Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive91

Philip E. Johnson
User:Keepcalmandcarryon is misrepresenting what is in sources and abusing this BLP. A consensus seemed to be reached much of the text, but he's now gone back and added all sorts of misrepresentations of what's in the cites, added scare quotes to established terms like Darwinism, and used opinion pieces as cites. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be a little more specific about how you believe he is "abusing" this biography? Darwinism is, in fact, a deprecated term (e.g. ). There is no categorical bar against opinion pieces as citations in BLPs, although of course they need to be used judiciously. Can you elaborate on your concern? MastCell Talk 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources cited do not support the assertions that Johnson is "A member of a prominent AIDS denialist group,[2] Johnson has written that HIV does not cause AIDS,[3][4][5]" or that he has stated that "HIV tests do not detect HIV[2]". And opinion pieces by advocacy groups are certainly not appropriate to establish such controversial assertions. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * - notified User Keepcalmandcarryon. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the sources in the article, Johnson has written five pieces questioning HIV/AIDS science; he has given interviews in which he questions HIV/AIDS science, suggesting that AIDS statistics are exaggerated; he was one of the twelve founding members of "RA", or the "Society for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis; his views are succinctly expressed in RA's letter to the journal Science, asserting that the HIV does not cause AIDS but instead is merely "tautologically correlated" with it; additionally, three secondary sources in the article, two of which are cited in the lead, associate Johnson with AIDS denialism. The opinion piece is used only as a direct source for Johnson's statements, an acceptable use of primary sources in BLPs.
 * As for Darwinism and materialism, these are terms Johnson uses in a pejorative manner to support his assertion that scientists adhere to religion themselves, an (in his view) empty, hollow and contradictory religion of atheism/Darwinism/materialism. Thus, his usage of these terms differs decidedly from the words' accepted meanings. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that Johnson expressed these views about HIV/AIDS in the 1990s (e.g., or see Impure Science by Steven Epstein). He seems not to have said much publicly about HIV/AIDS since the mid-1990s, so perhaps that should be made clear in the article? MastCell Talk 18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable suggestion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keepcalmandcarryon's distortions are not acceptable and if he continues to misrespresent what's in sources and to try to pass off opinion pieces as sources he must be barred from this subject and other related subjects where he refusees to abide policy.
 * Certainly Johnson questioned the connection between HIV and AIDS (as was noted in the article) during the 1990s. The accurately sourced content should be restored along with clarification on when this was (and I have no objection to noting that he was a party to the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis). What we cannot allow is any further dishonest misrepresentations to slander the man or his beliefs, and Kappcalmandcarryon should be barred from furhter distortion of what good faith editors have developed so far:


 * Johnson has been associated with AIDS denialism, the idea that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS,  called for further study of HIV as the cause of AIDS, and has claimed that the reported morbidity and epidemiology of the AIDS disease are both exaggerated or incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand. There is no dispute that Johnson has questioned HIV/AIDS or is/was a founding member of the most influential AIDS denialist group. Additionally, Johnson's contributions to the AIDS denialist movement are mentioned in (now) four secondary sources cited in the article. How, exactly, does citing these sources constitute slander? It would appear that, rather than summing up Johnson's statements, you would like to present his arguments against HIV as the cause of AIDS. I object, and I suspect others would, too. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot
An editor is edit-warring trying to add a few paragraphs of suspected synthesis. I have replied on the article talkpage here but I copy the segment which best highlights my concerns: I have marked the segments where synthesis is suspected in the contested paragraphs: "After Stephany's body was identified by her brother at the morgue, Stephany's father said in Spanish and English language media interviews such as interviews with the Associated Press and CNN/HLN network Nancy Grace program, that DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot." If there is no reliable source to provide the answer to the  tags we have a synthesis problem. I think the above paragraph is synthesised by the editor involved and not by a reliable source. However if there is a single reliable source stating the complete paragraph as written above I would, of course, not object to its inclusion. Same goes for the second paragraph: "But in interviews in the following days Mr. Flores said that Stephany's body would be exhumed to gather the fingernail DNA evidence, and that her body had not been cremated for this reason." The same goes for the conclusion: "It was not clear why the evidence was not gathered prior to burial." Any advice/help would be appreciated. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected (which is a good idea) this is about a ongoing trial and as such we need to use the highest quality citations and take care not to add OR, and if opinionated comments are added, care should be taken to attribute them correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. BTW, I asked for the protection. Thank you very much Rob. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Heilman
1. An indicent in the mid-90s which did paint Prof. Heilman in a bad light but concluded in a relatively mild fashion 2. Criticisms of his books by a small number of individuals in the communities about which he has written 3. Criticism that is either uncited or relies on self-published sources or those that are not reliable secondary sources.
 * - After noting that some controversy has arisen about Samuel Heilman's recent book The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, I checked his wikipedia page to find out more about the author. I was surprised to find that, for an author/professor who is well-known and generally respected in his field, judging by his awards as well as his being often quoted in the media, his wikipedia page seemed to be very heavy on criticism.  Upon close examination I learned that the criticism on his page falls into three categories:

As a result, I made changes to reflect the general balance of praise and criticism of Heilman, removed many of the unreliable sources, and added some extra content. This change has been edited by the same user several times, calling my edits a 'love-in' or 'vandalism'.

It is important to cite the specific violations I found in this article, as documented in the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. These are sections of the guidelines which I found were violated in the page as I first encountered it:

1. Tone BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections.

2. Criticism and praise Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, as long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

3. Sources -- Challenged or likely to be challenged Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

4. Sources -- Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. // Cnvb (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * - brief explanation // Cnvb (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, some minor problems. Have removed the critical blogs per RS/BLP. That seems to be the worst of it. The edit history is interesting, there's a couple of SPAs. Misarxist (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What are SPAs? /Cnvb (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg
(See also Philip E. Johnson above) POV pushing editors have distorted the chronology of his career and scrubbed accurate descriptions and clarification of what his views were as far as questioning the HIV-AIDS connection. They've also removed citation needed tags of dubious content and are downplaying his career achievments so the article focuses solely on controversial aspects which they've put in the worst possible light. This kind of dishonesty and vandalism is despicable. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would first encourage you to consider our civility guidelines. Beyond that, what is Peter Duesberg known for? A basic search of news articles shows that all or nearly all articles on Duesberg during the past 25 years concentrate on his AIDS denialist theories or their political and social ramifications. Duesberg's work on influenza is mentioned in the article. His cancer virus work, likewise. We also discuss his version of the aneuploidy theory of cancer. None of these, however, is what Duesberg is best known for, and the article should not be rearranged or rewritten to suggest otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't write articles based on your OR. Either provide a source or remove the disputed content. Furhtermore, you vandalized the article to completely distort the chronology of his career. You seem to be on some sort of campaign, but this is an encyclopedia, not your personal soap box. Please abide by our editorial policies and respect that this is an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But you haven't indicated what, precisely, you dispute, other than the accepted, consensus use of the term "denialism". As such, it's not clear why you are posting to this board. If you feel I have vandalised an article, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:AIV. If you feel I am damaging Wikipedia through a personal campaign of POV-prompted original research, file a complaint at WP:ANI. I would be making these suggestions at your talk page, but you've asked me not to comment there. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As with the above thread on Philip E. Johnson, it is unclear exactly what this complaint is about. Can we tone down the bluster and have some specifics that can be addressed? What is the "disputed content"? What needs to be sourced that isn't already sourced? MastCell Talk 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is entirely clear what I am complaining about which is why you fixed up the lead which was completely out of order and distorted. I have done the same in the body and I hope you will make sure it stays consistent with our editing policies and isn't distorted by POV pushers seeking to disparage subjects they disagree with. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't clear at all, because you express yourself with aggressive bluster rather than coherent specifics. I made my best guess. I'm glad you agree with it, but you need to work on expressing yourself coherently and less combatively. MastCell Talk 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific about which part of editors have "distorted the chronology of his career and scrubbed accurate descriptions and clarification of what his views were as far as questioning the HIV-AIDS connection. They've also removed citation needed tags of dubious content and are downplaying his career achievments so the article focuses solely on controversial aspects which they've put in the worst possible light." you're confused on? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another vandalistic edit where keepcalmandcarryon completely reorders the man's career, misrepresents what is (and isn't) in sources, and reverts uncontroversial grammatical improvements wholesale. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please use appropriate language. WP:VAND is very clear: you must not label edits like the one you cited as "vandalism" because it is obviously not. You might argue that the edit has removed verified information, or that it has added unverified information, or that it contains a BLP problem (be specific), or some other policy-based problem (I am not commenting on the edit, only on how it might be described by someone who opposed the edit). Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I cite wp:vand. The definition of vandlalism is quite clear, as is the pattern of that editors damaging and distorting edits. They need to be stopped and the misrepresentations fixed, as this type of edit serves to slander article subjects bey dishonestly denigrating their views, writings, work, and careers. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited WP:VAND to demonstrate that your "vandalistic edit" text conflicts with requirements on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lydia Schatz List of deaths by corporal punishment
Hi, just to let you know we have remove a bit from the List of deaths by corporal punishment page, which is below - we have some good pals who love the wikipedia and all thought was unacceptable! Take a look at the talk for the major reasoning, but basically we looked up the policy page and reckon this isn't really on with the policy that's there. Hope you're all well, Artie and Wanda (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lydia Schatz, a 7 year old from Paradise, California, was beaten to death, allegedly by her adoptive parents on 6 February 2010. According to Mike Ramsey, the District Attorney of Butte County, California, "for several hours the 7-year-old was held down by Elizabeth [Schatz] and beaten dozens of times by Kevin [Schatz] on the back of her body which caused massive tissue damage". The District Attorney maintains the girl was being disciplined, in accordance with the parent's religious beliefs, for mispronouncing a word during a home-school reading lesson. The previous day the couple is alleged to have also similarly disciplined their 11 year old adoptive daughter who had to be hospitalized and put on dialysis in an effort to save her kidneys. A third child, their biological son, was also beaten but received less extensive injuries.


 * Restored, seems well sourced. BE——Critical __Talk 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed, since the article's title implies guilt, and wikipedia is not a judge or a jury. Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are wrong: there is no dispute that the death was due to corporal punishment, only about who did it. This belongs here. BE——Critical __Talk 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BeCritical, could you please provide a reliable source that specifically says this person died due to CP? Otherwise this looks like original research/opinion. Just because you believe this to be the case doesn't make it so, we need a RS that says CP. --Tom (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources are a bit vague; cause of death wasn't even established at the time of those articles (there may be new info now). There is lots of alleged etc. Better to wait till the trial? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "DA Michael Ramsey explained the autopsy on Lydia Schatz showed she died from “blunt force trauma” and that they pathologist reported “multiple whip-like striations between the child’s lower back and knees.” The autopsy shows there was a rapid breakdown of muscle tissue which leads to damage to the kidneys and other organs. "  Apparently it would take more research than I'm willing to do to get RS on this, because  and  want money.  If you read a bit about it, the case is completely obvious but you are right that we should wait on the technicality, or sources . BE——Critical __Talk 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * - http://www.tulipgirl.com/?s=lydia+schatz


 * - http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14706455


 * - http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_14707093


 * - http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14371777

if these are the citations User:Becritical is presenting to support his additions then imo none of them are quality citations in any way? Content supported by such citations is not even worthy of a wikipedia talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Problematic sources for sure, although the whole article is pretty questionable. Surely there is a difference between "corporal punishment" and "child abuse". A list of deaths from official CP like in schools, the military etc, may make some sense.. but this Lydia Schatz case just sounds like child abuse and shouldnt be listed at all in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are not RS. As I said. BE——Critical __Talk 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what are you posting them here for as such they have nothing to do with any improvement to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be a regular I'll explain that, while the sources were not sufficient for the article, they were sufficient for explaining my position on this page. BE——Critical __Talk 00:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your position, I have no idea what that is but I am not interested in it whatever it is either and I am not interested in your rubbish citations, please don't post such like on the BLPN again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, it's not nice to give other editors orders. BE——Critical __Talk 01:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well don't come to the BLPN explaining your POV with multiple citations that are not wikipedia reliable then. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Critical is right, Off2riorob. Do please remember to stay civil in discussions. Incivility does not further your point, nor does it provide a good atmosphere for editing. Remember to assume good faith. GorillaWarfare  talk 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did someone ask you to come comment here or were you just passing? Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Critical posted a Wikiquette alert here asking for help with the situation. GorillaWarfare  talk 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there sources which specifically say that the child died from "Corporal punishment". I think having this case mixed in with examples of people who have died from corporal punishment inflicted by schools, prisons or the military is unhelpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when someone dies as "punishment", we tend to call that "capital punishment". When a child dies when being beaten by his or her parents or guardians, we tend to call that "death by abuse", regardless of what the alleged provocation for such.  Unless there's a good RS that calls the death a result of corporal punishment, addition into the list is SYNTH POVism and unacceptable. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just cleaned this out and left a BLP edit summary, but I'm headed for bed and I see at least two other BLP issues, of Indian teachers named as causing the deaths of their students, and neither reports a conviction in either case. Someone else want to clean them out and delete the revisions that include the teachers' names? Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two section entirely and put them on the talk page - the first one does not actually seem to idicate a conviction at all and the second one states one has not yet happened. Hope this is all ok! Artie and Wanda (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate entry
Upon reading the opening sentence of the Harris Biography I find that there is an undocumented inaccurate entry which borders on libel. The biographic entry that suggests that Harris is "...thought to have been in coordination with Blagojevich regarding many of the Illinois Governor's scandalous activities..." is completely unsupported by a factual citation. Moreover, that suggestion is inconsistent with the facts as they have been subsequently adduced at trial in the Blagojevich case. Review of the complaint that served as the basis of Harris' arrest, as well as the Governor's, demonstrates that Harris was only accused in connection with two acts. He was accused of conspiring with the Governor to extort the Chicago Tribune Corporation by threatening to withhold favorable state action of financial assistance with respect to sale of the Chicago Cubs in return for the discharge of a Chicago Tribune editor who had written editorials which criticized the Governor. Harris was also charged with a conspiracy with the Governor and others to personally benefit the Governor through appointment to the senate seat vacated by Barrack Obama. With respect to the charges concerning the Tribune, those charges were dropped by the U.S. Attorney when it was learned that Harris refused to relay the Governor's extortionate demands. With regard to the allegations concerning the senate seat, Harris entered into an agreement with the government, plead guilty to that charge and provided testimony in connection with the Blagojevich trial. With respect to the issues of improper campaign contributions or lying to the FBI, that have been the basis for charges against the Governor, there has been no accusation or evidence of involvement by Harris. Moreover, the evidence adduced at trail demonstrates that Harris received no money or improper personal benefit in connection with his exercise of his government duties. To suggest that Harris was "thought" to be involved in the "range of scandalous activity" alleged against the Governor is inconsistent with established facts. I respectfully request that this sentence be removed from the biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercomputer1784 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the [John F. Harris]] article? I will take a look. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok a removed the POV wording and made the leade more neutral. Normally I would remove all reference to charges because he does not appear to have been convicted at this point; except that the indictment has it's own article (in which he is mentioned). With that in mind I left it - but if someone disagree's I have no issues with that. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. The case is in its final stages at the moment so such an opinionated comment in the lede like that was a bit much, an update will be in order after the case closes. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-closing-arguments-20100727,0,5270302.story - Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, that makes me happier about it :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon Nuttall
The issues with the article have been fixed and the article added to Pending Changes, but the user who wrote most of the BLP-violating content (who seems to be preoccupied with the subject - 344 of his 859 article space edits, 13 of 28 talk page edits starting from his first week on Wikipedia in May 2007) is now making quite a scene on the talk page. I'd appreciate if admins could take a look. There may be a valid claim by the user that there are problems with the Jayant Patel article (controversial surgeon in Australia accused of negligently killing patients) but I am literally just about to head AFK for five days due to offline commitments and have no time to look. Orderinchaos 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I watch listed both articles, might have time later to have a good look. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for that. Orderinchaos 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends
Need additional opinions on the introduction of material alleging that founder of this church has sexually abused members. Two of the news citations point to an archive site that charges for article copies. The third citation is from the LA Times archives; the abstract is available online, but the entire article is pay-only. I'm personally leaning toward excluding the material, but wanted to solicit additional input, as the editor who introduced the material is adamant about it's inclusion and the strength/validity of the sourcing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs editing because it uses quotes without quotation marks. I don't think Wikipedia can exclude sources which must be paid for though.  I remember it discusses just that somewhere in the policy pages, but I can't find it at the moment.  If the paid sources are acceptable, do you have any problem with the material?  Can someone point us to the right policy page? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V Access to sources see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V or WP:PAYWALL "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible."Wantthetruth? (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?

Additionally, All the material from major newspapers is verifiable within the articles sourced AND within the abstracts from that papers online archive, the abstracts do not require payment to access. It would seem unreasonable to assume that the papers' abstract would contradict it's own article.Wantthetruth? (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?


 * - If anything controversial or contentious is to be added to an article about a living person we should use the highest quality and easily accessible sources to support such content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to use the paywalled ProQuest link for the LA Times, they have the full text up on their own site. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although that article itself is also very weak to add controversial content claims imo. It talks about a recent case and yet doesn't give any details and the allegations are excessive and imo for propagation through wikipedia such allegations about a living person would require exceptional citations, which that clearly is not, its actually quite vague and sensationalist. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Roche
- This not a known public figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarcrush (talk • contribs)


 * "known public figure" is not the inclusion criterion, notability is as described in the guidelines. A quick read suggests that this guy just meets those guidelines, but by all means WP:PROD or send to Afd if you think otherwise. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao
A tricky one, this. If one follows the edit history, one sees that this has been all over the map. The article as it stands now is actually poorer than it has been in the past, but even at its best it's not been very good. I'd stub it, except that I've tripped over a little problem with sources. The best source that I can find is a profile in the Hindustan Times. Unfortunately, it's a fairly light paraphrase of our article from the day before. It was around the time of that profile that this person came to particular prominence in the news (and, as you can see, a torrent of edits suddenly began to rain down on the article) as he went on a hunger strike. There's little source material from before that, that isn't more than dribbles of information. (The few sources actually cited in the earlier versions of the article are, as is so often the case for badly written articles, bare URLs that have rotted away.) This article needs attention. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you both for picking up the ball, here. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fiddled with it a bit... apart from being an incumbent MP his only other notability seems to be the hunger strike --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some work on the article, but there is a problem with an editor who has promised to keep adding a rather garbled paragraph (see these three edits). I removed it once in a major edit, then removed it when it was re-added, but it is back again. I have explained some background at Talk:Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the actions of that editor that brought the article to my attention in the first place. That's not even the worst BLP problem in the history of the article.  Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Happily that editor had a reasonable source and seems happy with the addition I proposed & Johnuniq improved. I love it when a plan comes together :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lemrick Nelson
Newly created bio. There was a question as to the notability of this person and if it should be redirected into the main article about the Crown Heights riot. I also removed ssome material that was being duplicated for some reason. More eyes would appreciated since I will not revert it again. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have removed the external links as they were just press reports, citations useful to support additional content, not external links. I don't like that article at all actually and I don't think we should create BLP article about such people when we already have a main article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can other folks please chime in here. I just reverted back the article to remove ethnicity from the lead per mosbio. I also changed murder to killing, which I am less sure about. I will not revert again since the editor who is reverting me has been engaging in personal attacks against me and I don't want to get into further. Thanks,--Tom (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Brady (Illinois politician)
has been repeatedly reverted by and others to include campaign propaganda and remove facts on the candidate. Current sections include "Taking on the Family Business" and "The Brady Record: Clean Break, Common Ground" which put forth bias information on the candidate. The original article included campaign platforms and personal history. Presently, the article is involved in an edit war that is unproductive.


 * UPDATE 5 - 2:07 pm *** Someone added references to campaign supporter/backer/person for accuracy’s sake. That person (bclaire54 of http://bclaire54.wordpress.com) may be Brady’s niece.


 * User:BradyforIllinois reported to WP:UAA as a user name violation. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, that article is poor, and has suffered from subtle and not-so-subtle POV-pushing by people politically opposed to the subject. The article's odd section ordering, where all of the information on the highly controversial political stances taken by this politician are mentioned first in the article ahead of everything else, has been questioned on the talk page. And I've spotted one source already that has been abused and editorialized upon in order to cast negative aspersions. Both sets of POV-pushing are unacceptable for Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Percy Gibson
Does this person deserve an article? He seems to be of no significance other than his marriage. Trudyjh (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's the fifth husband of Joan Collins. Could redirect there perhaps. Rd232 talk 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hardy
BLP dispute at this article history over the inclusion of claims about the subject's sexuality. Reverts from multiple editors pro-inclusion and con-, experienced outside input appreciated. Skomorokh  16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been reported in sources like the Daily Mail. But they are quoting an interview given to Attitude.  So my question to people here is, does the inclusion of something from what we consider a lesser source in better ones, for example Daily Mail, give us the right to publish it on the better source's authority? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While I think that the Daily Mail and similar tabloids are quite weak sources too, they at least generate publicity, so I'd say we can use the "better" source's authority in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The original source is fairly vague, the better sources even more so (the Mirror is a shoddy source; "string" - not supported by the original material at all :P). A lot of boys experiment in their teens so it is hardly unique for his biography. Throwaway comment in a popular interview - I'd say keep it out unless a better source emerges with more detail --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. But I was under the impression that the Daily Mail was pretty good,  is that untrue? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My only concern is it is reportage of the original piece... I see where you are coming from - but I think it is reasonable to judge the relevance of material and the source in this case due to it simply being regurgitation. I agnostic though if people consider the DM a reliable source (lets not go there ;)) and stick it in --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is his sexuality a part of his notability? That attitude link doesn't give me the interview? Never the mirror, why is his sexuality an issue? Is it just like, my names **** and I'm a ****** If we had a link to the actual interview we may understand if it is noteworthy.Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, really I thought tmorton166's first reason for leaving it out was better... it's just not really a very notable thing. Personally, I think it is true and accurate, due to the multiple (non-RS) sources with no rebuttal from Hardy.  And if it were worthy of being in the bio, I think endorsement of the material by the Daily Mail, however bad its politics, is sufficient for RS.  But I'm really not sure it should be there for the reason he said. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, it could well be likely possible true, he says it was not a big deal to him and he messed around when he was younger, personally I don't see any notable reason reason to include. I suppose the mail (which has a better reputation that the mirror and is pretty widely used on wikipedia and is a reliable source) article is the same content as the mirror? From what I can see so far I think its not notable to include..Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my main concern. It doesn't seem notable within the context of his life. And it doesn't seem notable in general (i.e. it is not unusual for teens to experiment sexually). If this is a major thing in his life more solid sources will appear eventually :) (for the record; I was only joshing about the *spit* Mail *spit* :)) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the Mail story for anyone to form an opinion http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298384/Inception-hunk-Tom-Hardy-admits-Ive-sexual-relations-men.html. The big issue for me is that without any additional notable factors we should avoid asserting that men having sex with men is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem worth mentioning. What would we say? "In an interview with Attitude, Hardy said he'd had some sexual experiences with men years ago and wasn't now interested in men". Meh. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Blumas
Why has Trevor Blumas's page been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiagale (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone proposed the article for deletion and the concerns they raised per policy were not addressed within 7 days. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Blumas, yes deleted by User_talk:Phantomsteve in March 2010, if you want to work on the article you could ask him to userfy it for you and you could improve it in your userspace. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariastella Gelmini
The last paragraph of Mariastella Gelmini's current biography contains quite a few non-factual, political statements. Certains words ("privileging", "analogally") also seem to be phonetic transliterations from Italian and certainly do not yet exist in the English language. I humbly suggest this paragraph ought to be scrapped.

"She has been heavily criticized by students, teachers and other state school employees for a new law which she drafted, that will weaken the Italian state school sector whilst privileging the private education sector (mostly owned by the Roman Church); Analogally, she tried to give more power to the religion teacher currently employed in every public school and chosen by the local bishop, by giving them the same right to vote for a student as the other teacher (each one of them had instead to pass complex public exams to obtain his/her desk) had; thanks to her religion teachers also grow more rapidly than any other teacher a seniority that contributes to both their wages and their retirement treatment. Recently (October 2008), demonstrations have taken place all over Italy in order to try and stop the new law, known as Law 133. It gained final approval on October 29, 2008." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excel27 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it was a bit skewed but it was broadly correct. I've replaced it with a sourced sentence about the protests against the law. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Football IP Edits
The IP editor from a short while ago seems to be back editing again adding lots of stuff to BLP articles, I have to head off for now but could someone else run through any new additions for BLP issues/problems (history: this IP user has previously been adding a lot of tabloid sourced stuff to BLP articles and tended to use quite non-neutral wording - despite attempts to explain consensus policy) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (BTW I think this person does know policy. For example they have made some great edits such as this but then also made ones like this. I can't see a pattern for why some articles are favoured over others!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
Recent discussion above on this board Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article continues to attract dispute among editors despite numerous attempts at dispute resolution. Gilad Atzmon is a musician who is controversial because of his views, statements and actions concerning Israel/Palestinian issues. Countless editorials have been written about him both in both mainstream and left-wing media. However none of the statements of facts in these editorials can be substantiated by reliable sources. BLP policy states that these sources cannot be used for facts, only opinions. As a result, the article has a "Controversy" section where the editorials are quoted. My view is if the facts cannot be reliably sourced, then commentaries on them should not be used as a backdoor to include them. Of course that would mean removing the criticism section. I have not come across a similar situation before and would welcome any comments on this. TFD (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah again so soon, I was watching and thinking the same thing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is the exact issue now? there is no criticism section? I am dismayed to see this addition of the material that was brought here recently and consensus was clearly against inclusion and User:Drsmoo simply replaced it? It was again removed but what is the point in discussing just to have someone replace it? Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, besides Drsmoo putting back info largely agreed to be against BLP, the issue is whether the subsection currently containing only opinion pieces saying he's antisemitic should be name "Allegations of antisemitism" or just "Criticism." There is one academic source mentioned in lead and an editor asserts there are other academic sources he hasn't put in the section. Obviously having them there would make the "allegations" section title more defendable. Also, I wouldn't say there are countless editorials, but there have been several negative opinion pieces (most of which are mentioned in the article); a number of NPOV ones about his politics, also mostly mentioned in the article. (And many about his musicianship.)
 * However, TFD's proposal they be removed entirely certainly has its merits too, especially considering that...
 * The bigger problem is the constant WP:SOAPBOX from a couple editors about what a big antsemite Atzmon allegedly is, using the same and other out of context quotes as his critics. While even some of Atzmon's in context things are pretty outrageous, he over all does write to provoke and for effect, as a WP:RS has quoted him as saying, as opposed to be an ideological antisemite. But people constantly soapboxing that he is the latter only make for a very negative editing environment, since NPOV editors will have to worry about being tarred with guilt by association. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I retitled the section to, Partisan commentary - as it is all a matter of opinion, one side thinks it is criticism and the other side thinks it is correct, all of it totally POV, it is also not to be described as anti semitic, imo this person doesn't clearly fit into that category at all. Perhaps a few users should ask themselves this question..If I strongly dislike this living person, should I be editing his wikipedia BLP Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An IP from Metropolitan College Of New York, seems to be a bit opinionated and mentioning Nazis? Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Partisan commentary" is even more POV than "Allegations of antisemitism and responses." I have changed it to "controversy" -- one nobody particularly loves, but which isn't blatantly POV either.
 * I think anyone visiting the talk page will see that the WP:SOAPBOX is not limited to "a couple editors" nor to one side of the Atzmon/antisemitism controversy. It is simply wrong however to claim that there are no WP:RS who call Atzmon an antisemite; see eg the Hirsh citation from Yale. I am ambivalent about the use of the heading "allegations of antisemitism and responses"; the only real justification is that subsuming it into the larger section "politics" would entail the POV implication that antisemitism is merely a form of politics rather than racism, which is a category error and does not do justice to the antisemitism controversy.
 * And Off2riorob's suggestion has of course a flipside, which is that if you are consumed by such blind adulation for a subject that you're willing to sweep genuine controversy under the rug for the sake of not ruining the hagiography, then you may also want to ask whether you should be trying to polish this particular apple. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:RTLamp who is actually a single purpose account as regards this living person, has changed the header to controversies, suggesting my neutral header is strongly POV, whereas I am a complete uninvolved neutral, can the editors that strongly dislike this living person please take a step back, perhaps go and edit the BLP of someone you do like and allow a little NPOV editing? Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a controversy section is poor style. The correct way to treat controversy is to place the criticism following statements of fact and followed by rebuttal.  For example, "x distributed copies of an article by y.  z criticized x for working with y, but x said he did this because...."  Unfortunately we have no reliable sources for any of the "facts" which have drawn criticism.  TFD (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While I found nothing useful on google news, looking at scholar, I found http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf The main Atzmon discussion in on page 100ff which is a reliable source though one who has himself been attacked by Atzmon.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a working paper, it hasn't been peer reviewed, and Hirsh and Atzmon have attacked each other in about equal measure from their respective views. Rd232 talk 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was involved with this article a long time ago, and gave up on fighting for neutrality because the concerted efforts to try to present Atzmon as a sort of KKK redneck were too much for me. What particularly seemed impossible to keep in the article was clarity on an issue fundamental for understanding Atzmon's views, which was his argument that there is a strand in Jewish culture which is a "Jewish uniqueness" which easily becomes a kind of "Jewish supremacism". This arises both from some aspects or versions of Judaism and from major historical factors (Holocaust and Exile), but the result is an "us or them - and let's be frank, it's us because we're better than them" attitude in the more fundamentalist Zionism which Atzmon finds deeply objectionable and considers racist. Only in this context do Atzmon's statements like "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity" become clearer. My point is that Atzmon's view, whether you agree with it or not, is far more coherent than the bitty "seen through his critics" presentation the Wikipedia article always seems to return to. The difficulty is that he doesn't coherently express that view, preferring to express parts of it in an often deliberately confrontational way, which makes it very easy for his opponents. Rd232 talk 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a single article by Atzmon in which he describes "Jewish Supremacy" as a "strand in Jewish culture"? Because in every article he paints it as widespread and fundamental. There's nothing incoherent about his essays, they are always clear and to the point. Some people just refuse to believe he means what he writes (over and over again.) Honestly, if anyone wants to see what he actually writes just go to his website and read his essays http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ particularly the "Jewish Power", "Jewishness" and "Shoa/Holocaust" sections.
 * "Can you provide a single article by Atzmon ..." - this is from memory, and it was a long time ago that I was involved with the topic, so no. I do remember attempting to write a clear version of Atzmon's views, using his own words unfiltered through critics' eyes, and I seem to recall that you were one of the key players in preventing that text from remaining in the article. All manner of spurious wiklawyering was applied by various people, and the whole thing deteriorated into an endless argument that I gave up on. So excuse me for not engaging with you now - I have no wish to repeat that experience (and have no interest in Atzmon and a general principle of avoiding I/P issues on WP), and if in the interim you've developed a genuine interest in what Atzmon actually thinks it would be no harder for you than for me to go and dig out the text I wrote summarising his views. Rd232 talk 10:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Can you provide a single article by Atzmon in which he describes "Jewish Supremacy" as a "strand in Jewish culture"? " What aboout this: "Chicken Soup- is what is left once you strip Jewish identity of Judaism, racism, chauvinism, White Phosphorous, supremacy, cluster bombs, secularity, Zionism, Israel, intolerance, Nuclear reactor in Dimona, cosmopolitanism, genocidal tendency, etc. "Lexicon of Resistance? Incidentally, is anyone else intrigued by the inclusion of "secularity" and "cosmopolitanism" in this list of supposedly unpleasant characteristics? RolandR (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition the section is covered with reliable sources, for example, The Times and The Guardian, two of the most notable papers in England. Here are the sources in the section: The Guardian, The Times, http://www.redress.cc/, Atzmon's personal website http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/, Counterpunch, The_Local, Gisborne_Herald http://tourdates.co.uk, The_Scotsman, and then four sources for his debate on antisemitism http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/, http://www.emiratestribune.com/, Atlantic Free Press, and The_Jewish_Chronicle


 * And with regards to "concerted efforts to try to present Atzmon as a sort of KKK redneck" Atzmon is frequently featured on David Duke's (the former grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan) website.Drsmoo (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Awaiting responses Drsmoo (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see people commenting on the constant edit warring to put in info vs. BLP - first by one and now by two individuals who are defacto single purpose accounts. It's really more to protect Wikipedia's integrity than Atzmon's reputation I've been hanging in there for almost two years! And it has been disappointing to see how reluctant people have been to defend it in this BLP - at least til these last couple complaints here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Antisemitism" category from this article -- in no small measure because Atzmon rejects the notion that he is an anti-semite. It was quickly restored, and the talk page has a section (with links to earlier discussions) holding the claim that the category does not imply that he is an anti-semite. I think this is absurd -- particularly because the article itself is full of statements pointing to other people's accusations that he is an anti-semite. In any event, there is clearly no consensus for including this category, and to see it restored in the absence of such a consensus is unacceptable per WP:BLPDEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an issue across several categories, as I discuss here. Category_talk:Antisemitism Racism, Homophobia, Antisemitism and Sexism. Probably others too. I think it needs a broader discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible vio reg Francis Xavier Clooney
Section in question: Talk:Kali's_Child

I am seeking second opinion regardsing possible BLP vio of Francis Xavier Clooney. The edit in question is:

The way I perceive is it:

The way the editor who added it perceives it:, discussion thread

I think trying to link Francis Xavier Clooney--a Roman Catholic Priest and a religious scholar--with Catholic sex abuse cases when there is clearly no relation between the scholar and the cases--because he is a "blurbster"--is defamatory. Other editors are kindly requested to share their thoughts & take appropriate actions if necessary.

Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed, clearly inappropriate. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lorenzo Amoruso
Can I get some insight on this article. Particularly this addition which I think is tabloid reportage and is not really relevant to his biography or, indeed, notable. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That addition is pure not notable tabloid titillation and has no place in a wikipedia BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Pellicer

 * - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe
 * Has been deleted per AfD discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina (Italian singer)
The article is currently using a non-free promotional photo to depict the singer. The appearance of the performer is a central issue in the article and is discussed in length. Although the singer is alive it is absolutely impossible to make a free shot of her as she is living reclusively and makes every possible effort to avoid getting randomly photographed. This was reckongized as sufficient to keep the File:Mina1972 in the article (Rk tag placed). Now a user has raised the issue again, bluntly referring to this policy: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." So far we have interpreted it that as long as it is impossible to get a free photo of a living person, it is alright to use a non-free image for people whose appearance is the matter of discussion and where articles would suffer seriously from lack of image. What is the correct way to go? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would remove the picture. If people want to see what she looks like a quick Google image search would work. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like it does fit with a valid fu claim. Here likeness today (even if it could be photographed) isn't as significant as her likeness when she was performing - and you are simply not going to get a free image from that era.--Scott Mac 16:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There must be thousands of photos of her from that era in the personal collections of fans, professional photographers, and magazines.  Additionally, she has what appears to be an actively maintained official site, and according to our article "In recent years, Mina has been writing a weekly column on the front page of La Stampa and a page in the Italian edition of the magazine Vanity Fair that answers fan letters."  It should not be difficult to get any number of images donated under a free license.  That it takes more than 15 seconds of googling, I concede.  But that doesn't make it impossible!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have run an in-depth search on Google. A few years ago I contacted the minamazzini.com website with the request. They seemed happy to let Wikipedia use her images but I don't think they understood the concept of free license. I can assure no such image exists under any free license.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed, we are not in competion with anyone, our articles do not need pictures, and in regards to living people we do not use copyrighted pictures. Edit summary : - removing non free image from the BLP of a living person where a free picture likely is available. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Entry on Mitch Miller
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Miller

I believe that Mitch Miller died yesterday or the day before. Sorry, but I have no written source on this - my barber (who cut Miller's hair too) received a phone call yesterday informing him of the death. No obits have appeared in the papers yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.69.8 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We really do need to wait for a reliable source to appear confirming a death before we can report it on Wikipedia. Sometimes this means that our noting the death is delayed a short time until there is confirmation, but you can imagine the problems that would be caused if Wikipedia&mdash;which is usually the number-one Google hit when a living person's name is searched&mdash;routinely published unconfirmed death reports that could be rumors, hoaxes, harassment of the subject, and so forth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reported at by MSNBC. Collect (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AP confirms - article is updated. Tvoz / talk 18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrion Aubry


A BLP on a New York State Assemblyman, was fairly stable at this version. A new user, single purpose account Nycapple123 started editing the article, his edits are full of peacockery and weasel words. I attempted to revert them a couple times and advised the user to use references to back up his information and to discuss the changes on the talk page, but the user did not respond just re-reverted without explanation. Since we're at the point of breaking WP:3RR, I'm bringing it to the noticeboard's attention. It's also potentially a WP:COI, given the SPA and the photo the user uploaded which I can't find on the web. — raeky  T  18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding another page of relevance and the user's IP that he is also editing with. Hakeem Jeffries is being edited the same way with same problems as previous article. — raeky  T  21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is potentially resolved, the user was banned then unbanned and is now closely being monitored and edits filtered due to COI. — raeky  T  04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Coles


The "Controversy" subsection violates several aspects of BLP policy. The editorial agenda is obvious and transparent. It maligns and disparages Dr. Coles’ reputation. The general tone of the passage and the subhead itself are in no sense “broadly neutral.” On the contrary, they are narrow and contentious. The supposed accusations raised in the passage are neither verifiable nor neutral. The allegation itself is isolated to a single published source—a book review by a music critic—and relies on hearsay, opinion, and undocumented attribution. Specifically, the writer relies on a single phone conversation. It is not notable, relevant, documented or substantiated anywhere in the vast secondary literature on Dr. Coles’ writing. As such, the “Controversy” section creates controversy where there is none. Harmful, contentious, negative in tone, and poorly sourced, the section makes for a grossly disproportionate biographical profile. As such, it deserves deletion. According to Wikipedia policy, "contentious material about living persons that is . . . poorly sourced . . . should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Material that is “negative in tone, and which appear[s] to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once . . . "  I have deleted the offending material twice. It has been reverted both times. How do I get deletions to stick? //   Cooperddc (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Having read the only source provided for the allegations, an editorial about Bruce Springsteen by D. Hajdu, I'd say that the only criticism is coming from Will Percy, denying his uncle's "comments" on Springsteen. But I wouldn't go so far as to call the section harmful and contentious. The conclusion drawn from Hajdu's article seems to be wrong and exaggerated though. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cooperddc continues to remove this material despite comments from several editors e.g. at BLP Noticeboard explaining why removal isn't justified, at least not as a BLP issue. Can I have a hand here? EEng (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

National/ethnic identity lists
I have a query about the applicability of BLP to lists of people by national or ethnic identity, which I posted at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons since it is about a specific group of lists, but also about the applicability of BLP in policy terms. Opinions would be appreciated on the BLP talk page. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Diane Washburn
Notable? I think it's dubious, but would appreciate second opinion. Made more interesting because it appears the article was written by the author of her biography. JNW (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kind of interesting article though, it could use wikify-ing and some of the detail may be hard to source, books only I imagine. Some interesting pictures released to commons, they seem like good faith releases but could use a check by a picture expert. I don't see any BLP problems. More notability that a 21 year old that posed once for playboy that is for sure. Off2riorob (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a playboy model is the example for comparison. Nor are an interesting story and pictures a satisfactory rationale. Much of the article isn't even about her, but her father, husband, and famous acquaintances. In other words, it's kind of a puff piece. What I'm looking for is some sense of whether this is appropriate for AFD nomination. JNW (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that this article should be put at the bottom of the list of articles to worry about.--Jarhed (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

George Lusztig
There's an ongoing dispute about whether we should add George Lusztig's complete date of birth. According to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Lusztig requested to have his birthdate removed (OTRS ticket 2010080110026197). As a matter of fact, however, Lusztig's DOB has been published in the International Who's Who, which is available on Google Books. That means it makes no sense to censor this information on Wikipedia. The Wiki policy (WP:DOB) isn't clear on this, and it seems like its interpretation has been debated since recently. So, what to do in this case? —bender235 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is he asking for his year of birth to be removed or just not have the exact date in the article? The year of birth gives sufficient context for his birth, we don't need the exact date - if he's requested removal, we should be conservative and leave it out - it's not a necessary inclusion. Exxolon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he asked for exactly, but User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry left his year of birth in, so I guess that's okay with Lusztig. Anyway, I don't see why Wikipedia has to be censored in this case, when the International Who's Who (re-)publishes Lusztig's exact birthdate every year. His DOB has been published already, why shouldn't Wikipedia do it, too? —bender235 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We tend to be very conservative with BLPs due to our high visibility on the internet, our BLP policy is formulated with this in mind. If a subject requests removal of a piece of information and removal does not conflict with our core policies we generally do so. We would not for instance remove an arrest and conviction in the public record, but we might well remove intimate details of medical procedures. Exxolon (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, that would make sense if Lusztig's date of birth was unpublished. But it is publicly accessible on Google Books. Right now, his Wikipedia article is censored but refers to his International Who's Who entry as source, where anyone can see his birthdate. This is utter nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy seems to support including just the year.--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So I guess we have to change the policy, because if it dictates absurdity, it has to be ignored or changed. --bender235 (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not under an obligation to include something just because we can reliably source it. For example we can easily find a reliable source for the name of the Star Wars Kid but we don't include it in the article on BLP grounds. If leaving out his exact DOB hurts the article, I can't see it. Exxolon (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fernando Ricksen
I know I sound like a bit of a broken tune over these footballer articles... but could someone review this material. I think it is, frankly, tabloid attack rubbish - or at best badly worded (the quotes are cherry picked...). The whole Rangers section is a bit of a mess to be honest and could do with some TLC --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How have they been 'cherry picked'? Which other former team-mates are quoted in the sources? 90.207.105.117 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cherry picked in the sense that this is the entire quote from Rodriguez

"In all my time in professional football he was the most anti-social person I have ever met," said his former Alkmaar team-mate Jose Fortes Rodriguez. "During training there were so many incidents with him – things you wouldn't believe. He's missing something in his head. He was unpredictable and uncontrollable and everyone was glad when he was moved on."
 * I fail to see the rationale for cherry picking "He's missing something in his head" as the pertinent detail from that quote. The cynic in me says it was picked deliberately to reflect especially badly! Then we have the whole tone of the sentence; Reports of Ricksen's instability began to emerge - I mean, OR or NPOV much? :) Whoever wrote this put it in there to attack the guy - it either needs to go or be made a lot more neutral IMO --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please AGF. The portion of the quote was simply selected as indicative of the whole - which, undoubtedly it is. OR and NPOV? I'm curious how you read the players' assessment of Ricksen? As a compromise, though, I am willing to change the wording (arrived at by consensus with another editor) to encompass the whole quote from Fortes. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not really an acceptable compromise to me because it is pretty undue to have the whole quote. But we could use one of the more toned down parts of the quote: " He was unpredictable and uncontrollable and everyone was glad when he was moved on" perhaps? The OR I refer to is the use of the word instability - that is attributing fact to the opinions of his previous players. More neutral wording might say something like: "Soon after joining Rangers teammates from his former club were reported as saying...." --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not 'instability' but 'reported instability', ie. Far from being WP:OR it is attributed entirely to the sources. Sources which describe in detail his far-from-stable history. I'm baffled as to why you think that part of Fortes' quote is more toned down than the original bit, but go ahead and use that if you prefer. I shall of course refrain from accusing you of bias or deliberately 'cherrypicking' toned-down bits to show the BLP in the best light. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Describing someone as "mentally unstable" is a very serious claim - we need better than quotes from other footballers who are hardly likely to be trained psychiatrists. Exxolon (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An I am confused how "He's missing something in his head" would be considered a reasonable quote...... It's not 'instability' but 'reported instability - I have no idea what this means.... "Reports of Ricksen's instability" is the text used in the article; this is unsupported by sources. It is OR because no source refers to them as reports of his instability. More importantly it sets up this instability as a fact ("Rickenson's instability") - which is editorializing and not the way the article should be written (unless a reliable source can be found to support it). I've been as patient as I can explaining this to you over and over; you might have noticed the other editors involved have not lasted half as long posting lots of replies to explain why your additions are not always suitable per WP policy. I'm trying my best, please try and understand how WP BLP's are prefferably written. --Errant' Tmorton166(Talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

here's a new piece of creative writing (on another article). Can someone else look at this - I've reverted 3 times in total on that article and the IP editor does not seem to understand the problem with the wording. If I am wrong and it reads ok someone smack me :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is clearly exactly the same type of disruption created by this IP previously and he needs to take a step back and stop reverting and stop adding attack type additions to some BLP articles and use discussion. I have advised him on his talk page as to the benefits of getting an account and also of the usefulness of WP:ADOPTION to new accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano‎, yet again
Another request for more eyes on Eliseo Soriano‎ to ensure that content added/removed by both advocates and opponents is in compliance with WP:BLP / WP:V / WP:NPOV. Active Banana (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

 * - Two users are adding content to the controversies section of this article. I feel that the new content summarizes the source material inaccurately, and that an accurate summary of the material would not be closely enough related to the subject of the article to be included.


 * Raj's original edit
 * My edit
 * Raj's revert
 * Discussion &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any BLP issues in the article at present.--Jarhed (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

POV in Sofia Rotaru
A user is keeping to reinsert POV statements into the lead of the article. My attempts to attribute the POV to the persons who have expressed them have been duly reverted by her. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to recall that before subjectively describing my sourced edits as POV, Jaan Pärn had previously, among ohters, intentionally lied providing a fake translation and often forgets about WP:NPA, including | here today.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation in this dispute.--Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Do you really feel there should be statements in the BLP like " Sofia Rotaru is named the Queen of Pop music in Russia and the Show Queen in Ukraine" referenced to a couple of news journalists? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point Jarhed is making is that that is a factual issue - not necessarily a BLP issue. This board is more for violations that adversely affect the subject, biased writing and so on. This issue is probably suited to WP:RS/N where they will be better able to discuss the legitimacy of the sources provided. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, do you feel this should be taken there or now that there is a sufficient number of editors involved in the discussion we can settle this on the talk page?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The calling my edits POV and biased should be balanced against Jaan Pärn's subjective interpretation of reliable sources, fake translation (which may be found in archives of the Sofia Rotaru talk page) regarding revenues of Sofia Rotaru, often personal attacks in my regard and openly | bad faith characterisation of my edits whereas they are properly sourced and my numerous references (Jaan Pärn provided no references to support his point of view, except his personal interpretation/translation/reading between the lines of my sources), for example: Sofia Rotaru the most popular pop artist in Russia   and topped the Moscow airplay with "Ya nazovu planetu imenem tvoim" in 2008. Sofia Rotaru reported the highest income (100 mln USD) in Ukraine in 2008.      ....Rubikonchik (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I urge you editors to get some perspective on the nature of your dispute and to settle it amicably on the article talk page. In any case, I don't think this is the place for it.Jarhed (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Frosty, Heidi & Frank
Lots of potentially libelous material about radio show hosts in Frosty, Heidi & Frank, including speculation about sexuality. I removed much, but was put back. VKIL (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian McGinlay
A user User talk: 90.207.105.117 has been repeatedly reverting material,(here, here, here) on the Brian Mcginlay article which was discussed both here and here in the past. The outcome being that the material was not justified to be included in the article. The user was warned in the past from a previous IP and is well aware of wiki rules.

The same user in question has worked from User talk:90.194.100.16 User talk:194.80.49.252 User talk:155.136.80.35 User talk:90.197.236.12 User talk:90.197.224.58 Monkeymanman (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gareth Darbyshire
This is a article created in the last couple of days by a one-edit SPA. BLPs are not really my line; could some eyes decide if this has crossed the line from 'fair comment' into 'attack'? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Blank-tagged as . 92.30.106.114 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it.Jarhed (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And it is gone. I can't believe it lasted so long. --Slp1 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin
After Administrators' Noticeboard discussion prompted by an OTRS request, I have sent this article to AFD. See the AN/I discussion and the edit history of the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Huma Abedin
- There is a longstanding dispute over whether a specific sentence belongs in this article. This is the most recent diff adding it: The sentence describes a negative story relating to this person which circulated in 2008, although it notes (as the source does) that this story was a baseless smear. These allegations only seem to have been reported in a single reliable source. The question is, is this a BLP violation? I believe it is; it is not significant enough to belong in a neutral biography, and casts a negative light on both the subject and another notable politician. The main counterargument seems to be 'but this rumour is all she's notable for!' - however, as the article has been kept twice at AfD, once before the rumour existed (1st,2nd), this does not seem to be the case. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think smear campaigns deserve coverage. Keep it out. If all the smears involved in US politics went into BLPs, there'd not be room for anything else. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed this. there should be clear consensus for inclusion if it is to stay it seems.--Tom (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Its certainly been reported by more than one reliable source. What about here and here? What basis is there to remove it besides partisanship? It's sourced to the Times of London and you can't get more RS than that. If you look at the article on Rush Limbaugh, the biggest section is about his prescription drug use. Huma's salary from Hillary's campaign was about $10,000 for six months, yet somehow she could afford a $649,000 apartment in DC. Proposed merger from Marco Polo's birthplace (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides partisanship, it's sleazy,bs, muckracking, gerbil up the azz garbage. I am unemployed and live in a half million dollar house on the water. So what! Reliably sourced garbage is still garbage. feel free to add it to your blog or Twitter page. --Tom (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly - baseless rumours have no place in articles. It was simply a smear campaign. Kauffner's question of how she managed to live in that apartment is idle speculation. And did you actually read the New York Observer article? Not a mention of the gossip. And The Insider's post says that "This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from The Insider editorial staff." Sheesh. Kauffner, who are you trying to kid?  Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So the Times of London is somehow not good enough as a source? It's not news that Hillary is bi. That was in Gennifer Flowers book back in 1995. ("Honey - she's probably eaten more p than I have," p. 41.) The Congressional travel records show that Hillary is much closer to Abedin than to any other member of her her staff. (Money NYT quote: "Even when Bill and Hillary escape for a relaxing Caribbean vacation, Abedin is part of their entourage.") Abedin is routinely described as very beautiful, extremely quiet, and not all that interested in politics. Kidding no! I tried writing a joke here before, but that was deleted, I assume in accordance with the "no kidding" rule. Kauffner (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times says it is a smear attack. It doesn't belong in the article, and your BLP violation doesn't belong here either. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to propagate smears and attack politicians. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Kauffner, its probably time to put down the stick and move away from this horse. I think I ask above, does any other editor think this rumor should be included in this BLP? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Tvoz / talk 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Above, Kauffner writes: ''Its certainly been reported by more than one reliable source. What about here and here? What basis is there to remove it besides partisanship? It's sourced to the Times of London and you can't get more RS than that. &para; The second of these linked sources is a gushy article, "Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma?", in the NY Observer.'' It drones on and on and my eyes glazed over at times, but here's no hint in it that I noticed of any lesbian relationship. The first is to something called "The Insider", and reads: THE Drudge Report notes: “The TIMES of London starts ‘The Ugliest Month’ with a full page photo takeout on Hillary Clinton and her beautiful personal istant.” “Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin,” reads the caption. So "The Insider" has to cite an unidentified part of Drudge in order to comment on tittle-tattle about this "istant". According to "The Insider", according to "Drudge", according to Murdoch's London broadloid, Clinton has been accused of this -- in a caption which (if it even exists) could for all we know continue "but the accusations are obvious bollocks". Can you source this within thetimes.co.uk, Kauffner, or do you expect people to put their faith in recycled Drudge? -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are claiming what, exactly? That I made it all up? Other people had already added this claim to the Huma article before I came along. It's mentioned in two articles on the Times site, here and here. I should note that the first Times story is cited in Wiki's Condoleezza Rice article to accuse her of being lesbian. Kauffner (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the Condi article, I haved edited it accordingly. Poorly sourced, not widely covered muckraking rumors, should only be include in BLPs if there is overwhelming consensus for inclusion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd drop this if I were you. You clearly have an agenda to spread salacious gossip about Hillary Clinton. Wikipedia takes BLP issues very seriously, so your agenda has no place here. Citing Gennifer Flower's autobiography as though it is a reliable source shows your lack of judgement on this issue. Although you should read WP:OTHER, the Condoleezza Rice article places the rumour about her in context, stating that "There was speculation that she was not chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate because of rumors that she was a lesbian, which could have soured evangelicals to the ticket." I am not sure whether it really belongs, but because the rumour might have had a political impact it has more relevance in that article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm claiming that you were citing crap sources. You now cite two more. The first of these says The mainstream US media also managed to ignore one of the most read political stories on the internet last week, an account in The Times about a dirty-tricks campaign in South Carolina, including anonymous allegations that Senator Hillary Clinton is having an affair with Huma Abedin, a female member of her campaign staff. Democrat officials dismissed the allegations as an obvious attempt to smear the frontrunning presidential candidate. So yes, the Times mentions it here, but only as part of a "dirty-tricks campaign". The second says The anonymous e-mails and letters began dropping into inboxes and through front doors this summer. / One claimed that Hillary Clinton was having a lesbian affair with Huma Abedin, her beautiful aide. [...] Welcome to South Carolina, the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America. This state’s primary race has already become the sleaziest leg of the 2008 presidential campaign. [...] Nobody is sure who is behind the attacks on Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, but the claims of lesbianism and Islamic extremism have found fertile ground on right-wing websites. So yes, the Times reported that there was such a smear. "BLP" issues aside for a moment, does the smear tell us about Clinton, or does it tell us about South Carolina politics and right-wing websites? -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You imagine that this story was promoted by right-wing blogs to help Obama defeat Clinton in South Carolina?? It didn't originate with blogs or South Carolina, but with Michael Musto at the Village Voice months earlier. Kauffner (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I read that this story was promoted by political factions in S Carolina, and right-wing websites. I hadn't known where it originated. The link you give is to an article written in such an arch style that I find it hard to comprehend. Still, I do follow this part: whisper campaigns are claiming that [...] Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a pre-emptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. Well, it's a gossip column; he's paid for tittling and tattling. He doesn't claim that he himself observed anything or even that some informant of his did; instead, he attributes it to unspecified "whisper campaigns". Maybe these are S Carolina political operatives or maybe they're just inside his own head. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Times article focused on South Carolina because that was the reporter's dateline. There was a Bush/McCain showdown there in 2000, hence the "foulest swamp" reference, but in general the state is not central to the US presidential election process in the way you seem to think. The blogs covered Musto's version of events in early November 2007, a couple of weeks before the Times story was published. So the Times reporter could have gotten the story from there. Journalists often use anonymous sources, so there is no call for sarcasm on this score.


 * I don't say that S Carolina is central to the election process, but rather that sleaze is (or is perceived to be) central to S Carolina electioneering (source). You now say that the marriage of Abedin and Weiner is surprising and (I think) that Weiner appears to be gay. Don't waste your time at Wikipedia when you could be contributing to tmz.com or perezhilton.com. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann (climate change BLP)
User:ATren wants to add material to Michael E. Mann to present a number of allegations of corruption and misconduct made against the subject of the article by one Patrick Michaels. The source for this text is this op-ed column from the Wall Street Journal. The section of the article in question is a summary that links out to Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Although the article already refers to Michaels' claims, ATren wants to present a much longer version of those claims, quoting from emails that were stolen and published by a hacker last November.

The following table compares what is there now with what ATren wants to add:

Several editors, including myself, are concerned with this proposal, which raises issues relating to BLP's rules on how to deal with criticism and praise. The main problems are that:


 * it represents WP:UNDUE weight on the views of one individual, with no indication of why his views might be more significant than anyone else's, devoting more attention to his claims than to those of every other commentator put together;
 * it presents one-sided claims of wrongdoing without any acknowledgement that they have been rejected by Michael E. Mann's university;
 * it presents cherry-picked, out of context quotes from stolen emails without any explanation of what they relate to (which would require a lengthy digression);
 * it presents entirely speculative claims of corruption, which I feel are unfit for inclusion;
 * resolving these issues would unbalance the entire article, making what is supposed to be a summary section into a WP:COATRACK focusing on fringe allegations made by one man.

I'd be grateful for views on what other editors think of this. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems overly detailed (2nd version) - we don't need to go into that level of detail - people who want that level of information can go to the source and check there. Exxolon (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exxolon, please review the proposed version again, ChrisO's transcription of my proposed edit was wrong and it made it appear much longer than it really was. Also note, ChrisO is misrepresenting the conflict as something I'm trying to "add" - this content was never in the article until I added the disputed paragraph. ChrisO reverted that version out (twice) and he is now misrepresenting his version as the "current" version and making it seem like I want to add onto it. In reality, his version was never really the accepted version; I just stopped edit warring on it. ATren (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Several points: If this criticism is muted or whitewashed as ChrisO is suggesting, then I hope the BLP editors here would also help to clean up the other BLPs I've alluded to, BLPs which ChrisO and others have polluted with unweighty and poorly-sourced claims. ATren (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First off: ChrisO is a long time partisan in this debate, and he is whitewashing this article because he is sympathetic to Mann's views.
 * Second: ChrisO is hardly the person to be defending BLP standards -- just last week he edit-warred to include a whole paragraph on harsh criticism from an unpublished source into the BLP of Christopher Monckton -- someone ChrisO doesn't agree with. Now he's trying to suppress the Wall Street Journal for someone he likes. The criticism ChrisO added to Monckton was literally published on some obscure professor's university web page. The juxtaposition of these two conflicts is clear evidence of ChrisO's POV pushing in this topic area.
 * As for this specific case, the criticism is impeccably sourced and represents the opinions of many others. Even George Monbiot, a longtime supporter of mainstream climate science, was highly critical of the behavior of the Climategate scientists.
 * Furthermore, Chris's version omits one of the major points of criticism, and embeds what remains into another paragraph which exonerates Mann. Well, the whole point of the criticism was that the private inquiries were themselves flawed, but ChrisO conveniently omits that point and makes it appear that the inquiries were the final word. This is typical of the POV pushing in this topic area, where even well-sourced and valid criticism is presented in such a way to minimize or even debunk the criticism. This was a huge controversy which generated worldwide coverage; devoting just a single sentence to criticism is clearly POV. And again, when compared to BLPs on the other side of the debate, where far less notable criticism (sometimes even blog sourced!) is covered in detail, the lack of criticism here is startlingly POV.
 * ChrisO is also misrepresenting the situation when he implies that his version is the "current version" -- it's not. I added my version of the criticism and he edit-warred to whitewash it, so there is no "current" version, just his preferred (whitewashed) and mine. The only reason his version is the "current" version is because I stopped edit-warring. Once again, this kind of misrepresentation is typical of the editors in this topic area.
 * Finally, this is not even a BLP issue. There is no question that the criticism is very well sourced, it's a notable criticism of a very notable event. ChrisO's arguments are about weight and notability, not BLP -- and he's wrong on all counts. The criticism needs to be described in greater detail, and in its own paragraph. That's how its regularly done on other BLPs in this topic area.


 * The article Atren wants to use&mdash;an article in The Wall Street Journal by Patrick J. Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute&mdash;is a reliable source, and it explains the issues very clearly. There's no reason not to use it, and no reason not to make clear what its main points are. Citing UNDUE to keep it out is a misuse of the NPOV policy. The Wall Street Journal has seen fit to give him the space, and this is how we judge which views are notable, by looking to see whether notable publications offer them space, not by whether we agree with the views ourselves. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It does seem a little detailed - but then again it seems a balanced addition and, given the length of the article, not necessarily undue. One thing I would suggest removing are the words; which both universities receive. - that gives clear weight to Michaels accusations and is inappropriate to my mind. (as it is I'd suggest contemplating scrapping the whole section of allegation r.e. the universities as it is a bit dubious). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael's article is an opinion piece, and as such not a RS for facts. It is RS for Michael's opinion, of course. But I don't see how his opinion not only on Mann, but also on the universities is not WP:UNDUE - this looks coatracky to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SlimV says it very well, reliable source, addition explains the situation very clearly, no reason not to use it. Also agree with Tmorton that both asserts an incorrect assumption and is better removed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan, I think you may not understand what a "coatrack" is. This certainly is not one. Michaels' criticism was directed at Mann himself, and it was a highly publicized controversy. Coatracks are mainly about over-emphasis on tangentially-related material, and this is certainly not tangential to Mann. But it's interesting to note how low your coatrack threshold is for people you like, even as skeptic BLPs like Monckton are practically coat warehouses and you do nothing to improve them. I'll be sure to notify you when the next skeptic BLP comes here, so you can apply the same overly-strict standard. ATren (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That particular item is not about Mann. It's not about the reviews. It's not about the committees. It's about the universities that organized the committees that performed the reviews into Mann's work, and it suggests entirely dishonest motives to them. That's the coat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong, it absolutely is about Mann, because it specifically addresses the inquiries which investigated Mann. If criticism of those inquiries is coatrack, then mention of the inquiries themselves is also coatrack, and should also be removed. You can't have it both ways, Stephan. But clearly, neither is a coatrack, they are both specifically about Mann and about the specific inquiries into Mann's conduct -- not at all tangential as coatrack describes. ATren (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In a BLP, such an editorial that's not supported by better sources should not be used for such detail per UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, that's not the way it works in this topic area, where BLPs regularly include criticism from opinion pieces. Including Michaels' criticism is consistent with the norm here. ATren (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why this topic area should have an exemption from WP:UNDUE. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, particularly where BLPs are concerned. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But when the same editors are creating that "other stuff" and polluting it with poorly sourced and non-notable criticism while simultaneously blocking notable, impeccably sourced criticism from people they like, that is clearly a problem. It's called POV pushing, and editors are usually banned for it. But of course, not in this topic area, obviously, or you wouldn't be editing. ATren (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with ChrisO at 18:12) So then we agree it's a BLP violation, just one that's gotten some acceptance elsewhere. Probably best to remove the editorial completely, until it can be supported by better sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a BLP violation in the slightest and I never said that. Stop misrepresenting my words. It was published in the Wall Street Journal, it's highly notable, and it is much more weighty than the stuff that typically goes into BLPs of those skeptical of climate change. In fact, ChrisO himself was just adding ridiculously obscure criticism to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, so his objection to this material is stark evidence of his POV pushing in this topic area. When you reject WSJ criticism on someone you like but accept obscure unpublished criticism on someone you don't like, that's both POV pushing and a BLP violation. My position is neither. ATren (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop attacking other editors. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for making the conclusion that you understand it is a BLP violation. I thought you'd be more familiar with BLP.
 * We agree that the source is an editorial. As such, it presents only the viewpoints of the author.  It is not fact-checked or otherwise reviewed.  I hope then we can agree it is a primary source.  As a primary source without supporting sources, it fails Blp, as well as the related policies on the use of primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz, criticism is fine as long as it's well-sourced and properly attributed to the author of the piece. I'd assumed you knew this. ATren (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP violation as indicated because it is a primary source, hence not well-sourced. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then of course you will chime in when such sources are used on the other "side", right? For example, Christopher Monckton has several sketchily-sourced claims (many ironically added by ChrisO) that you will likely want to help clean up. I'll look forward to your help there. ATren (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We should use the best available sources. In this case, Mann's involvement in "Climategate" was reviewed by two specially convened panels, and the results widely reported as news, by reputable news agencies. That should form the basis of our coverage. Angry partisan op-ed responses may have a place as well, but we seem to have focused on such partisan commentary at the expense of better sources. This approach is not confined to the current instance, but the fact that it's a problem elsewhere does not justify creating a problem here. MastCell Talk 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources disagree. In that case, we present both, properly attributed, and let the reader decide. And no, it's not a problem elsewhere, it's what's practiced elsewhere. Many of the comments above are from those who have either endorsed those practices or implicitly allowed them by not objecting. I am simply applying the same standard that has been used elsewhere. It is those editors (like ChrisO) who use radically different standards that are causing the "problem" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs)
 * "The sources disagree" is a bit facile in this case. My point is that one can find reputable, sober, encyclopedic sourcing - straight news articles from reputable sources, academic reviews of Mann's role, etc. One can also find op-eds written by angry partisans. If we're committed to using the best available sources, then we should base the article on the reputable, encyclopedic sourcing (which exists, in this case), rather than playing the dueling-op-eds game. MastCell Talk 19:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll be sure to notify you when these situations arise on the "skeptic" side of this debate, as they often do. I'm sure I can count on you to support the removal of such material from those, right? I don't care if we include this kind of material or exclude it, but I do care that we do it consistently. And right now, it's wildly inconsistent, mainly due to the POV activities of ChrisO and others. ATren (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, MastCell, you can start here, which is filled with the same sort of he-said-she-said sourcing you don't seem to like, and which, ironically, editors like ChrisO have edit-warred to keep. If you feel so strongly about suppressing such sources from Mann, I would hope that you would do so in Monckton, for a start (there are many others). ATren (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He can't, because another editor's complaints resulted in the article being locked while it was in the middle of a clean-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a proposal that we should present "both views". It should be noted that Fred Pearce has stated that "Several other soundbites were subject to perverse or dishonest interpretations by commentators. Patrick Michaels, the climatologist and polemicist for the rightwing Cato Institute, published a long op-ed piece in the DC Examiner, slamming Mann for an email quote about keeping sceptics' papers out of the IPCC report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is". Michaels is an old foe of Mann's, but this genuinely damaging statement was actually made by Jones." DC Examiner op-ed by Michaels.
 * Michaels made similar allegations in the WSJ on December 17, 2009, which Mann answered in an article the WSJ published on 31 December [online dates] The July piece by Michaels has been responded to by Mann in a letter published by the WSJ on July 16, 2010.
 * Presenting only the fringe views promoted by Michaels is clearly undue weight, the question is whether this whole debate belongs in the bio of Mann. . . dave souza, talk 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is most certainly a partisan attack piece on Mann, however, I would like to look at good secondary sources covering the dispute before I make a decision for or against inclusion. The default position for a BLP-related source like this would be exclusion, so I'm surprised to see the amount of debate generated by this poor source. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if you think this WSJ opinion is poor, you haven't seen what happens in other BLPs in this topic area, where opinions and blogs are used routinely. ATren (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed a portion of ChrisO's "proposed" summary
Note: ChrisO copied the same two sentences twice, making my proposed edit seem much longer than it really was. I've corrected his mistake, because I never proposed that version. ATren (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake - sorry about that. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

 * - User:Middayexpress is arguing that BLP applies to this article, in a discussion here. Wikipedia:BLP mentions applicability to small groups, but I'm sceptical about whether it applies in this case. Can I get third-party opinions please? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on the actual additions (didn't have time to read the material) but WP:BLP policy applies to living people - regardless of where the information is mentioned. So in this sense Middayexpress is correct that BLP policy applies to individuals in that article. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make clear, the information is not about specific individuals. Basically, I wanted to reference an article by a politician in which she states that khat use is a problem amongst Somalis in the UK and stating the Conservative party's aim of banning it. Middayexpress claims that BLP prevents inclusion of this material because the article is covered by BLP. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok sorry I misread. Well reading it the material is from a reliable source and, whilst potentially negative to the subject, is not a BLP issue as I read it. (though it's inclusion should be treated with care; the piece is clearly direct opinion and should be attributed as such) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was careful to attribute the claims to the person making them, and had pointed Middayexpress towards WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other comments are welcome before I reintroduce the material. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To the generic point: BLP is "Biographies of Living Persons". I'd say it applies if the groups are so small as to be identifiable as individual persons, but not to generic groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that BLP doesn't apply but citing fairly sweeping statements of fact about khat use in an entire community to an op-ed by a politician doesn't sound like the best approach, attributed or not. I imagine there are probably better sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with that. There is unlikely to be a BLP issue in this article (except where individuals are named), but selective use of op-ed sources that present a derogatory picture of an ethnic group would be a serious NPOV breach (if that is the case - I haven't considered the actual article in detail). --FormerIP (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unclear as to if the comment is Warsis opinion or the reports conclusion, seems a bit like band-standing politician type comments to me, the idea that a race of people are underachieving in the education results and the employment market due to kat is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. I think it is a bit undue in the article actually. If the report has come to this conclusion then it is fine but if it is a politician opining and band standing, we will ban this drug..and that drug etc.. Unless there is other qualified sources attributing the same blame to this KAT then I think it should be kept out as an unqualified opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Solid point; it could be used as a general statement about Khat use in the community perhaps? I agree that it probably can't be used to explain education issues etc. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to rewrite the contribution using more neutral sources. The main reason for the Warsi reference wasn't to establish the impact of khat use so much as to outline what the Conservatives have said about it, which is important now that they are in government. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've established that this is not a BLP issue, but here is an edit that I think introduces a balanced discussion of the issue. Comment are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentleman for weighing in. There are a few key bits of information that have not yet been mentioned which I would like to share. For starters, WP:BLP indicates that it "applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages". It also defines a living person as follows: "People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia". Hence, my indicating that WP:BLP would also apply in this case. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it didn't apply; there are still several other polices that clearly do apply in this case such as WP:QS, which indicates that:

"'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.'"

I've also had the opportunity to take a closer look at what the politician in question actually writes in her opinion piece, and not only is it not based on any actual study or scientific evidence (as other opinion pieces, ironically enough, have pointed out ), it is also factually inaccurate. She writes that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." However, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. The unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. In fact, an actual study on khat use among Somalis in the UK states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use. The paper also indicates that only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat", that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat", and concludes that "the overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use." So basically, it's not just an opinion piece citing unsubstantiated, contentious claims about a living third party; it is also factually inaccurate and has been explicitly identified as such too. Middayexpress (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, you are of course welcome to continue pursuing this as a BLP issue if you wish, but I have started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard since I think that's a better place for discussion of issues relating to opinion and balance. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing one politician's completely unsubstantiated claims that there is a correlation between khat use and unemployment in one entire ethnic group as though that opinion piece were a reliable source is and has always be an issue of questionable sourcing (among other policies), as I have repeatedly pointed out. You can try your luck on another messageboard, but there's no changing this basic fact. Middayexpress (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is evident this is not a BLP issue as the comments pertain to a generic group and not to specific individuals. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of broadcast transcripts as a source for criticism in a BLP
Are broadcast transcripts an acceptable source for criticism in a BLP? In the case of John Gibson, over 1/3 of the references in the Controversies section are references to broadcasts.(unsigned comments added by User:Drrll)


 * Personally I think in the public comments section that these valueless criticisms are excessive, three media matters criticized him, I think they are an often disputed neutral wiki reliable source and also pure attack comments like ..Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist,[5] ... is just a valueless opinionated attack the others are just the same, valueless, ''lenny said he was an idiot type valueless rubbish.


 * - Rick Sanchez of CNN called the comments "outrageous" and said Gibson "has some explaining to do",[6]


 * - Dan Abrams of MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams said Gibson was "out of line".[7]


 * - Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist,[5]


 * - Media Matters for America criticized him.[8][9]


 * - Frank Rich of the New York Times criticized Gibson.[11].


 * - Media Matters for America criticized him.[10]


 * - Time's Massimo Calabresi wrote that Gibson's interpretation of the census data was "wildly wrong".[17]


 * - Gibson's remarks were criticized by Keith Olbermann[18]


 * - Media Matters for America criticized him and later named his remark one of the top 11 "Most outrageous comments of 2006".[19][20]


 * - MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough called Gibson's remarks "sick"[25]


 * - Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times called for him to be fired.[26]


 * Jonny said he was rubbish and harry said he was a fool and larry said he should be run out of town and gordon said he didn't like him either.... Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason television broadcasts from a reliable source should not be treated like any other reliable source. Transcripts and videos of these shows are usually easily accessible if that is an issue, but accessibility has never been a reason to disqualify an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual issue as regards BLP is these valueless insults and personal attack, eleven of them, three from Media matters alone. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue under discussion here, which is the appropriate use of broadcast transcripts. Please start a new section here or elsewhere if you wish to discuss a different topic. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What we do here is we discuss any BLP issues we find with articles that are brought here, we don't start threads for each issue. The actual issue as regards BLP is these valueless insults and personal attack, eleven of them, three from Media matters alone. Its not like they are intellectual retorts, they are mostly simple valueless, he is an idiot type personal attacks.Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I asked about use of broadcasts goes to whether these sources are actually primary sources that haven't been made noteworthy by secondary sources. Also involved is whether selection of specific quotes in the broadcast is cherry-picking solely by the editor. Drrll (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the latter, you could simply examine the source yourself. If you can't access a particular source, I'm sure an editor on the talk page would be glad to assist you.  I know I would, time permitting, be willing to email you transcripts provided your request wasn't in the form of an accusation.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer of transcripts, but I do have access to these transcripts (most of them, at least). I may disagree with you strongly on many points, but I don't believe I've directed any personal insults in your direction. Drrll (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the general you and the specific you got mixed up in that sentence. My point was that it would be dirty pool if someone phrased it like "You obviously hate Gibson! Prove you aren't cherry picking right now!"  Many Wikipedians, unfortunately, are prone to that sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Transcripts are fine. That article is way to heavily weighted towards criticism of him.  Six sections?  Too much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those sections were integrated into the rest of the article before Off2riorob separated them out and created those awkward bullet points. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I exposed them, that is all, so that people could see that was all they were was worthless insults and personal attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the talk page is for, not the article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I had edited the talkpage, but also as a decent option, I felt that if by a few minor edits it exposed the poor quality of some of the content it would be beneficial to the article in the long term. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There was this recent trimming of the insults and bla de bla which actually I do support, this edit at least in the moment as better than this, he said something controversial and john and harry said they didn't like it rubbish position. I an sure something could be added that reflects his notable comments and notable balanced opinions as regards his comments but what we have now is not reflective of that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

More to the point - epithets hurled at the subject of a BLP (or any article) do not automatically become notable in themselves. Else we would have several hundred sources calling Abe Lincoln names (frequently obscene). There is a big distinction between name-calling and actual structured disagreement. It is the reasoning behind an opinion which might be valid in an article, but sraight name-calling is absurd. Is this a problem which is widespread in WP? Unfortunately, yes. Collect (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as a solution we could have the few comments from the subject of the BLP and then a sentence at the end saying that his controversial comments have attracted some partisan criticism, and then two or three of the strongest citations, job done. Does anyone object to this solution? Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tweaked, with the help of User:Yworo. I think it has kept all the detail and removed the valueless attacks.Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems better. I may have learned something from this BLP and the above comment (correct me if I'm wrong).  Some guy saying stupid things, which is then commented on in reliable sources...OK.  Someone else saying that guy was stupid...not OK.  For instance, Olberman criticizing Gibson only makes Gibson's statements of note, not Olbermans.  Does that sound right? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Drrll nailed the problem above. Transcripts are primary sources, and relevant material must be supported by good secondary sources, not cherry picked. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Himesh Reshammiya
please give semi protection to this article,its the article of a famous Indian singer and its being vandalised again and again

Semi-protect. High level of vandalism,please semi protect this page.117.204.132.227 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to make that request on the DFPP page. This is for BLP issues. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary Hart
The Terry Jonathan Hart that Mary Hart is said to have been married to from 1972-1979 is the wrong Terry Hart. The Terry Hart she was married to was born in 1944, grew up in Sioux Falls, SD, and graduated with her from Augustana College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnpat (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved to talkpage as it was uncited and disputed, feel free to cite and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

E.A Sims
I'm concerned about this brand-new article.

Originally, it claimed the person recently died with no reference; I removed that as I could find no confirmation by Googling, but it has been reinstated by the author. Whether BLP applies, whether this is the best venue to raise this...I'm not sure.  Chzz  ► 05:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its totally uncited, and as it is should be better deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Chzz, this appears to me to be the usual situation of a friend or relative coming to Wikipedia to write a memorial for someone who has just died, and not something more sinister. The most unfortunate thing, perhaps, is that whoever  is, xyr facts don't agree with the public record.  Sims did not join the Edmonton Eskimos until 1962 according to the Baltimore Sun.  But that, Sim's initial signing to the Baltimore Colts in March 1961, xyr trade to the Pittsburgh Steelers in June 1961, two numbers (In The USA Today College Football Encyclopedia 2009-2010 this person is just one row in a table of statistics for 1960, on page 134.), and the fact that xe was still with the Eskimos in 1965, are the only verifiable facts about this person that I can find.  All of the rest of the article does not appear to be part of the public historical record.  Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G has some good advice. But Sims did play football professionally, and there are multiple sources about him, which were quite easy to find. I think it it is clear he meets the notability requirements, and the article, while uncited is at least partly citeable, which I will at least begin. --Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've found more sources than I did, that's good. Here's what I found (in addition to the two numbers in the encyclopaedia already cited):
 * Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In trying to dig up the 1962 Sun article that I found the first time around, I came across this:
 * I found the Sun article here:
 * Uncle G (talk)
 * He was called Ed, that might help on searching. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I've done what I can with the older newspapers I have access to; which doesn't include the Baltimore Sun unfortunately. However, if others do, that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In trying to dig up the 1962 Sun article that I found the first time around, I came across this:
 * I found the Sun article here:
 * Uncle G (talk)
 * He was called Ed, that might help on searching. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I've done what I can with the older newspapers I have access to; which doesn't include the Baltimore Sun unfortunately. However, if others do, that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the Sun article here:
 * Uncle G (talk)
 * He was called Ed, that might help on searching. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I've done what I can with the older newspapers I have access to; which doesn't include the Baltimore Sun unfortunately. However, if others do, that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I've done what I can with the older newspapers I have access to; which doesn't include the Baltimore Sun unfortunately. However, if others do, that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me too.


 * Please note, the user has now stated that she is the subjects grand-daughter so, in light of their claim of recent bereavement, let us be cautious and tactful in this matter.  Chzz  ► 02:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had guessed she might be; she provided rather a lot of likely accurate detail.--Slp1 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How to add BLP Intro edit notice?
Hi everyone. I was wondering if an admin could add the BLP editintro to the BLP Marcela Valladolid article? Thanks Tommy!  [ message ] 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need administrator tools to do that. See the article. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone must have done that very recently. Thanks Tommy!  [ message ] 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Uyghur people in Guantanamo
I raised a similar concern in March. I am concerned that another contributor continues to misunderstand when WP:BLP protects individuals.

In this particular instance User:Iqinn argues that BLP reqires the article on Abdul Razakah to say he was "wrongfully imprisoned", and that his "innocence", and that of his fellow Uyghur captives in Guantanamo had been established "early".

I told User:Iqinn I would always make the first diff I offer be a diff to their most recent comment. Here goes.

Earlier today, I made these edits. User:Iqinn largely reverted, claiming authority on various grounds, including WP:BLP.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "But our personal POV does not matter this is all verified WP:V in multiple secondary sources and that should be made very clear in the article that Abdul Razak was innocent and wrongly imprisoned we can no leave any doubt on that when writing the article as it would not only be amoral but also a violation of WP:BLP."
 * "But our personal POV does not matter this is all verified WP:V in multiple secondary sources and that should be made very clear in the article that Abdul Razak was innocent and wrongly imprisoned we can no leave any doubt on that when writing the article as it would not only be amoral but also a violation of WP:BLP."

User:Iqinn asserts that Razakah's being "wrongful imprisoned" and early acceptance of his "innocence" are "established facts". But they aren't. What can be referenced is that these opinions appeared in WP:RS -- not the same as being an established fact.
 * }

Other contributors have already tried to explain to User:Iqinn that his insistence on characterizing some captives as having been "wrongfully imprisoned", "illegally imprisoned", or "unlawfully imprisoned", requires references, and that the opinion should be properly attributed to the WP:RS that made it. ,

I am sorry, but as I responded to User:Iqinn's defense of their position:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "Personally, I agree, that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I understand that personal opinions like that don't belong in article space. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. We shouldn't rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghur's "innocence" has been an established fact."
 * "Personally, I agree, that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I understand that personal opinions like that don't belong in article space. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. We shouldn't rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghur's "innocence" has been an established fact."


 * }

I am concerned that BLP is being called for to justify editorial changes that lapse from compliance with WP:NOT. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool for those who want to cover up that the 22 Uighur in Guantanamo were wrongly imprisoned. It is an established fact that they were innocent and had never posed any thread to the US. They are innocent refugee who fled an oppressive China and were just at the wrong time at the wrong place. Tons of sources for that and week by week more coming up. Shame on the US for not letting them into their country and shame on you for spreading propaganda on Wikipedia. I am going to put this back into the article as these are all verified facts WP:V. Nobody should cut out verified information in favor of propaganda. We have WP:RS for all of this. It is all verified WP:V and i will put it back into the article. I warn you. Stop spreading war propaganda on Wikipedia by cutting out verified facts WP:V. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (originally added at  22:46, 26 July 2010)
 * That as maybe; but, as I said in the article; unless we have a source that a) explicitly says they are innocent and b) says they were wrongfully imprisoned then it just cannot go in. Remember; verifiability, not truth.Please bear in mind that accusations of propaganda will not win you support for argument :) it's best to avoid bad rhetoric like that. Whatever you feel about these people (and, I assure you, I feel the same way) the fact is we must rely on sources rather than our own opinions and interpretation. This is very simple: find the right sources and your wording will be fine --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Despite four years' wrongful imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Bakr reserves most of his rage for Beijing." BBC News, 2007. "Although cleared of any wrongdoing four years later, they remained in detention until last year when Palau, a former US-administered territory in the Pacific, agreed to provide a temporary home." AP, July 2010. There you go. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what i said there are tons of WP:RS, innocent and wrongful imprisonment is verified WP:V. These are well established facts based on WP:RS. It would be irresponsible in terms of WP:BLP to not have this in the article. Thanks for your advise. IQinn (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The BBC quote, and the Sydney Morning Herald quote are excellent examples of WP:RS expressing the opinion that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I don't see these references, or the Boston Globe or CCR references already in the article support representing this opinion as an "established fact".  I think User:Randy2063 made an excellent point here here.  I am going to paraphrase him -- if, for the sake of argument, the habeas ruling does use the term "wrongfully imprisoned", should we imply the officers who commanded the camp prior to the habeas ruling were breaking the law?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia should not be a propaganda tool for any side in this controversy.


 * I am trying to insist the article being written from a neutral point of view -- this should not be characterized as "spreading propaganda". That the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned, or that they are innocent is not an "established fact" -- it is an opinion.  When Sabin Willett describes the Uyghurs as innocent, that is notable.  He is a prominent attorney, one of the two dozen or so most notable of the thousand or more who have worked on behalf of Guantanamo captives.  Personally, I respect him.  But that doesn't make his opinion an established fact.  Properly, attributed articles on Willett's clients can say he asserts the DoD knew they were innocent way back in late 2002 or early 2003.  But such opinions have to be properly attributed.  They are not "established facts".


 * If the phrase "wrongfully imprisoned" was used by an WP:RS it can be used in the article, again, properly attributed and referenced. No one is suggesting this phrase be cut, if it can be substantiated.  The first four contributors who weighed in at Wikiproject Terrorism/Guantanamo/"Extrajudicial detention" and-or "unlawfully detained" looked for a substantiating that any WP:RS used the similar phrase "unlawfully detained".  Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You extent your propaganda onto the talk pages and noticeboards. These are established facts verified WP:V by tons of WP:RS. The Uighur's were nothing else than refugees who fled their oppressing government for the search of a better live. Innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. Tons of of WP:RS and you try to water down this fact. I repeat: This is a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS. That all reminds me to much on Mahmudiyah killings where you last year still claimed the victim was not a 14 year old child based on years old sources despite the fact that all sources for the last past three years gave her age at 14 years old without doubt. Despite that this was an established fact you continued to dispute this fact. You tried to hide this fact as you try to hide that the Uighur's in Guantanamo are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. a fact that is now already reflected for years in WP:RS. These are established verified facts based on WP:RS and to not make this absolutely clear in the articles is a violation of WP:BLP. I will add this to all Biographies of the 22 innocent Uyghurs who were formerly wrongfully detained. IQinn (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The position immediately above is inconsistent with earlier positions. Is the Uyghur's innocence an "established fact", as originally asserted?  Or is it merely "a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS"?  The two positions are quite different.  Further, the initial wording you used was that the Uyghurs' innocence had been established "early".  The view that is widespread now is not the view that was widespread early.


 * No one objects to quoting, summarizing or paraphrasing WP:RS that represent the Uyghurs as "innocent", provided you actually cite those WP:RS fairly, and attribute their opinions to the authoritative authors who expressed it -- and don't try to represent their "innocence" as an established fact, or an established fact that has been accepted for half a dozen years.


 * I first read about the Uyghurs between five of them being determined to have been "not enemy combatants" in March 2005 and the March 2006 publication of the CSR Tribunal transcripts.  The first dozen or so times I read about the Uyghurs I read the comments of attorneys of captives whose clients' CSR Tribunals had determined them to be enemy combatants.  Those lawyers wrote, (paraphrasing): ''"what is going on, my client was not alleged to have attended a training camp.  My client was not alleged to have been in Tora Bora, or any other battlefield.  Yet here are these five Uyghurs, who were alleged to have attended a militant training camp, and to have been on the Tora Bora battlefield, yet those five are going to be released, while my client has to stay.  So the view that the Uyghurs were recognized as innocent, "early" is simply not tenable.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it does not matter how much you fillibuster i can only give you the same answer:
 * You extent your propaganda onto the talk pages and noticeboards. These are established facts verified WP:V by tons of WP:RS. The Uighur's were nothing else than refugees who fled their oppressing government for the search of a better live. Innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. Tons of of WP:RS and you try to water down this fact. I repeat: This is a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS. That all reminds me to much on Mahmudiyah killings where you last year still claimed the victim was not a 14 year old child based on years old sources despite the fact that all sources for the last past three years gave her age at 14 years old without doubt. Despite that this was an established fact you continued to dispute this fact. You tried to hide this fact as you try to hide that the Uighur's in Guantanamo are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. a fact that is now already reflected for years in WP:RS. These are established verified facts based on WP:RS and to not make this absolutely clear in the articles is a violation of WP:BLP.
 * IQinn (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am restoring the original subsection heading for this subsection. I had already left diffs that included the original subsection heading, and the retitling erodes the value of those diffs, without a good reason.  When User:Iqinn changed the title the edit summary they offered was "change also the title to something neutral and helpful".  The original section heading was more detailed, and more useful, and I do not believe there was a valid concern over its neutrality.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am changing uncivil ad hominum title to a neutral content based title. IQinn (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you know someone commenting from your wiki-id volunteered, earlier this year, that they were not a native speaker of English. I am sorry but I see your concern that the original sectin heading was uncivil, and "ad hominum", as a reflection of an imperfect command of English. Ib ny opinion, changing the section headings, like this, is disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As we know user Geo Swan has a long history of attacking people based on false informations. I do not have any problems of understanding English. Absolute ridiculous, uncivil and baseless. The title as well the post he started of this discussion is uncivil and ad hominum. Fact and visible for everybody. User Geo Swan has a long history of uncivil behavior and i ask him one more time to stop his disrupting Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

<- I'm a bit confused. When BBC journalist Neil Arun writes "Despite four years' wrongful imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay" as posted above, he is not expressing an opinion. It's a news report by the BBC not an opinion piece by Neil Arun for the BBC. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that this passage appeared on the BBC may be an established fact. But it is, nevertheless, an opinion.  This opinion merits coverage, but properly attributed to its source.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assigning the US military some undue veracity in their claims. And as "Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that Hatim's detention was illegal", how is that not "wrongful imprisonment". You seem to be twisting around to avoid stating the obvious, and I don't understand why. Geo Swan, do you have a COI in this matter? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't just wrongful imprisonment. It's saying they were held wrongfully for X number of years.  That implies the military broke the law, which it did not do, or that they could have been released sooner.
 * Even now, no one is being held without a legal process in place to keep them there. The wording of these judges' decisions is being applied in ways I don't think the judges meant.
 * Prior to the judges' orders, the detainees are being held as the legal process plays itself out. The Supreme Court itself didn't allow habeas corpus right away.  Can you say they were being held wrongfully then?  Nope.
 * Afterward, the government is still able to appeal, which you probably know has been won at least once so far (although that will be again appealed further). Can you say they're being held wrongfully during the appeal?  Nope.
 * Once the last appeal orders them released, they still need to be held until they can be sent somewhere. They don't have the right to walk around outside the gates of GTMO.  They still don't have the right to be sent to the U.S.  (We have thousands of otherwise innocent people being held in immigration detention right now.)  In other words, each is being held for legal reasons.
 * What's "undue" about their claims? They lost their case.  Good cases are lost all the time.  It doesn't mean they didn't have one.
 * The standard of proof in these tribunals is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. With such a legal standard, it's not odd to find that the CSRT decided it was more likely than not, while a judge would find it's less likely, and then perhaps an appeals court judge might find it, again, more likely than not.
 * With the Uyghurs, they're not considered enemy combatants by the U.S. because their enemy is China, not the U.S. As Geo pointed out, they've got their detractors.  I wouldn't say they were innocent sheepherders.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propaganda, Propaganda... I wouldn't say they were innocent sheepherders. So, please speak up and show us your evidence! Please! The government failed to show credible evidence to the Judge and they do not try anymore. But please Randy you now have the evidence after eight years? What did they do other than to be refugees who tried to find a better life? Randy we are here at the BLP noticeboard and these are serious issues with serious implications for many people. So please show your evidence or i am sorry. Please shut up forever and keep your misguided personal view for you.
 * As i can see from your comments your understanding of habeas corpus has not increased since our last conversation. I urge you one more time to have a closer look at habeas corpus as this is a very special set of laws that is above all the things you mentioned. You are introducing a lot of misconceptions and i will try again to explain to you.
 * Wrongfully imprisoned implies the military broke the law? Is it implied? What's wrong when this is implied? Did they broke the law? What law? Anyway irrelevant at the moment as it does not change the fact that the Uighur's where wrongfully detained whatever moral or legal consequences that might have for other parties. You might look up some sources that discuss these questions. Did you see some?
 * The Uighurs won their habeas corpus and the judge ruled that they were wrongfully imprisoned. The government could not show credible evidence to the judge that would fulfill the anyway very low standard that is necessary to justify their detention. They had nothing and they were wrongfully imprisoned all the time. The government has made clear that it is not disputing that fact anymore. The continues legal disputes deal only with the question if they have the right to be brought to the US or how they can be released securely. Shame on the US that they reject these innocent refugee entry into their country after all the trouble they brought to them. Shame on them! There are actually some communities in the US they want to take them but politics politics .... how would it look like Huuuhh... There were innocent people in Guantanamo. How could they keep up with their lies.
 * Like it or not that's are the facts. Randy you have shown an extended pro government pro military POV in the years here at Wikipedia but i suggest you may give up on this one here. To spare us the time, damage of the reputation of Wikipedia and possible legal implications.
 * Sure you are entitled to your personal POV as i am but the facts are: (Verified WP:V in tons of WP:RS). The Uighurs are innocent refugee they were wrongfully imprisoned they had never posed any thread to the US. Sure you are entitled to your personal POV but as i said you might give up on this one here because you can not talk away the facts and sources WP:V in WP:RS and because of the serious BLP issues and possible consequences that this could have for Wikipedia and the Uighur's. IQinn (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not refugees. It's as I said:
 * The Los Angeles Times says, "many of the men said they saw themselves as allies of the U.S. against China. Several said they had traveled to Afghanistan for training to fight the Chinese."
 * There's more but I'm not looking for it this late at night. They're allegedly either members of, or associated with, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.
 * You act as though habeas corpus is a no-brainer. In reality, it's never before been given to suspected enemy combatants outside the country in a time of war.  It was only after a long series of court challenges that it was finally given to them, and even then the Court said it wasn't meant to be immediately applied.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Propaganda, Propaganda...They are innocent refugee. Your cherry picked out of context quote does not change this fact. Yes and there are tons of false allegations against these innocent men that could not be proofed. You have more evidence? Evidence the Judge did not look at? They are innocent refugee who fled an oppressive Chinese government with the longest list of human rights violation in the universe. These Uighur people are innocent and have never posed any thread to the US. They were wrongfully imprisoned and that is verified in tons of WP:RS. These are verified facts. Please stop, there is no way to cover this up. These are verified facts and to not make this absolute clear in the articles is a BLP violation.
 * Habeas corpus a no-brainer? What are you talking about? This is one of the oldest laws and it was withheld from the prisoner in Guantanamo for a long time and they had a long way to go and endure a lot to finally were given the opportunity to show that these allegations are false and that they are innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. IQinn (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling it "propaganda" shows you know that you don't have anything. It violates good faith.  It is beyond that, considering this is a news source from the LA Times.  They have rules for BLP similar to ours.  You misunderstand more than habeas corpus.  There is plenty of testimony that they were affiliated with Abdul Haq (ETIP).  They'd likely be in the same boat as any alleged Al Qaeda member if the U.S. hadn't decided it didn't need to detain enemies of China.
 * If you say that I, or the U.S., need to present more evidence for the judge in this case then you completely misunderstand it. It is not like the other detainee cases.  He was not ruling on their status, allegations of guilt or innocence.  He ruled only on whether or not they could come to the U.S.  It is not something that I, or the U.S., need to present more evidence to this judge.  He already ruled in the U.S.'s favor.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is absolutely false
 * That's wrong. The judge ruled that their detention is unlawful. They are innocent the government could not provide sufficient evidence for their allegations. Full stop. Your statement is absolutely wrong The Uighur's won their habeas corpus their detention was ruled unlawful and the government nor you do have any evidence of any wrongdoing of these men. They are innocent as they said.
 * Propaganda, Propaganda... shows that you do not have anything than your repeated false accusations without be able to proof them. The government could not show that the have ever done anything wrong as well as you can't. False accusations. There is nothing they are innocent refugee they have done nothing.
 * No that violates not good faith. Ridiculous. I confirm that i fully believe that you do make these comments in good faith but they are misguided, wrong and harmful for Wikipedia and a BLP violation and i urge you one more time to stop good faith is no excuse.
 * You still show zero understanding about habeas corpus. Your statement about this so wrong that it is hard to even discuss it. It's just false. It is your misguided false personal opinion. Wikipedia is not the place for people who want to spread their personal believe, Wikipedia is not a forum.
 * Stop spreading your false believes Wikipedia is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX and you might start a blog or join a forum elsewhere. I am sorry but even people act in good faith their behavior might be disruptive at the same time. IQinn (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If that were true then why does the Los Angeles Times say that they lost their appeal? Are they printing propaganda, too?
 * I think you're talking about a different part of the case, but it's still the same concept. You need to separate the different issues.  They were declared no-longer-enemy-combatants but they may still be held legally until a country (other than China) is found that will accept them.  The three appeals court judges agree.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The propaganda is your continues misinterpretation. The part of the case your reference deals with is the question if they would have the right to be release in the US and the Bush/Obama administration and the Congress (both sides of the political spectrum) have worked their bud off to prevent this from happen and to make it illegal to bring these wrongful detained innocent men to the US. Anything possible have been done to deny these innocent men entry into the US and to keep these innocent men in a legal limbo and imprisoned in Guantanamo. But as i have told you a few times, the fact that five of them:


 * * Abdul Razakah
 * * Yusef Abbas
 * * Hajiakbar Abdulghupur
 * * Saidullah Khalik
 * * Ahmed Mohamed


 * have not been released after over eight years and that they do not got the right to be brought to the US, does not change the fact that they won their habeas corpus and that they are wrongful detained and that they are innocent. If you would understand just a little bit of habeas corpus than you would know that this is not legal and for sure immoral.
 * They are innocent they where wrongfully imprisoned and nobody disputes this fact. They won their habeas corpus their have never been any evidence of any wrongdoing they are innocent. Shame on the US for not immediately releasing them into the US. These are innocent men. Shame on president Obama. Shame on the congress and all the one in the US who have worked hard in any possible way to deny these innocent men entry into the US after all the trouble and destruction to their lives that eight years of wrongful detention caused. Shame on you.
 * As said before Wikipedia is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX and i must say i find your comments a bit disruptive. IQinn (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is you who's been making Wikipedia your soap box.
 * You said those men were "innocent". Their innocence was never decided.  Saying there they are more likely to be innocent than guilty does not make them innocent.
 * As in the case of the Uyghurs who were not declared no-longer-enemy-combatants, if they've won their habeas corpus then that means they can go home. Their homes are not in the U.S.  Keeping them at GTMO rather than sending them to China does not mean they are being wrongfully held today.
 * The fact that you don't like the U.S. choosing not to allow people in who might be innocent does not make it wrong.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is so wrong again. As said before Wikipedia is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX for those who want to spread their false believes and propaganda. There are still people who deny the holocaust and we could listen month to their misguided views. This throwing of mud against these innocent men has been going on for too long. An administrator may tell User Randy2063 to stop to spread his misguided false believes. He might find a forum or blog elsewhere where he can do so. We never know how old people are and what they do in live and we are kind but he is now obviously disrupting our work here and he is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia and the reputation of these innocent men and it looks like he won't stop to spread his misguided ideology. His behavior is disruptive and he has been warned.


 * Let me put it here 22 times for each of these men you have thrown mud on:
 * innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent.


 * Their won their habeas corpus. The judge decided that their are no evidence of any wrongdoing and they are wrongful detained. The government does not anymore claim that they did anything wrong. No evidence what's however. Innocent refugee.


 * They are innocent They have done nothing wrong and i ask you one more time to stop throwing mud at these innocent men. IQinn (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 22 times and not one reference?
 * I can find plenty of people who use the word "innocent" about these detainees. Mostly their lawyers, activists, and a handful of politicians.  Not one is a judge ruling on their case.
 * The habeas rulings that I have seen say their habeas corpus is granted. I have not seen one declare they were innocent.  There is a difference.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * '''Throwing mud again. They won their habeas corpus and the Judge ruled that their are no evidence for any wrongdoing.


 * '''People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Right? Not for Uighur's? Not even the government tries to prove that they have done anything wrong. They have never done anything wrong they are innocent refugee. Verified in tons of WP:RS


 * '''Sure we will always have people like you who will throw mud at other people. There are still people who deny the holocaust Disgusting. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX where people can throw mud on other people and violate their BLP rights and damage the good reputation of WP. Get out of here! Get this guy blocked. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. IQinn (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a judge's ruling. People are presumed innocent at trial, but the verdict is delivered as "not guilty" rather than "innocent."
 * But I can understand that some people like to use the word "innocence" more loosely. I am much more concerned with your presumption of guilt on the part of the U.S. government.  Since the court changed its mind and allowed detainees to pursue habeas corpus, it's a fishy to say they were held illegally for X years.  And even if you want to declare them innocent, it's still completely wrong to claim that it's illegal to hold them in GTMO when they're free to go to China.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * '''Throwing mud again. People are innocent until proven guilty and the Uighur's are innocent. Your definition is ridiculous.
 * They are innocent. because they have never done anything wrong. '''Sure yeah... i did expect nothing else from people like you unable to accept that mistakes have been made. These people are innocent and it is unlawful to hold them and it is immoral not to let them come to the US.
 * 'Your continues mud throwing has become disruptive and your understanding of habeas corpus is still zero. There is nothing fishy'' to say they where unlawful detained as their won their habeas corpus as the government had never sufficient evidence to lawfully hold these men.
 * '''Sure we will always have people like who enjoy throwing mud at these people. But Wikipedia is not the place for this. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX where people can throw mud on other people and violate their BLP rights and damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Get out of here! Get this guy blocked. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's factually wrong. A judge ruled that it is legal to hold them until we find a safe place to send them.  That you think it's immoral to not offer them a place in the U.S. is only your personal opinion.
 * It is your understanding of habeas corpus that is incomplete.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's factually wrong again. You are misinterpreting again and after that has been already discussed i can only repeat, you are trying to spread your propaganda. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
 * '''They won their habeas corpus. The government had never enough evidence for their allegations. These people have never done anything wrong. They are innocent refugee and yes it is immoral to refuse these innocent men to come to the United States, to have a chance to go on with their live after eight years of wrongful detention. Full Stop.
 * You have a long history of WP:NOTSOAPBOX your political views and you are most likely a soldier or ex soldier or military enthusiast who is jumping in on any article here on Wikipedia do defend the US military and you have a long history to continue to WP:NOTSOAPBOX your political views instead of improving our encyclopedia. Please stop it. Otherwise we need to block you as we can not tolerate such disruptive behavior and you have been warned already. IQinn (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that's factually wrong then please explain this.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * '''Everything already explained. They are innocent. They have never done anything wrong. They are unlawful detained. Stop wasting our time and please educate yourself on the case and habeas corpus instead of cherry picking one source and putting it out of context. No matter if it is done in good or bad faith. Your behavior is disruptive. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. IQinn (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then please explain where you explained that the judge's ruling did not mean that it's legal to hold them until a country is found to accept them. Clearly, the source agrees with me.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's already all explained. The source does not say it is legal to hold them. Their won their habeas corpus they are unlawful detained. They are innocent. They just did not got the right to be released into the U.S. as the administration and the senate worked their bud off to make this impossible. As i said get yourself educated on the case and habeas corpus
 * '''They won their habeas corpus. They are unlawful detained. They are innocent refugee. These are the facts. Full stop.
 * It is just your personal incapacity to accept the facts. Huuuh.... they where innocent people in Guantanamo. Yes mistakes have been made.
 * '''You keep throwing mud. Your behavior has become disruptive. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Get out of here!!!
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 07:05, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Winning their habeas only means they can go home. It doesn't mean they can come here.  They are not being held illegally if they choose not to go home.
 * Here's another report on the case. As the court said, "The question here is not whether petitioners should be released, but where."
 * They can go home at any time.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * '''That has been discussed already. Stop spreading your propaganda Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX.
 * No they can not go home at any time. They can agree to be dumped on an Island like Palau or they find another country like Switzerland who take them for humanitarian ground. Your source is partial and a bit old the legal battle is still ongoing but i guess they won't get the right to start a new life in the US. Both administration and congress and both sides of the political spectrum have worked hard passing legislation to prevent this from happen. Shame on them! The Uighur's are innocent refugee they have never done anything wrong they never posed any thread to the United States. These innocent men were mistakenly imprisoned. The legal battle is going on and if they finally do not get the right to start a new life in the US and the US does not stand up to take responsibility for the wrongful detention of this innocent men. So let it be. That is something they have to deal with and it will leave a stain on them forever. As i said this is all irrelevant. The facts are and the facts will always be and we had that already.
 * '''The won their habeas corpus. There are no evidence for any wrongdoing. They never posed a thread to the US. They where wrongful detained. They are innocent refugee. The United States does not stand up and take responsibility and does not allow these innocent men to start a new life in their country.
 * Nothing we have not already discussed. '''Your behavior has become disruptive. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy2063, Iqinn -- Will both of you please stop. Anyhow, both of you should stop arguing politics here, and stick to discussing what sources say and whether it warrants inclusion according to Wikipedia policy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Randy2063 -- you need to be WP:Civil, and stop arguing about your own personal beliefs and original research and stick to Wikipedia policy.
 * Iqinn -- You too need to be WP:Civil -- stop screaming with bold text, and making personal attacks. And you need to provide reliable sources for the statements you wish to include in the article. Obviously Randy2063 is never going to agree with you, and that is totally irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. What you need to do is read WP:RS and WP:V, and find sources that meet those criteria. No matter how strongly you argue, you cannot add something to Wikipedia unless it is verifiable in reliable sources. For instance, examples of reliable sources for the type of statement you are making are: or.


 * I am being quite civil. Iquinn is the one calling me names.
 * It is Iquinn's own personal belief that the U.S. is holding the Uyghurs illegally.
 * Your sources are obsolete. That case was overturned after those sources were written.  It is now legal to hold them until they decide to go home to China, or until more places are found that will accept them.
 * Even prior to that, it was perfectly legal to hold them during the appeals process.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for talking to him.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am being quite civil. Randy is the one who is misusing Wikipedia and this board to spread his own personal false beliefs based on original research and he is disregarding policy. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX and he does not stop even after he got a friendly reminder.

By the way putting some replies into bold is not shouting. Not at all. It is just a way to make facts clear and do not have someone succeed with  hate speech. Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX.

To call it legal shows that he still does not understand habeas corpus and the case. That they did not get the right to be set free in the United States does not mean their detention is legal. We had this already. We have sources for that and we will add this to the articles.

As well as we have tons of WP:RS for the following verified facts:

There are no evidence for any wrongdoing of these men. They never posed a thread to the US. They where wrongful detained. They are innocent refugee. The United States does not stand up and take responsibility and does not allow these innocent men to start a new life in their country.

It is absolutely necessary to make this clear in the BLP's of these men we can not leave this out without violating their BLP rights.

This needs to be added to the BLP's where this has not been made clear yet, together with the relevant sources.

Thank's to all in this discussion for their input. -- IQinn (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)