - you might consider WP:OR. I should note that above you have been identified as agreeing that this material should note be included. Seemingly, you take no position on the material. Please clarify. Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: your claim that "The non SPA editors have agreed every time on every one of the BLPN postings." is false; I have agreed that there have been BLP violations related to Jensen, and I have supported removing and/or rewording them. You base much of your argument on the assumption that anything appearing in a reliable secondary source is not a BLP violation; I disagree with that argument (as does Jimbo, who is about as far from an SPA as you can get). Rvcx (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This should be handled simply by making it clear whose opinion it is and where it is presented. Unless the source is self-published, fringe, or otherwise systemically unreliable, we should not be doing what is essentially orginal research in revetting sources. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might be easiest to view this issue in terms of neutrality. (And neutrality is of paramount importance in articles involving living people.)  We have some (otherwise reliable) sources, such as Tucker, which claim that Jensen advocated treating people differently on the basis of race rather than on the basis of IQ.  And there are other reliable sources, such as some of Linda Gottfredson’s writings, which state that authors such as Tucker are systematically misrepresenting Jensen’s opinion about these topics.  Mathsci has claimed that we can’t use Gottfredson as a source for most parts of the article, because she clearly has a favorable view of Jensen and therefore isn’t neutral in what she says about topics like this one.  David.Kane and I think the same is true of Tucker, except that in this case the problem is how obviously unfavorable Tucker’s view of Jensen is.  (What do you expect of an author who refers to Jensen’s work as “scientific racism”?)  Fortunately, we also have a third option for writing articles about people like Jensen, which is to use sources such as Loehlin that everyone can agree are neutral.  Loehlin doesn’t make what people like Gottfredson consider to be unsupported assertions about Jensen’s views, but he also doesn’t attempt to whitewash Jensen the way Mathsci thinks authors like Gottfredson do.  Since sources such as Loehlin aren’t contentious in either direction, aren’t they our best option for describing living people neutrally? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So your opinion of me makes it unnecessary for you to support your claim that there’s a consensus for this material, and gives you the right to revert the article four times within the space of two hours in order to keep inserting it? Do you seriously not see what’s wrong with your behavior here? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see 4 reverts from me (in fact, I see 2, an attempt to add a tag, and an attempt to rewrite the content to meet the talk page objection), but if you do, please report me. Further, the fact of your fringe POVpusherness makes your comments carry no weight. If the users you listed above actually said what you say they said, you'll point to diffs of them saying what you say they said, or they'll show up to say it again. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, it’s three reverts:  .  The third one is definitely a revert, because it’s adding most of the same material that’s already been removed by four different users, even if it’s been slightly reworded.  You haven’t violated 3RR on this article yet, but you will if you revert it again.


 * If I quote the comments where the users I mentioned expressed agreement with David.Kane about this, do you agree to let this drop? After you’ve already stated that you intend to disregard everything I say, it’s hard for me to be convinced that providing a detailed explanation of the lack of consensus is a good use of my time, particularly when it should be blatantly obvious to most people in this situation. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And the mayhem spills into section after section on this page too? So many weighing in here who profess to hold the "proper" interpretation of Jensen, but I don't see many giving much feedback on the "proper" application of the WP:BLP policy. Unfortunately, our own brilliant expertise on the subject of Arthur Jensen is the one thing that counts for nothing at wikipedia. And this board is certainly not the proper venue to share it. Here, explain how the policy relates to the use of reliably sourced material, primary sources, and the proper framing of controversial claims. Otherwise, detailed discussions about the topic itself properly belongs on the article's talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The discussion should centre on the use of properly ascribed commentary from reliable secondary sources, not on WP:OR ("Jensen was used as a tar baby"). Mathsci (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Francis
has twice inserted a section on Francis's recent pregnancy sourced to Blogspot.com, plus speculation on the Talk page, which I removed. Input on whether this content is appropriate for the article – even if improved sourcing could be found – would be appreciated. Also, I'm not sure if the reference to the fictional character Avery Jessup should be included, especially considering the character's pregnancy. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted the pregnancy bit and warned the user. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Biography Name Incorrect For "Sammy Hagar"
Main heading of commonly used name of "Sammy Hagar" is correct. The incorrect birthname of "Samuel" is used in bold type at the beginning of the article. Birthname is "Sam Roy Hagar" Could not edit that portion of article. Please correct. Thank you. RedJeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJeanette (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider using editsemiprotected on the article talk page. Be sure to include evidence that the name as currently sourced is incorrect.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see no technical reason why you can't edit that directly yourself. The article is not currently protected. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was reverted, that is why the change did not appear to work. I have reinstated the edit here. Unfortunately, it would appear the user has given up on Wikipedia :-( See their talk.  Chzz  ►  09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Kelly (entrepreneur)
Can I request a quick review of this? There has been some recent issues relating to a political campaign and we got an OTRS message (4954309) complaining about it. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fair bad, the article is written in such a way to coatrack his time at Facebook. Needs a scrub, i've made a start. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don King
I'd like to request input at Talk:Don King (boxing promoter) regarding an IP who has repeatedly changed the lead from:"'Donald 'Don' King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality.'"to"'Donald 'Don' King (born August 20, 1931) is an American boxing promoter and convicted murderer particularly known for his hairstyle and flamboyant personality.'"This seems a bit much for the lead sentence, especially given the details of the case. The IP has violated 3RR, but I think they may be operating in good faith. I've temporarily semi-protected the page, and am acting as an admin here, so additional opinions are required. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz chat spy  16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Helena Guergis
More eyes are needed here, as two editors have been reverting one another over some contentious (but sourced) negative material. A third opinion was sought regarding one specific section (see Talk:Helena Guergis) but the reverting has now encompassed more of the material in this BLP. Helena Guergis is a Canadian politician who was forced by the prime minister to resign from Cabinet this year, after a series of controversies. My impression, without having weighed into this too heavily, is that is it challenging to document all the controversies in a neutral way, as there are many unproven allegations. Any help is appreciated. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

 * Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.
 * The majority of the article up to the Critical Reception section was written prior to user:Dpyb's involvement. These are the changes between user:Dpyb's first edit of the article in February of this year through to March of this year. I simply see the need for citations as there doe snot appear to be any additional POV. All that is required is citations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Max Yong - more eyes needed
Article history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Yong&action=history

The article is well written, but:
 * References provided are just generic links to club sites and I couldn't actually find Max Yong there.
 * Fails google check.
 * Questionable notability.
 * Same user who made major contributions to the article had just inserted:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=365358460&oldid=365348726 - (very likely misinformation)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=365344920&oldid=363552310 - (deliberate misinformation)

User contributions:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.250.5.245
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.250.5.246

Note that it is a shared IP and more recent contributions seems to be Ok.

--Dc987 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please tell me, without making me click on a link, why this is a BLP problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it is a BLP and the article is likely to be a student prank (considering that the user using the same IP address on the same day wrote: "Maximillian Yong - awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1963 "for describing the electric transmission of impulses along nerves". And that's obviously incorrect.) --Dc987 (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so do you really need "more eyes", or should you instead just be AfD'ing this? Jclemens (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea. I'm not really into all that BLP/AfD stuff nor I'm planning to go into it. --Dc987 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AFL lists (St Kilda Football Club) are very tightly controlled - there is only the draft mechanism to be listed, and noone by that name has ever been drafted. I've CSD#G3'd it as a blatant hoax.The-Pope (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to biography of Raul Grijalva
I'm Rep. Raul M. Grijalva's communications director, posting as Owen Ruagh McCarthy, and I recently made several updates and changes to his page that I wanted to bring to Wikipedia management's attention out of an abundance of caution. I did not make these changes to slant or burnish his reputation -- much of the policy information dated from 2005 or earlier and was in need of updating. I have posted a similar notice on his talk page and do not want there to be any confusion about what happened. I am new to Wikipedia and would be grateful for any quick pointers if I've done anything wrong or violated the conflict of interest policy. From what I've seen, I don't believe I have, and the content is strictly neutral and well-sourced. If there are any problems, please let me know.

Update: I made several rounds of edits, but then immediately reverted them to allow Wikipedia officials to make the final call. A Wikipedia editor has been made aware of this situation on the Raul Grijalva talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Ruagh McCarthy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Owen Ruagh McCarthy (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits seem fine to me. -Atmoz (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Craig_McKenzie Edit War, Continued Deletions of AfD tags, Notability Issues -- Would Like More Eyes

 * - Notability tags get deleted.  I do not think this meets Wikipedia standards of notability.   Sources are over 10 years old, do not support the facts in the entry, and the entry appears to be public-relations driven. Though it has been trimmed, there are still issues.   An agent does not automatically make one notable.  There is a lack of supporting evidence (quality, third-party) that shows this subject meets notability criteria.   Choowiki (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see you attempted to open an AfD but did not properly format it or complete it. I've reinstated the AfD and fixed the formatting. The other user may not remove the tags. I've put the article on my watchlist to help enforce this. Yworo (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for editing the AfD.  There are continuing issues with this page.  Please see [|talk] to see talk page Choowiki (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason Donald and Jason Donald (baseball)
Both of these articles are getting BLP violating edits due to tonight's game. They need watching. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since being a fugitive is not a career and to balance out the undue weight, that version must be used. 124.105.21.3 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What?! Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the IP intended to post this in the section above. Yworo (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

William Lane Craig
- William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist and philosopher, or, depending on your persepctive, a popular philosopher and Christian apologist. Most people who know of him - such as his students - are very much in his pocket. And it's difficult to explain that while one might have the perspective of Dr. Craig as a great philospher and thinker, most people - which is to say the far more objective persecptive - find him to be far from a philosopher first and apologist second. His page is currently riddled with extraneous information and has, I feel, a celebratory tone about it. I have begun to isolate these in the discussion page and asking for commentary. Two examples, the biography contains bibliographic statements (like recounting a specific article that Dr. Craig wrote) without explain why it noteworthy among the hundreds of articles that he's written. Or, the article simply listes a few books that are mentioned in the actual bibliography without any clarification. I will be cleaning up this sort of clutter.

There are more specific and controversial edits which I would like some advice from other Wikipedia editors. For example, Dr. Craig is an advisor of the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute and, some people would say, is indistinguishable from the Discovery Institute. I believe that this is a rich and salient detail that the uninitiated needs to know when reading about Dr. Craig. Therefore, I would place it early in his biogrpahy. Others want to bury deep within the article or omit it entirely.

More to come! And thanks! Theowarner2 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maximum age of living persons
The BLP policy was recently changed to establish 123 years as the age at which we assume that an individual is dead. Please join in discussion on what the cutoff age for BLPs should be on the BLP talk page. Thanks --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano
and

The article is the victim of BLP dispute issues regarding the notability of the subject as an "international fugitive". The latter, libelous claim, is only backed by a web archive. People have diverse opinions on the true reason why the subject is notable: some users say he is notable for being a critic to other religions while others (i.e. the user reported below) firmly believes that the article is notable for being an "international fugitive and a televangelist" at the same time. In the eyes of the Filipinos, the first "notability reason" is the real reason.

The "POV pusher", being a critic of Soriano to the point she calls Soriano as a "cult leader", had a long history of edit wars and 3RR reverts. Shannon Rose had commented harshly against another similar article, Daniel Soriano Razon. She is extremely harsh against users who just wants to add referenced, good information about the subject. Soriano, having been charged with rape, has a "counter-affidavit" covered by the press. When a pro-Soriano editor adds the counter affidavit in defense of the article, the POV user immediately rejects it without giving a chance for someone to find sources. Someone finally found a reference but the POV-pusher immediately removed it without trying to trim it down. I, the IP, only tried to remove unnotable and libellous statements agaist the subject, which is Soriano. Shannon Rose, being a POV pusher and a critic to Soriano (see this talk page and also this this talk page) has tried to offensively destroy the credibility of the editors who tried to simply add more positive edits to the subject. Thanks! 120.28.114.16 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will be happy to respond on the allegation of bias and why the editors are vigilant and cautious about revisions by non-established users. The subject is a highly-controversial fugitive televangelist with a substantial cult following in the Philippines. All claims about the subject's criminal activities that appear in the article are reliably sourced from official web pages and broadsheet newspapers with national and international circulations. Attempts to sanitize the article by anons and single purpose IPs have a long and tainted history of socks and perma-blocks (please see Petersantos, Felix Natalo, and Dar book). The use of archived web pages as reference, like in the case of the Interpol wanted page for the subject, has been agreed through a clear consensus involving not only long-time editors but even administrators as yourselves. This response from an admin that has been recently lobbied in favor of the proposed alterations may summarize that consensus. A Google search for "Eli Soriano" fugitive returns almost 6,000 hits, while a search for "Eli Soriano" televangelist only returns 1,600 hits, clearly hinting what the subject is more notable of. Thank you and more power! – Shannon Rose Talk 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A Google search would bring recent-ism into the factor, he is notable as a evangelist not as a fugitive. Adding it to the lede like you have done is undue weight and I don't support it at all. There is no interpol arrest warrant, he is on the red list, which means that there is an extradition request for him from Manila and countries that have an extradition policy with the Philippines will or may hold him while they investigate the request in the same was as they have Polanski.Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Off2riorob, the subject is a televangelist but how did that make him notable? There are probably thousands of televangelists out there who are not notable enough to merit their own articles in WP. The subject became notable because of the anomalies that surround him, the biggest of which is running away from the country in the middle of various lawsuits with same-sex rape as the one who received the most media attention. If it is just for being an televangelist, then he is not notable at all. The bulk of RS supporting notability is about his crimes and current fugitive status. The Google search, though we are certainly not using it as a basis, returns almost 6,000 hits for "Eli Soriano" fugitive yet only returns 1,600 hits for "Eli Soriano" televangelist, clearly suggesting that the issue of being a fugitive carries more weight in terms of notability than his being a televangelist, or, at the very least, that he is also notable as a fugitive. I don't know where you got the Interpol arrest warrant bit, I clearly wrote "Interpol wanted page" above. Thank you for your input, much appreciated, but articles for international fugitives are notable especially when supported by a wanted page in the Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload. The lead is basically a notability clause, and that is why I, as well as other nonpartisan editors, feel inclined to include that information there. – Shannon Rose Talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you claim a consensus for this please direct me to it. I find the claim that this man is notable primarily as an international fugitive, well.. laughable and incredulous. Eliseo Soriano ihe notable international fugitive...right Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Off2riorob, I will be happy to provide proof of consensus on the use of the words international fugitive on the lead. On November 2, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Rvr707 and reinstated by 4twenty42o. On October 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 124.107.217.64 and reinstated by DanielRigal. On October 9, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Felix Natalo and reinstated by DanielRigal. On October 5, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Mangingisda99 and reinstated by Conrad940. On September 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Electromagnetictop and reinstated by DanielRigal. Again on September 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 76.95.181.51 and reinstated by DivineAlpha. On August 7, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 121.54.2.85 and reinstated by Makeemlighter. And so on and so forth. These clearly illustrate a consensus that the words international fugitive should be in the lead. It should also be noted that most, if not all, of those who attempted to remove those words from there have been confirmed as socks and/or have been perma-blocked. Thank you! – Shannon Rose Talk 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the content has been removed and replaced is not a consensus of support for the content at all. You claim a consensus, has there been a discussion and a consensus for this that he is notable foremost as an international fugitive and can you point me to it.Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Off2riorob, the fact that the words international fugitive were repeatedly removed from the lead by anons and socks, yet vigilantly put back by established users and admins is clear consensus that we believe international fugitive should be there. If not then why reinstate it? The Merriam-Webster online dictionary has two definitions for consensus, one is in line with your understanding, and the other is "group solidarity in sentiment and belief." If reinstating the words international fugitive everytime they have been removed is not group solidarity that it should be there, then what would you call it? Random action? Nevertheless, if you want consensus in the context of messages in the discussions then let me supply some quotes and links:


 * We should modify the article to reflect this distinction however there is no justification for removing the phrase "international fugitive" (unless the case really has been dropped) as Interpol lists the red notices under the category of "Fugitives" and the service handling them is called "Fugitive investigative services" – DanielRigal


 * I agree with Shannon Rose. And I even think that "accused rapist" gives a more accurate description if what looking for is a "gist of why he's controversial." – Conrad940


 * Fixed the issue. The "international fugitive" part cannot be removed because there is still one reference backing it.– IronBreww – Shannon Rose Talk 22:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look more tomorrow and ask some people that are experiances in MOS and issues such ass this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good night, Off2riorob! I'm off to bed in a few minutes as well:) – Shannon Rose Talk 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: The first rationale provided by Shannon Rose (Rationale 1:Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload.) cannot be used as a valid reason. Here are the reasons: Second Question: Why is the article notable? Take note that he is known for criticizing various other religious groups (even the influential Iglesia ni Cristo is one) for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible (Not a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions: like criticizing various other religious groups). Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. 180.191.65.41 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Interpol website stating that Soriano is wanted no longer exists (except for a web archive).
 * The broadsheet articles are focused on his current rape charges not on his fugitive status. (BTW, Soriano is still innocent until proven guilty. By the way Shannon Rose talks, she thinks the latter is guilty and keeps on calling his organization a "cult". Is that good faith, SR?)
 * The Youtube video uses the Tagalog language. Can Shannon Rose determine if it really covers his fugitive status?
 * If you ask any Filipino (who has not read this WP article) regarding Soriano, it is obvious he will say that he is a televangelist. Was Soriano featured in international news programs like CNN? Was Soriano placed in the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of the NBI (Philippines)? Of course not, Shannon Rose simply used her influence to make it appear that Soriano is a highly-controversial fugitive televangelist with a substantial cult following in the Philippines. She believes that Soriano is leading a cult, how can we trust her? Anyone critical of the subject such as Shannon Rose will try to place more negative coverage of the subject, thus giving it undue weight. Here is a recent valid RS praising the subject (this part must be placed in the article to counterbalance and make it more NPOV): The Philippine Star- "An Award for Bro. Eli". Thanks and God Bless! 180.191.65.41 (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi both, it would be my pleasure to address the Anon's concerns:


 * The Interpol website stating that Soriano is wanted no longer exists (except for a web archive). – Using archived web pages is a standard practice in Wikipedia. I would have to point you to an admin's reply a few days ago when the same issue was put forth by IronBreww. In there he patiently explained why it is justified to use an archived web page as reference.
 * The broadsheet articles are focused on his current rape charges not on his fugitive status. (BTW, Soriano is still innocent until proven guilty. By the way Shannon Rose talks, she thinks the latter is guilty and keeps on calling his organization a "cult". Is that good faith, SR?) – Let me gently correct you here, I do not "think" that the subject is guilty. We do not make personal conclusions in Wikipedia but simply improve on articles based on the information available from reliable sources. I have never said that subject is guilty. The broadsheet articles are focused on his fugitive status. Yet, of course, we cannot separate the rape charges from his fugitive status because that is the most notable criminal case he ran away from that made him a fugitive in the first place, and so the rape charges will always be mentioned to make sense of why he is in hiding. Every article that revolves around the current problem of him being in hiding automatically speaks about his fugitive status. Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines fugitive as 1 : running away or intending flight 2 : moving from place to place. For example: "An irate Superintendent Abad Osit, chief of the Pandacan police station, ordered Police Officer 3 Jun Gumaru to explain why he should not be held accountable for violating the standard operation procedure (SOP) for the custody of fugitives." (source http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=68908). We cannot deny that the statement attributed to Superintendent Abad Osit is directed to our subject and the circumstances surrounding him. After all, the entire article is about Eli Soriano. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty hardly applies to a fugitive. Flight is an admission of guilt. As the subject is constantly evading the law, and has been doing so for many years now, he has completely marred the presumption of his own innocence.
 * The Youtube video uses the Tagalog language. Can Shannon Rose determine if it really covers his fugitive status? – Absolutely, ako po ay bihasa sa pag-unawa at pag-gamit ng wikang Filipino (I am fully capable of understanding and using the Filipino language).
 * If you ask any Filipino (who has not read this WP article) regarding Soriano, it is obvious he will say that he is a televangelist. – This is mere conjecture.
 * Was Soriano featured in international news programs like CNN? Was Soriano placed in the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of the NBI (Philippines)? – CNN is not a news program but a cable network. Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines do not require that a subject notable for breaking the law be featured in a CNN program or be placed in the 10 Most Wanted list. One requirement is that The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself. The subject is a notable televangelist, and that makes his crime notable as well. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. As far as we are aware, a same-sex rape charge has never been filed against any founder of an international church such as the subject's, in fact it is so unusual and noteworthy that even giant television networks in the Philippines devote entire programmings to dramatize the commission of the crime, tackle the issues surrounding it, and interview victims... such as the link I provided showing the TV special "Case Unclosed" where the very reason for the case being unclosed is because the subject ran away from the law. In the program the victim said that the subject is currently hiding in Brazil, a country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippines. The Soriano rape case, apart from being mentioned in Eli Soriano, actually merits its own article. But then it will just be redundant and a waste of space, so it is best to just integrate it in the current one.
 * Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. – Thank you for pointing out that revision, which was done in March 16, 2009. Please be aware of a more recent revision by the same editor in May 14, 2009, wherein he reinstated the words international fugitive in the lead after they were removed by an anon like yourself.


 * I hope I have now addressed all your points. If you have any more issues against the edits, then please don't hesitate to bring them up. Be well! – Shannon Rose Talk 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Answer! I still see some "holes" in your statements: Let me gently state to you SR, that WikiLeon only reinstated the words "international fugitive" because an anon removed it without stating the reasons. Of course you will revert the edit done since it (anon) did not discuss the reason why he removed the international fugitive part. Naniniwala ka na kulto ang pinamumunuan ni Soriano, bakit, anong relihiyon ka ba? Ikaw ba ay inimpluwensyahan ng pastor/lider mo na maniwala na ganyan ang kalagayan ni Soriano? (You believe that Soriano is leading a cult. Why!? Of what religion did you come from?) Take note: Anyone critical of the subject such as Shannon Rose will try to place more negative coverage of the subject, thus giving it undue weight. Can Shannon Rose, who is most probably a Filipino also, decide why the subject is notable? (TO the Undecided here are reason why "NO" should be the answer:) First, she is critical to Soriano, second, many influencial religions in the Philippines (#1 - Iglesia ni Cristo) were affected by the flaying of Soriano towards them.
 * Here is one issue: A recent valid RS praising the subject (this part must be placed in the article to counterbalance and make it more NPOV): The Philippine Star- "An Award for Bro. Eli". Take note that Soriano is not known as a fugitive by many people, please see and answer my :::*"2nd Rational:" - Why is the article notable? It is because he is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible (See this. This may not be a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions, namely, criticizing various other religious groups)..
 * By the way SR talks, she is implying that Soriano is guilty: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty hardly applies to a fugitive. Flight is an admission of guilt. As the subject is constantly evading the law, and has been doing so for many years now, he has completely marred the presumption of his own innocence. . What if I tell you, SR, that the subject ran away due to the threats bombarded against him by influential, POWERFUL, religious sector(s) in the Philippines. Of course no journalist will expose that since he (the journalist) will become the enemy of the influential, POWERFUL, religious sector(s) bombarding Soriano with charges and threats. Take note that the Philippines is the 2nd most deadly area for journalists.


 * Well Done, Shannon Rose, you stand firm in your beliefs. Who/What influenced you beliefs (besides those RS) is still a mystery to me. 180.191.57.92 (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon, your claim that "WikiLeon only reinstated the words "international fugitive" because an anon removed it without stating the reasons" is, again, pure conjecture. Editors, specially admins, don't just revert edits because they were done without explanation. Editors compare the difference of present edits to the previous and examine them, then act from there. You are rationalizing against being openly proven wrong. You confidently cited this edit as an example of what you perceive as a non-partisan editor removing "international fugitive" from the lead, yet the same editor in a more recent edit reinstated "international fugitive" after it has been removed by an anon like yourself. I am sorry, but that edit obviously reflects a more current disposition of the editor.


 * Regarding the Mashable award for the subject's blog that was mentioned in the entertainment column of the Philippine Star, please know that we do not just mention any award in an encyclopedia. The award must be notable. Kindly see Awards and Prizes to at least have an idea of what sort of awards deserve mention in an encyclopedia article. Also, please realize that the BLP Noticeboard is not a place to ask personal questions to editors nor is it a forum for religious apologetics, and other self-serving subjective issues including your personal theories, conjectures, heartaches, and grudges. If you find it challenging to communicate in an unattached manner and with civility, you are gently encouraged to move away and contribute on articles where you hold no emotional involvement. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me gently correct you there, the Award is notable. We must include that part to the article. Slightly mentioning it in the "Biography" section is good enough for me, SR. Your suggested 2nd paragraph simply represents your point of view on the subject, and I disagree to it. Making the article more NPOV must be the concern of everyone. You gave it undue weight, then I suggest that the award be briefly mentioned to counterbalance the article's situation. If you keep up your POV edits, then the article is nothing more than an impartial coverage on the subject (specifically, focused on his negative issues). If you continue flaying the subject, less users and anons will trust your perspective on the article. Thanks! 180.191.61.141 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anon. You may need to brush up on your understanding of what is a notable award fit to be mentioned in a biographical entry here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; haven't you read an encyclopedia before? The link you gave is to Mashable, an Internet news blog who also began giving out awards in January 10, 2008. If you will look closely, you will see that the Wikipedia article is about Mashable, the news blog, which is deemed notable due to its popularity as that and not as a reputable or prestigious award giving body. There exists other notable entities who also give out awards, but it does not necessarily follow that just because the entity is notable then the awards they give are automatically notable. For example, an award that was previously mentioned was one given by a radio program called “Dis is Manolo and his Genius Family.” That program gave Soriano the award of "Most Outstanding Preacher." Is the radio program notable? Of course it is! But is the award notable? No. There is absolutely no need to "counterbalance the article's situation." As objective and impartial editors, we should simply provide information based on reliably-sourced facts in line with Wikipedia policies regardless of whether they are seen as positive or negative by anyone. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi SR! Please consider the fact that organizations (that included award-giving ones) are generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. I have given you a valid RS, Shannon Rose. There are other valid RS praising the subject even before he was charged with rape, making him notable long before he was bombarded with legal issues. Please stop making the article impartial and negative, SR. Your criticism towards the subject (Soriano) is reflected in your edits. Take a look what you have done here. I'm not saying that your edit was bad, but since you immediately added the "negative" coverage, you again gave it undue weight. Here is quote from another nonpartisan editor (you quoted some opinions from users too):
 * [Eli Soriano talk page- Awards and Recognition section] I am not 100% against them being mentioned in the article, if it serves some genuine encyclopaedic purpose, but spamming the article with a load of YouTube videos is unacceptable. from DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From the same user: Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles.
 * I hope this clears your mind and please, be more open-minded. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon, you are obviously confusing the general notability guidelines, the notability guidelines for organizations, and what constitutes a notable award. There is no question that the subject is notable, and there is also no question that Mashable as a news blog is notable, it is the notability of the award that is being questioned. You may want to ask for assistance in understanding this issue as you seem to be "mashing" (no pun intended) everything with the aim of dissolving them into a single brew:)
 * Regarding DanielRigal's reply to your lobbying, let me paste the entire thing here so that you are always reminded:


 * Use of Archive.org is legitimate to demonstrate what Interpol published in the past. Nobody has ever suggested that Archive.org alter or falsify their archive and it is considered reliable even though they are not official archivers for Interpol. Using Archive.org is a bit like going to a library to consult old editions of newspapers or public records. That said, it is possible to misuse Archive.org. If somebody were to pick a past version of a website which contains claims that the publisher later repudiated or amended then it could give a false impression. Do we have any proof that Interpol is still after Soriano? If they are then the description as a fugitive can stay. If they have definitely dropped the matter then references to him being a fugitive should be put into the past tense and probably removed from the lead section but kept elsewhere. If they have simply chosen not to mention him following a reorganisation of their website, that is inconclusive. That could indicate that he is no longer seen as a priority for Interpol but may still be wanted.
 * The "Awards" section has, in the past, contained a big list of awards that Soriano's own organisations had given him. If we mention those at all then we have to explain the context. This is likely to make him look ridiculous. I would be inclined to leave those out entirely, unless there is so much RS coverage of them that we can't ignore them. Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles. An "Awards" section can give the impression of a self-aggrandising "trophy cabinet". In the case of a man who gives himself awards, you have to expect people to be suspicious but that should not prevent a brief mention of any genuine and notable awards.
 * Aggressive warning of newbies is not a good thing but I don't see how it would encourage people to engage in sockpuppetry. Genuine, definite sockpuppets and puppeteers need to be dealt with quickly but there are bound to be genuine newbies as well. Rather than diving straight in with the warning templates when a newbie makes a bad edit that might be COI (or whatever) it is better to start with one of the Welcome templates aimed at potentially problematic users. This lets the user know that they did something wrong in a much more gentle way and helps them to get it right in future. Watching how they respond to that will often give a clue as to whether they are a genuine newbie or a sockpuppet. I appreciate that the user you mentioned can be a little "spikey" but it is a general issue with articles where sockpuppetry is rife that it becomes easy for an editor to get trigger-happy with the reverts and warnings. I have found myself doing it from time to time. Editors need to take care to avoid this but the blame lies with the sockpuppeteers because they create the toxic editing environment where every anonymous or newbie edit seems suspect.


 * If you find it difficult to understand any of these points then please feel free to ask and I will do all I can to help you. – Shannon Rose Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is questioning the award-giving body except you, SR. You, being a critic of Soriano are just trying to deny the obvious truth: even after being charged with same-sex rape, Soriano is still an active preacher-blogger and can still get awards. Who can prove that Soriano gives himself awards, he's not that foolish to do that. Even DanielRigal knows that there are some awards (from notable and independent award giving bodies) given to Soriano. Mashable as you said, is a notable news blog. After it creates its own award giving body, now you say it (referring to its new award-giving body) is not notable. Oh, c'mon! Who decides the notability, a critic of the subject? NO! a COI? NO. or a third-party reliable sources complete with information on how that award works? YES!. Slightly mentioning it, even just one sentence long (or two), is good enough for me. :-) Now, about the Itanong mo kay Soriano part, it is obvious you have never heard of it. Everyone knows that it is where Soriano preaches using the question-and-answer type. Even his critics make fun of it (I'm not saying you should believe the questions in this site since it is only a critic's way of maligning him): (1) - here is one, here is another one, here's another one but wait, there's more (humor) last (4). Remember, Soriano claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. Using those for non-official RS, we can conclude that he claims (remember - CLAIM only, not PROVEN) that he can answer any question using the Bible. Please SR, I am again asking you in a gentle manner, be more open-minded. Are you a Filipino? If yes, then probably you know Soriano years before the rape case was charged against him. 180.191.66.131 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Anon. I can see that you are still struggling to distinguish between a notable individual like Soriano, a notable organization or company like Mashable, and a notable award. An organization can be notable, but their notability is not a guarantee that the awards they give, if ever they decide to do so like Mashable, is also notable. Here is a list of notable Philippine awards, and here is a list of notable American awards. I am sorry, but the subject is yet to receive any notable award fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Shannon Rose:Hi SR. The category about the notable Philippine awards is incomplete. But why talk about that, Mashable is internationally NOTABLE (I'm not shouting...). I have seen many articles about website listing the award given by Mashable. here's one. Why are you questioning it, SR? Your the only user I've encountered who denied the notability of an international/internet-wide award-giving body (they awarded Wikipedia itself). Please do not whitewash the reality: - that Soriano can still receive good awards even if there are legal issues surrounding him. I was even unaware that Soriano was given awards by some radio-station/show (don't know) called "genius family". I'm only interested in getting the Mashable award be mentioned, very briefly, at the end of the Biography section because it serves one encyclopedic truth, that Soriano is still an active preacher and can still be awarded by these organizations.
 * Please answer my reaction (above) about the "uncited" Itanong mo Kay Soriano part. You can watch it in the internet if you want to prove that the sentence in the article is true: This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.. 180.191.71.169 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, Anon! How are you today? While Mashable is, without question, a notable news blog, it is not notable as an award giving body (i.e. which makes its awards unnotable). Encyclopedia Dramatica, like most Wikipedia articles, is still in the process of development to at least a near-decent state. Errors in articles would, of course, tend to remain unless certain editors take notice and become inclined to correct them. For all you know, one of these days the entire award section for that article may come-off. At the moment I am only able to concentrate on one entry at a time. Let other editors sort that one out. Established users are here to brainstorm on the Eli Soriano article in particular, not on Encyclopedia Dramatica... unless you wish to edit that one too. I do not. If you are unable to find the Mashable award in either the current list of notable Philippine awards or the current list of notable American awards, then I would have to perpetually disagree with your rabid insistence regarding the addition of that information to the article. Here is a friendly advice, which you are free to accept or discard: why don't you register, edit for at least a year, then come back here with a little bit more knowledge and understanding? Until then, I believe I am already finished in dealing with you. As you just keep on going on and on about your personal sentiments, conjectures, original research, and personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies and procedures. I only came here due to the promptings of a well-meaning, more senior, and admittedly more knowledgeable editor. But I find myself devoting more time in extending help to you and Dar boo... I mean, IronBreww, than discussing improvements with editors who truly know what they are doing. All issues have already been answered. DanielRigal already explained why archived web pages can be used as reference and why the awards section went, the majority of established users have agreed to retain international fugitive in the lead—and I have also agreed to compromise my previous position regarding its precedence in the notability clause, the wholly-unsourced paragraph was deleted with the express agreement of a mediating admin—and none of the established users (who obviously know what they are doing better than the unverifiable anons that just popped-out from nowhere) opposed it, and every issue has been clearly and patiently addressed and explained. That's it! Job done! Otherwise, going back and forth with anons like you will not only be pointless and a complete waste of everyone's time, it will also be never ending. Wikipedia is not a place to lament about the present state of one's religion as reflected by reputable newspapers, websites, and TV specials. Some sort of therapeutic facility is probably required for that. Editors here just go by policies, procedures, commonsense, and reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Shannon Rose, I'm the anon you've been talking to for these days. I've registered following you advice. How long does it take to be considered an "established user"?
 * Going back to the issues. Mashable's award giving body is not notable, do you have proof? Why do you keep questioning that part even though it is placed in other articles unquestioned? Don't you trust the award-giving body just because it is new in the line (2008)? Is there suspicious "scandals" or scams that happened that maligned the integrity of the award-giving body? (So now I ask you, does an award have to be just to be notable, of course not! I know that you've gave that category as a simple example.) How about other awards? Is it okay for me to include them provided it is popular in the Philippines and I have valid RS to back them? Of course they should.
 * I don't know your motive on questioning the notability of the award or who you are working for, but I suspect you're either in one of those organizations that are against Soriano, or is heavily influenced by it. (Sounds familiar?) To be honest (please don't take offense), SR has been this close in making me believe that the award is unnotable but your constant criticism and anti-Soriano-ness (you talk in a way that implies that Soriano is guilty) has made me more persistent and doubtful. Let as wait for the mediating admin to return and I will try to invite more users (including the pro-Soriano camp and some admins that were previously involved). Trust me, it&#39;s notable (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the current lede
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as ''Bro. Eli'' in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

the anon's suggested lede
Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as ''Bro. Eli'' in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. (legal issues part) Soriano is currently facing charges of rape in his home country, the Philippines.

Shannon Rose's suggested revision in place of the second paragraph in the current lead
Soriano fled his home country after being indicted for same-sex rape, this, along with other lawsuits and issues, have been widely-publicized thereby compromising his reputation as clergy.

The reason for suggesting this is because the present contents of the second paragraph i.e. being "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, are wholly unsourced. My position is either we replace the second paragraph or we scrap it altogether. – Shannon Rose Talk 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

off2riorob's suggested lede
from Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist  and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as ''Bro. Eli'' in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

He is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

In 2009 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Off2riorob. Please read the article and follow the references. The subject was indicted for rape in May 2006 and a corresponding warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Siyangco. Soriano was then allowed to post bail, which he did. Then the case got dismissed... for a while. Because in November of the same year (2006) the case was revived, and another warrant was issued by Judge Dayaon. It was then that Soriano went on hiding. Then, in June 21, 2008, news came out that Soriano showed up and posted bail again. This was later confirmed as a hoax, because it turned out that the arresting officer, PO3 June Gumaru, and Soriano's secretary, Belen Talentado, conspired in faking the certificate of detention to permit his release by posting bail for his rape case as opposed to Soriano actually surrendering and posting the bail himself. Because of that he was again indicted for a second crime in relation to that particular case: falsification of public documents. Clearly, he has been a fugitive since 2006. These are all sourced information available for your reading pleasure on the article under Rape case. Why would we then say that there is currently a warrant out for his arrest due to failure to attend a 2009 bail hearing?


 * Also, why should we retain the second paragraph saying that the subject is "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, when they are wholly unsourced? – Shannon Rose Talk 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The uncited can clearly go. So he has failed to answer bail, that is simple and exactly as my comment.


 * Firstly, it's 2006 not 2009, so it cannot be exactly as your comment:) Secondly, he is a fugitive not because he failed to attend a bail hearing. There was no bail hearing set for him. The Philippine judiciary does not work that way. I know that you are a conscientious editor, but we cannot make light of his legal problems the way you want it. Especially so since they, particularly his same-sex rape case, are notable enough to have their own article. There is absolutely no POV on the lead. The guy is a fugitive and people generally know him as such. In fact, there exists at least six times more web pages on "Eli Soriano" fugitive than on "Eli Soriano" televangelist. The solid consensus among established and long-time users in keeping that information on the lead is crystal clear, while opposition only comes from single-purpose anons like this one as well as previous users who have been perma-blocked for abusing their accounts. The POV would come in only if we remove the fugitive part there, because we would fail to attribute almost half of the article. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice your recent SPI was closed as no issue, you are perhaps seeing anyone who wants to remove dispputed content as a sock puppet but they are not. The thing I have found is that if an article BLP is POV then what happens every time is that people, good faith people, come along and try to rectify the problem and that is what I see here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Off2riorob. Sadly, it was. But I am going to request another checkuser replete with evidences, hopefully, at the end of the week, when I have more time. The no issue is, I believe, justified, because I was truly lax on providing further information. But since no checkuser was performed, we cannot really make a conclusion whether they are "good faith people," as you are inclined to believe, or mere reincarnations of permablocked troublemakers like Petersantos and Felix Natalo. I will, however, remove the unsourced second paragraph as has been clearly agreed. – Shannon Rose Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Soriano is already popular even before the rape allegations came up in 2005. There were even parodies of him in the the late 90's to early 2000 because his religious program was so popular during that time.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Dating_Doon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZK7mjqYXR4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG3zXLfanko
 * The second paragraph should not be removed. Oh, Come On! Is there a requirement that every sentence, every information in Wikipedia needs to be backed by references. It will only be questioned by critics of the subject that has terribly lost good faith due to the past issues of the problem. The Eliseo Soriano is currently blocked by editing because of an anon removing and inserting unsourced information? Purely a deceptive allegation, kindly review the edit and you will see that 120.x.x.x added a sentence backed by an RS. The other sentence need not a reference, since it came from a section of the Daniel Razon article that was added by Shannon Rose. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll
I have a concern the the adding of international fugitive as the primary comment in the lede and the primary reason for this persons notability is a BLP violation as this is beng given undue weight. Shannon Rose thinks that is the most notable thing about him and supports the present lede. Would users comment as to their preference within policy.

Rewrite

Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist  and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as ''Bro. Eli'' in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. In 2006 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest.

Present lede

Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as ''Bro. Eli'' in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

comments
Please post your preference here. Thanks.


 * Flip I'd pick present but flip the order of televangelist and fugitive. After all, being a fugitive is not a career. Yworo (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Yworo. I am willing to compromise my current position about the subject being more notable as a fugitive than as a televangelist to this new rationale and am fully amenable to flipping their order. Thank you for your input! – Shannon Rose Talk 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Take note, Yworo, that the official website of the Interpol does not include Soriano in the fugitive list. Shannon, however, added this part in the article, again giving it undue weight and more POV coverage PO3 Gumaru admitted in a sworn affidavit that he had never seen the church group leader, that Soriano did not really surrender to him, and that he is, (THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS NOT STATED BY THE POLICEMAN:)in fact, still a fugitive. Why did Shannon Rose add it, probably just to reflect her current beliefs in the article.
 * 2nd evidence: Here is another part Shannon inserted which was absent from the reference. After more than a year and a half of living as a fugitive,.

Be vigilant, Wikipedians, as members of Soriano's group (removing the rape case part) and critics of Soriano's group (rejecting the duly-sourced awards) are tilting the article to extreme levels of POV: (whitewashing). I'm voting for the rewrite. Shannon Rose I am gently advising you to please, (pretty please) be more open-minded and please accept the fact the prior to his legal troubles, Soriano was already notable for being a televangelist and a critic to many religions. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, he may still be a fugitive but since he is not notable as such, why not place that part in the Legal Issues section.
 * Rewrite -Agree to the suggested rewrite. It does not necessarily mean that Soriano is no longer an international fugitive but for the sake of neutrality, let it be placed in the 2nd lead paragraph. IronBreww (chat) 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Current -I completely disagree. Neutrality has nothing to do with being prejudiced to reliably-sourced facts. That is whitewashing. We are encyclopedia editors, not diplomats. – Shannon Rose Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite -I also vote for off2riorob's suggested version. 92.63.105.66 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hi, Anon. The "vote" of another anon, who only began editing two months ago, may not necessarily amplify the voice or add weight to the obviously-COI opinion of the SPA Anon. Nevertheless, thank you for dropping by! – Shannon Rose Talk 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Current -Keep as is: "an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist". "international" bear more weight than "filipino" given this is wikipedia. Conrad940 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically WP:MOSBIO, indicate that one of the first things that should be presented is the subject's nationality or citizenship. This is normally followed by their career, then why they are notable. Being a fugitive is not a career, and being an international fugitive not make one a citizen of the world. Yworo (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, Yworo. Following this, it should then read "A Filipino televangelist and international fugitive." This actually flows much better. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumors are he's already a Brazilian citizen. It'll come out in the papers sooner or later. I guess we can then change the lede to "a Brazilian of Filipino descent" :) Conrad940 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rewrite -Vote for off2riorob's version of the lead. 120.28.64.72 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My own Suggestion:Eli Soriano (born...), a Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of thePhilippines-based Members Church of God International. Currently an international fugitive, he is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio.... 120.28.64.72 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rewrite - the current lead is biased. (I expect someone will criticize me)... Dar book   (Complains?)  11:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced negative information in Paul Daley


I have insisted that a source be provided that backs up the assertions I removed in the above link. Until the source is provided, the paragraph remains out of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already explained the matter to you, but obviously you've not listened. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It ends up being more complex, to my eyes - a source has been added, from ESPN, but later, less reliable sources have raised doubt on the claims . Either way, the inserted wording displays an overly strong POV not contained in the source. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the information again. Some was clearly unsourced, and the rest was not fully supported by the espn story, as Bilby pointed out. Paralympiakos has reverted Bilby's attempt to bring it closer to the source. I've now issued him a 3RR warning, since he has reverted other editors multiple times.  Other editors and administrators are encouraged to keep an eye on the situation.--Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea why you keep removing it. It was sourced and the sources stating there was another knee were purely speculative. I remember some of them asking a question in the title ("Did he get hit by another knee") so it wasn't conclusive whatsoever. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Armin Perla
born 5.02.1990 is Bosnian football player whit pre-contract agreement to Ary United —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vederan (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Susan Wise Bauer
I cannot verify Susan Wise Bauer's rank or position on the faculty of William and Mary College. I suspect that she may have moved on, probably to a more prestigious post. The rank noted in the article tends to lower her credibility as an authority on world history education, the area of some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrennenderSorge (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This CV seems current as of 2010, so I don't think we are too far off the mark. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center


A dispute has arisen regarding whether one version of the lede is problematic with regard to the biographies of living persons policy. Further opinions would be welcome at the article talk page.

CIreland (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the page, I think the BLP concerns aren't as widespread as portrayed--the biggest issue I see is with the NPOV, although it does have some tangential BLP effects. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, CIreland.


 * In a nutshell the BLP issues are these. Yes, SPLC is not a living person.  On the SPLC page hates groups were/are listed is if they were actually hate groups, instead of saying this was SPLC's view either directly or as the media uncritically repeats the claims.  Yes, hate groups are not living people.  The problem is that some of the listed hate groups are run by or consist solely of a single person.  That single person is easily identifiable by a simple look at the Wiki pages for those groups, let alone other sources.  So labeling that person's "group" as a hate group is tantamount to labeling that person as a someone running a hate group, and that may violate BLP, among other things such as libel, but we are here talking about BLP. Before Wikipedia broadcasts the SPLC claims worldwide as if they were the truth instead of the SPLC's view, we at Wikipedia better be sure we have fully complied with all relevant policies. For more detail, see the various discussions going on.  And thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some comments here, as LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was editwarring (6RR) on the grounds that 3RR didn't apply to BLP violations. He was blocked but quickly was unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is never any reason to edit war in a content dispute, it uncivil and disruptive. Talk pages and noticeboards exist for a reason, content in an article is decided upon by consensus, not by individual interpretation of policy. One editor's opinion that it is a BLP violation does not justify edit warring, only the Community-at-large can make that decision and then the decision should be carried out by an admin as needed to enforce the decision. I dont see consensus reached that the information must be removed. I am saddened that an admin felt that someone who egregiously violated policy should be unblocked so quickly.Camelbinky (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, Camelbinky, but there's a large amount of leeway in BLP that tends to result in this sort of editwarring in marginal BLP cases: one editor believes in good faith that his edits are 3RR exempt because of the BLP impact, while one or more other editors disagree, and believe in good faith that the version they prefer has no issues which create BLP problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This was in no way a clearcut BLP violation and he's lucky he got unblocked. What I don't understand at all is how anyone can claim that saying that the SPLC tracks hate groups could be a BLP (or even NPOV) violation. It is a fact that it tracks hate groups. Some of the groups it tracks may not be hate groups, there may be disputes over whether they are, but most of us would agree that many of the groups it does track are hate groups. There's no libel in saying that, the text never said that the groups the SPLC tracks are all hate groups. Dougweller (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Hate group" is not an objective description - it is emotive and evaluative - and neutrality would mean we don't label any group as such - or even imply that the SPLC tracks any such such group. We say rather it track groups it regards as hate groups, the reader can decide for themselves whether the evaluation is warranted.--Scott Mac 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the talk page, there are references to a number of sources that appear to be RS that say it's an organisation that tracks hate groups, not that it's an organisation that tracks groups it regards as hate groups. Dougweller (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a consensus out in the world, and certainly among reliable news and academic organizations studying the phenomena, that hate groups, however they are described, exist. The SPLC is simply one (although possibly the most important one) of many watchdog organizations that monitor such groups. It is erroneous to assume, without any proof, that any classification made by the SPLC is its unique interpretation unsupported by any of these other groups who monitor them.


 * In any event, the text in question does not name a single group. The article as a whole mentions only one specific hate group in the article section on hate groups and then does so only to cite it as an example of an organization that disagrees with being so classified. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cory Burnell
User page was edited by coryburnell. Edits have been undone. Discussion page noted with link to WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELH50 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic editor at Dino Rossi
Seems to be a case of a new editor on a mission who isn't terribly familiar with Wikipedia's processes. He's inserting information into the BLP of a challenger to a U.S. Senate seat, which includes information that may or may not be valid (I haven't looked in detail -- just noticed on vandalism patrol). In any case his editing is problematic because he's reverting to a version that contains what appears to be some commentary directed at editors reverting him. Some more attention to the article would be appreciated. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reported him for edit warring, but would still appreciate any extra eyes on the article. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the article. You are correct to revert him, although the BLP nature of the material seems tangential--he's trying to buff Rossi's article with his commentary.  He's obviously new and might be salvageable--many good editors started as POV pushers. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on the whole. Thanks for looking. I've left some specific pointers to policy on his talk page, so maybe he'll take a look at them while he's blocked. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Limmie Snell
Limmie Snell has a death date of 1986 sourced offline, and seems to be performing this year. Are there two musicians of that name or is one source incorrect? Fresh eyes appreciated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Cohl - Biography
The information contained in this biography is false. It only alludes to the down points in his career and doesn't speak to the real "Michael Cohl". This is slander against a great man. It also highlights two positions which Michael Cohl no longer holds. It is misleading and a vast misrepresentation of the man and his accomplishments. I suggest it be removed immediately. Thanks You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.131.123 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Amity Shlaes
Now has a section titled "Her Exit from the Financial Times" which starts with "A search of the ""Financial Times"" archives reveals that here final three articles were written in September, 2005.[4]" based on a FT search. Is this OR in a BLP? Further the section posits cause and effect for her leaving the FT. Is there any problem with the section title or contents? Additional input as to where the line on OR and SYNTH ought to be drawn would be highly welcome. Collect (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

GoldieLocks
I have no first or second hand knowledge of the subject, I simply found the page a few days ago while reading through articles on the music genre and did some cleanup and one reversion. Apparently, IP is attempting to substantiate what I reverted. I am not afraid to revert this, but would rather have a more BLP-concerned admin handle the situation, the current pattern is dubious and I am not interested in going to war over it. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the link is inappropriate and I have removed it, and will watch article for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Rosales
This edit needs attention, and I'm traveling and can't get to it. I haven't checked the reliability of some of the obscure sources, and the claims are not represented neutrally (the claims are made by a convict, of dubious credibility, which isn't elaborated at all in the text). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm, no response, so I've begun working on it. This source does not appear to meet the standards of reliability for a BLP. This source also does not appear to satisfy the requirements for reliability for such changes in a BLP.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned this up the best I can for now; it would be helpful if others would watch this BLP. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Matt Drudge
For some reason, I think "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" forms a red flag in any BLP. shows the restoration of that section in Matt Drudge. Does anyone else find this to be per se "contentious" and ill-suited to an encyclopedic BLP? Past precedent is that "outing" a person as gay (source is a gay publication specifically opposed to Drudge) where they have said they are not gay is specifically beyond the pale, and labelling such a person as "homophobic" likely hits the same policy and rules for BLPs. Collect (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We may report stories that appear in reliable sources. However the section seems too long.  TFD (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably more of an WP:UNDUE issue, if any. There might be a better section title than "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia", as well.  It seems a bit attack-y, or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, there may be a BLP issue here. This kind of info is definitely controversial, so only the highest quality sourcing is allowed.  I'm just giving this a cursory glance, but commondreams.org, Washington Blade, Capitol Hill Blue, and NY Press probably don't make the cut.  nydailynews.com is borderline (I think it's OK, but some others at the WP:RSN don't).  CBC and Salon are pretty good, I think.  That's just a cursory glance, as I said, some of those may be better than I think, and may not even be RSs for normal info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Peregrine on this. Since he has strongly denied the allegations, then it seems to be an WP:Undue issue at best and spreading gossip at worst, which is a BLP no-no.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoon the buffoon
This derogatory not notable nickname which is just a simple insult has been added to the Geoff Hoon BLP, its not well known, its just a valueless insult of little or no notability and should be removed, content is a derogatory, non encyclopedic and not notable nickname. Here is a google search result for Hoon the buffoon, this is the kind of valueless derogatory insult with a citation that BLP policy should be there to remove, its a simple attack on a living subject, started elsewhere but the attempt is to propagate it through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm lazy and don't especially want to add another page to my watchlist, could the discussion be kept centralised at Talk:Geoff Hoon, where there is already a lengthy section? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your lazyness is not at issue, the issue is the adding of a not notable derogatory nickname to the BLP of Geoff Hoon, please seek consensus here for your desired inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to seek consensus, a process which is currently taking place on the article talkpage. It is easier for all concerned if it all happens on the same thread, so I suggest that anybody wishing to comment does so in the existing discussion. (Although I don't mind if you post here, because I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say, since you are endlessly repeating the same fallacy.) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Counsellor of State ─╢ 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, your desired addition has no value apart from insulting the living subject, feel free to seek support for your desired addition here, this man has done this and that negative notable things and I support thoe inclusion of those issues, actually they are already in the article, I object to your desired addition of what I see as a insulting slur of a nickname with no encyclopedic value. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As there is RS for it I see no reason not to include it, but in the body of the article. It would be better for the discussion to be centralised at Talk:Geoff Hoon as there is already a lot of discussion and many sources. People interested should probably weigh in there. Verbal chat  20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It clearly is a BLP issue and nothing but an insulting derogatory nickname and we will seek consensus here where there are a wider collection of editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And one that is reliably sourced, and he has even commented on in RS. Please keep discussion to one place now Rob. Verbal chat  20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A reliably sourced BLP issue, super, fantastic, a valueless insult wikipedia can be proud of. I have previously removed other derogatory nicknames and this is no better at all, a simple insult to a living person of no value to the reader at all. Hoon the buffoonOff2riorob (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Off2riorob. There has to be a good reason (i.e. long-term significance) to add an ephemeral insult to a BLP. All politicians make mistakes, and if one of them has a name that leads to a nice rhyming insult, naturally opponents will use that insult and papers will report it – it's gossip that makes the world go round. If the insult gets under the skin of the subject, and he retires or starts legal proceedings or commits suicide or whatever, then we should include the information and the insult in the article. Meanwhile, we do not permanently record every insult used against an opponent in their BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but that's making up new rules as we go along. RS are the gold standard for Wikipedia inclusion, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you mean WP:UNDUE vs. BLP. You need to look at the body of coverage on the subject, the current size of the article, and the ideal size of the article, and decide if it merits mention. Is it too much of the article now? Will it be too much of the article if it was a full size FA style article? I don't know the guy well enough, but there is a certain amount of usage of the term. It sounds like he's pretty famous, so that may not be a large part of the total coverage. I'm American and I've never heard of him, to show you how much I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not widely used and just an insult, I wouldn't ever add it but hey, if users think it is a good addition then enjoy. 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
 * Good. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident)
is a possibly living person known solely for an alleged honour killing (I previously nominated the article for deletion, but there was no consensus). His trial must have been over by now, and yet the verdict hasn't been reported. Only a single sentence in the article is referenced. Should I delete everything that isn't referenced, slap a tag on it, or send it to AFD again? Andjam (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You should have a go at searching for a cite to support the content, if you don't find anything you could just move the uncited stuff to the talkpage and see what happens. I have had a bit of a search and can't find the outcome, if someone is from Pakistan perhaps they could find out. I have my doubts that he is actually a living person though as this from Dec 2005 says Police in Multan said they would complete their investigation into Ahmed's case in the next two weeks and that he faces the death sentence if he is convicted for the killings and terrorizing his neighborhood.here  Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bill Phillips (author)
The Revision History of the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history, shows more than four years of persistent misuse by “Yankees76.”

In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.

The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.

TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.

Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.

The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.

Getfit1980 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous accusations. First off, please review WP:AFG and WP:NPA. Second - I'm not an admin, nor have I ever claimed I was. You can't come to Wikipedia and make defamatory statements about other editors - especially garbage like what you've posted above. - especially when you have spent ZERO effort in doing anything with regards to coming to a consensus on any material. Also please familiarize yourself with what a reliable source is. Information that you don't agree with doesn't make the source unreliable. TC Luoma was the editor in chief of Muscle Media and is the owner of Testosterone Magazine which makes him "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But beyond that, your edits include more than simply the material sourced using articles published by Luoma - you've deleted material published by Outside Magazine, Coloradorunnermag.com, an interview will Bill by Fitness Atlantic.com and a press release by the Make-a-Wish Foundation., replacing it press release material including material cut and pasted material from Transformation.com - Phillips latest website. What is your rationale behind that? There are 24 references in the article - not even a quarter reference T-Nation. Giving due weight to all aspects of the subjects life doesn't make the article defamatory and irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't another avenue for Bill to do a press release.
 * Admins, User:Getfit1980 is one of many sockpuppets who come to the article every few months without any previous Wikipedia edits and rewrite the article to remove any statements (sourced or not) that are related to Bill's well documented past as a steroids dealer/bodybuilder and supplement company owner or any negative statements in general. Any attempts to get these sockpuppets to discuss edits are usually met with silence. At one point (September 2008) the article was fully protected to avoid nearly the entire removal of content by a sockpuppet using the name User:BillEditor. How I've "bullied" any editors is beyond me, considering these editors refuse to discuss their changes and usually disapear only to be replaced by yet another sockpuppet that proceeds to do the same thing without any attempts to form a consensus on any of the informatio. The last one, the now blocked User:Chloe81375, attempted to intimidate both myself and another editor by threatening to expose our alleged addresses. Clearly there is an agenda being pushed by an individual or group of individuals who have a conflict of interest.
 * The article as it stands now does not give any undue weight to any side of Bill's career/personal life - both his successes and failures. The main article was written in March of 2006 by User:Glen and I've simply expanded on it with talk page discussions dating back to February 2006. A look through the edit history will show that I've spent considerable time carefully sourcing the info, especially info that is likely to be challenged. I've also attempted to explain why sources such at TC Luoma and magazines such as Mucle Insider and Testosterone Magazine are reliable sources. There is not much additional information I can add to this article at this time, however I'm not about to let an individual posting under numerous accounts remove sourced info in order to satisfy their own agenda. Yes, I'm aware of WP:OWN however watching an article and removing content blanking and vandalism does not fall under that guideline.--Yankees76 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so Yankees76 isn't accused of canvassing - he did post on my talk page a few days back when the "outing" occured, but I think I should follow up now.

1) In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.
 * he's probably done it twice in 4 years - and I've done it once too. When I did it - the article was butchered by a name/number user name/sockpuppet and was re-written to read like a press release - complete with copied and pasted material from Transformation.com's forums. I had a conversation with that "user" and we seemed to come some sort of working relationship until they disapeared and have not edited since.

2) Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.
 * Wikipedia should probably count itself lucky that anyone edits this guys page. Other than the constant sockpuppetry, he's the only preson consistantly adding verifiable material to the article - and the material he's is hardly "defamatory". Where do you get "extreme bias" from any of that? Clearly you're not assuming good faith yourself.

3) The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.
 * Don't trivialize the source. TC Luoma was once the editor-in-chief of the most popular bodybuilding magazine in the US (Muscle Media), and is the current editor of one most respected online fitness/training sources in Testosterone Nation (which is also a print magazine). Due to his many years working closely with Phillips on MM2K he would therefore have accurate insight and information about Bill Phillips' life during that time. And he posts new material about his experiences semi-regularly. This isn't some random internet blogger's opinion that Yankees76 is quoting, but a published author. Also note that some of the references that use T-Nation quote articles that were not written by TC.

4) TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia. 5) ''Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.''
 * Hardly "defamatory". Potentially embarassing to Bill now that he's 10 years or so removed from it and trying to bury the information, but truthful nonetheless. Bill Phillips is no angel. [ Redacted per WP:BLP }
 * This statement clinches it for me that you're indeed the same "BillEditor" who despite a WP:COI- see diff - continues to delete any information on Bill that is related to steroids or his past as a supplement company owner. You've been constantly deleting sourced content on and off for at least 2 years - half the time without a valid explanation - which is indeed vandalism and would be reverted as such. Yankees76 isn't "bullying" anyone (and he's never insinuated that it's "his work" that I've seen - please post diffs if you're going to make personal attacks on other editors. Bullying editors is making fake threats to post their addresses - a power which you don't have. Nobody has been bullied on this article except the editors who are trying to prevent those with a conflict of interest from turning it into an ad. If your intention is to provide objective, unbiased, and fair information, why do you delete the fact that Bill used steroids or that he ran a magazine that employed Dan Duchaine and liberally discussed how to take and even smuggle steroids? Why the need to remove Bill's association with Jose Canseco, when there are plenty of sources that talk about it? That's not being very objective. The "press releases" you've inserted in place of the article aren't very objective either.

6) The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.
 * The bottom line is if you had taken time to discuss your edits and build a consensus you might find you'd have a better experience here. This complaint is frivolous and reeks of self promotion and agenda pushing - and is a weak attempt to silence someone. It's pathetic. -- Quar te t  21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because TC Luoma is a competitor of Bill Phillips, his sources are not reliable enough for negative information from them to be used. If they continue to be used for that, I'd be inclined to disallow their use as sources at all. In fact, we certainly should not allow linking to any articles written by him that contain such information, because WP:BLP say we can't link to potentially defamatory pages. Yworo (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Competitor" can only be used loosely to describe the relationship between these two - try to disregard weasel words like "competitor" to describe their releationship and "newsletter" to describe TMuscle.com. Bill Phillips sells his books/transformation products to a completely different target market at completely different retailers than Biotest sells their bodybuilding supplements. In fact Phillips does not even have any sports nutrition or bodybuilding supplements available for sale on his website at all. Since TMuscle is free and therefore not a publishing competitor - how are Bill and TC competitors? Becasue they used to work together? If I used to work at McDonald's - does that mean I can't write an article for a magazine that talks about my experiences there and have it used as a source here? And how is disclosing that Phillips had a benign tumor removed from his jaw negative material? --Yankees76 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Getfit1980 has been blocked indefinitely. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Flo Rida
The user Rihanna Knowles repeatedly is changing the birthdate of Flo Rida from December 16 to September 17, both in 1979, even though there are two sources cited in the article supporting the December birthdate (Reuters and Allmusic). RK has never cited a source that directly supports the alternatively claimed birthdate. Recently User:HipHopStan also followed RK's lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible sockpuppets? -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is at Talk:Flo_Rida There are possible WP:SPA accounts involved. Regardless, the info on the birthdate is cited to Allmusic and Reuters, both sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V for this info. The info should not be changed, without backing up a change to a significant amount of other independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be others involved as well. I have given both of the 2 above accounts warnings that if the disruption continues, they will be blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Accounts involved
 * Update: The account,, continued the disruption, after the warning. Blocked for one week. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support that, I was edit conflicted in my revert of his edit. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hopefully the other account,, or the various IPs, will not engage in the same behavior pattern again, after the warning, regarding this article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Added two more accounts to above list, related to issues with same article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Please see Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopfan4life. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update, now at sock investigation case page

Kevin Boyce

 * - Ongoing effort by User:Protege10 in particular to use Wikipedia as a biased attack vehicle against Boyce. User keeps reverting to include original research and personal opinion such as "gross misuse of funds".  Reverts cited edits that eliminate such non-neutral language and provide context to the issues discussed in the article. Brian Powell (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Boyce appears to be under partisan attack from his political opponents. I have left a couple of comments on the accounts talkpages but I holdout little hope, if it continues use guidelines and attempt discussion if that doesn't work ask for semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter Jens
Could anybody have a look at Walter Jens' biographic entry, please. It's slightly unbalanced as to his achievements vs. his alleged Nazi past. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear overly weighted as regards the content about his membership in the party IMO, it was not illegal was it and many thousands in fact millions of germans were in the hitler youth and members of the nationalist party. What the article really needs is other parts of his life expanding which would take the present excess weight out of the membership content. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ángel di María / Aleksandar Kolarov
The pages and  are being constantly vandalized with transfer rumours to Real Madrid C.F.. Please, I am requesting to protect these pages. B.Lameira (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The place to ask for protection is Requests_for_page_protection. I have requested these two semi protection for you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week and two weeks respectively by Administrator Fastily, thanks to him for that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

David Eppstein
A new user, User:Luke18:2-8, attempted to add some negative information to the David Eppstein article. I saw several problems with it. First, the information added did not really correspond to the source: the letter referenced actually states that the complaint against Eppstein was found to be groundless, while the edit of User:Luke18:2-8 appears to indicate otherwise. Second, it looks doubtful to me that the source cited satisfies WP:V. The cite meami.org appears to be some kind of a search engine and somebody seems to have posted a privately addressed letter there. I don't think this qualifies as "published" material (such as, say, an article in a newspaper would have been). I have reverted the edits of User:Luke18:2-8, but I'd like someone else, experienced in BLP matters, to take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't even see any source, I get a bunch of pop-up windows from that link. However, anybody can make a complaint. We normally do not even link to verifiable legal complaints, because until a ruling of some sort is made, there is no way to determine whether there is any merit to them at all or whether they are malicious. The same would apply here. If the subject were verifiably sanctioned due to a serious complaint, that might be something which could be added to the article. But the complaint itself is not noteworthy.


 * I've added the article to my watchlist. Yworo (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I follow the link, I get a pdf file with a letter from an interim Provost for Academic Affairs to a Mr Musatov. I also found that there is an indef-blocked user User:Martin.musatov and even an indef-blicked IP, User:76.91.204.240. This might be related. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Musatov persistently vandalizes P versus NP problem and related complexity articles (especially after the former has been semiprotected), usually by adding a listing of an unrelated algorithm copied from elsewhere, often slightly modified (e.g., once he used the source code of the plug and play BIOS driver from the Linux kernel, with all substrings "PnP" replaced with "P = NP"; he appears to like the search-and-replace function a lot), usually with a link to his website, meami.org, buried in the text. He operates using several IPs, and occasionally, one-time user names like the User:Luke18:2-8 above. His edit to the David Eppstein article was clearly malicious, it was a revenge for actions by User:David Eppstein taken agaist him (i.e., reverting Musatov's vandalism, and semiprotecting the article).—Emil J. 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

David Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead, Derry Irvine, Baron Irvine of Lairg and Leonard Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann


The articles all relate to British Law Lords (senior judges), the material added, and the contents of the userpage of the editor adding it, suggest that the editor is probably personally involved in the case. No sources have been provided, although a bald statement taht everythign is verifiable has been included. I've made a first attempt to engage the user on their talkpage, which may be successful, but I'd appreciate more eyes on these articles at the moment. David Underdown (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These edits are certainly unacceptable on multiple grounds&mdash;unsourced negative statements in BLPs, blatant POV, undue weight, etc. User:DeeDeeDee7 confirms that what we have here is a losing litigant venting spleen against the judges who ruled against him. I'd block if there is any more of this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Hi David(?) and Newyorkbrad I'm struggling a bit on the use of this site and I trust this is the correct way to contact you (by using the 'edit' button?)

My other struggle is to establish quite what part of my addition to the relevant biography's could be construed as misplaced. All of the material facts I have stated are a matter of Public Record and contained within the court documents, the Metropolitan Police records and the DPP/CPS departments, or should be! There clearly should be no information to which I have referred that is not contained within the records mentioned. There is also much relevant material held by the Ministry of Justice although they have been reticent to supply it under the Freedom of Information Act and, as related, only did so upon the intervention of The Lord President of The Privy Council

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_schiller - is relevant

I do, of course, understand the concerns you might have, especially upon first sight of my 'edit'

It would appear Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place to add information that does not reflect well on any (Honourable!) persons 'Biography'

I will copy my comments to Lord Hope for any comment he may wish to make Regards DAS

Family Foundation School

 * - User:Sinneed is repeatedly removing edits (diff) pertaining to Wells Thompson, an alumni of the school, on the grounds that it is WP:BLP. I disagree with his reasoning and ask for clarification. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tut, tut. At Family Foundation School, my edit was to remove a sentence.  A later editor removed sources.  I copied the sources to the talk page, as I believe they belong in the article, with neutral, non-BLP-breaking content.
 * You then rolled back re-added the content with the same sources, despite the BLP concerns on the talk page. I have reverted your edit, and suggested that if you did not agree this was a BLP issue, you come here.  You know better than this.  I would encourage you to rework your submission to cover the problem:  2 editor argue the content does not belong, 1 based on BLP concerns, 1 argues the source is strong enough to address the BLP issue, if any.-  Sinneed  14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)  Edit to correct my error. -  Sinneed  15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the quote (which I had added earlier, I now believe in error) that had the main problem content. My only concern now is that we have attached this pro ball player to the Family school, based on a single source.  I still think this needs wiser eyes than mine... can we make this link based on this single article?-  Sinneed  14:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * DOH! Trying to work between meetings...sorry...I see I did not say I restored the text and the sources... removing only the quote I had added earlier.-  Sinneed  15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

 * - A topless picture of Wiliams, a famous singer, was posted onto her Twitter account. This was reported by various music news sources. Should this information be included on the Wikipedia page? TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 17:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Content looks alright to me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy hivemind. I was about to bring this here myself. I'm not sure it's notable enough for inclusion; it seems more just scandalous; it's very borderline. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as enyclopedic. She was hacked/accidentally posted a picture. That's it. This quote from the talk page sums it up pretty well: "Until this actually has a noted impact on her career or life, and a cited source says so, it's pretty trivial." --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Craig Thomson (politician)

 * - The article has been reversed back and forth between some anonymous users and some registered users. One of the edit summaries from one of the anonymous users says "Edited material that is libelous and will take legal action if it is restored", which leads me to believe this might be the subject or one of his representatives. The content is potentially libellous and I decided to report it here before this edit war goes any further. The diff can be seen here. // Deenoe 06:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

story is from 14 months ago that he used his union credit card for hookers and suchlike and one from three months ago saying he is suing all and sundry.

http://www.thecoastnews.com.au/central-coast/565-craig-thomsons-1-million-union-fight.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/mp-used-union-credit-card-for-escort/story-e6frg6no-1225696980003

http://www.smh.com.au/national/how-a-union-boss-won-the-dobell-prize-20090409-a27o.html

Personally I would leave it out until we know if he is guilty of anything, no charges after 15 months and now he is suing for a million...seems a bit like he may have a case, funny that it is only being added now, at the most I would add a sentence with the coast news cite saying that ...

In April 2009 in was reported that Thompson's Health Services Union credit card had been misused for election campaign spending and inappropriate use of union funds. In 2010 Thompson was reported to be suing the union executive for damages. It is further reported that he is also suing Fairfax Media for publishing the allegations. Mr Thomson is fervently denying the allegations.

I think I will boldly add this as it is not undue and conservatively written. I will leave a note on the talkpage there regarding this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In agreement with Off2riorob's actions - the summary provided seems fair given what is known. The information that was attempted to be added was a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, anyway. Orderinchaos 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orderinchaos, always good to get feedback that your on the right track. Off2riorob (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert and C-SPAN
Parts of this politician's biography (specifically, the last two paragraphs) are sourced only to a primary source, C-SPAN. Is this acceptable practice, or does it amount to original research?

This is a general issue for articles about politicians: is it ever acceptable to write about their views, voting records and speeches based purely on government records, or are secondary sources always required? If the latter is the case, we have many articles that will need to be cut down to comply. Robofish (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The citations to C-SPAN here could readily be replaced by citations to the Congressional Record, which in general terms a reliable source insofar as we are reporting what a Representative said and did on the House floor. There are times when the Record is not a verbatim transcript, but they don't seem to apply here. So the requirement of a reliable source is satisfied in terms of the remarks attributed to the Congressman.
 * A separate question is whether we are giving undue weight to these two floor speeches. It is to avoid doing that that we would often require a secondary source that discusses the remarks in question, their context, and reactions to them. Certainly if not a single secondary source could not be found discussing these speeches, one could easily argue that they should not occupy such a large portion of the article. But I am not sure whether that is a true BLP issue or simply an editorial judgment issue.
 * Apart from both of these points, the paragraphs in question certainly need editing for POV, such as by deleting the reference to a "fantastical story." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the material for now, more of an editorial call for now. --Tom (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Con artists
There's a "Living people" section in this footer navbox. Is this a concern from a BLP-policy standpoint? What about those people that deny being con artists. Peter Popoff for instance, there's no doubt that he's a fraud, and is widely known for being a fraud.. but he's also primarily a televangelist. Is it right to include a con-artist navbox at the bottom of his page but not one for televangelists or faith healers? (don't know if such a navbox exists, but just for the sake of argument..) How much weight should be given to the actual self-professed professions of these people vs. their public-bestowed notoriety for being fraudsters? -- &oelig; &trade; 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The associated documentation says "This template includes a list of living con artists. To conform to Wikipedia:Libel, please do not list anyone who has not confessed or been convicted. Accusation is not the same as guilt."


 * It is not just the template - the same issue applies to the con artists listed in confidence trick and also see category:confidence tricksters.Category:confidence tricksters is a subcategory of category:fraudsters--Penbat (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you get convicted of being a con artist? Surely the legal charge is fraud. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a con artist or scammer is just a commonly understood style or subset of fraud (thus is a subset of the fraudster category) so it is not a contraction that a con artist will be convicted of fraud.--Penbat (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is need to add them to the sub group, a citation in which they are referred to as a con man? IMO this is somthing that should not be added to living people. Con man, it is a matter of opinion, people convicted of fraud is fine. I really dislike the tabliod type labeling of people. Template hit man instead of murderer and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "Convicted of fraud" is objective and verifiable. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton and Clarence Thomas
and both appropriately have "sex" mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. After all, Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and Thomas had the Anita Hill accusations about sexual comments in the workplace.

The question I have here is about the lede in those two articles. Should the lede mention "sex" or not? Currently, the lede for Thomas does, but the lede for Clinton does not. I presently have no opinion about it, and would like some advice. One thing's for sure: the treatment should be consistent between these two articles, because there's no reason to mention "sex" for one and not the other. This may seem trivial, but using the word "sex" in the lead does tend to sensationalize things quite a bit.

Anyway, the Thomas lede currently mentions an "accusation that he had made unwelcome sexual comments" (emphasis added). The Clinton article lede currently mentions his impeachment "in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern." Shall we remove "sexual" from the former, or insert it into the latter? We ought to do one or the other, and it would be nice to get this minor issue settled by wide community input.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, sexual scandals in Thomas' bio vs. Clinton's is UNDUE, since there have been multiple RS'ed accounts of accusations against Clinton in addition to the Lewinsky affair. Thomas' Anita Hill accusations were limited to his confirmation hearings, unless I've missed something.  I'd say removing it from the lead in Thomas' article is probably the most appropriate response. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Jclemens. Anyone else agree or disagree?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot think of any reasonable argument for mentioning it in one and excluding it in the other. My first instincts say to exclude it from both.  — JPMcGrath (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There should be no "sex" in either lead. At Clarence Thomas, there is no need to provide details in the lead, and I would reword to something like: "The U.S. Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas by a vote of 52–48 in the intensely fought confirmation hearings." Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an involved editor at Clarence Thomas (as are Anythingyouwant and JPMcGrath). Personally, I don't think these are entirely parallel situations. Thomas' confirmation hearings are a (if not the) central part of virtually every reputable biography or biographical piece about him, so I think that some level of detail in the lead is appropriate. On the other hand, while the Lewinsky scandal was a major event in Clinton's presidency, it doesn't occupy the uniformly central position in reliable published work about him. I think WP:WEIGHT strongly favors at least some detail on the hearings in the lead of Thomas article, given its prominence in reputable published biographical material (including Thomas' own autobiography). I don't edit Bill Clinton and have no strong opinion about the level of detail to give the Lewinsky scandal in the lead. MastCell Talk 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting any alteration of either lede whatsoever, except for one word. Additionally, as I have pointed out previously to MastCell, Thomas's autobiography was not about his whole life, but rather stopped when he stopped serving on the District of Columbia Circuit.  But let's suppose we use his autobiography as our guide....Here's what the dustcover says: "Thomas speaks out, revealing the pieces of his life he holds dear, detailing the suffering and injustices he has overcome, including the acrimonious and polarizing Senate hearing involving a former aide, Anita Hill, and the depression and despair it created in his own life and the lives closest to him.". Notice the absence of lurid detail there.  No sex.  By the way, beyond being an editor of the Clarence Thomas article (as MastCell noted), I've also made substantial edits to the Bill Clinton article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "lurid" to say that Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment (particularly as those accusations form a prominent part of most reputable biographical material about him). For that matter, I don't think it's "lurid" to say that Clinton's impeachment turned on accusations that he had lied under oath about an affair with a White House intern. Those are basic, relevant, widely publicized facts, and any thoughtful application of WP:NOTCENSORED should make clear that we don't need to bowderlize them. MastCell Talk 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd be glad to change "scandal" to "sex scandal" in the Clinton lede, if that turns out to be the consensus here. However, as of now anyway, the consensus seems to be more toward changing "sexual comments" to "comments" in the Thomas lede.  Whichever course is taken, there will remain plenty of "sex" in the bodies of both articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)