Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unlearned hand (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 23 April 2007 (→Crystal Gail Mangum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Unlearned hand in topic Crystal Gail Mangum
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:




    WP:BLPC

    Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    BLP recentchanges

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

    I question whether the section in question was libelous but it was absolutely and without question a violation of WP:NOR, and an excellent example of why NOR is such an important rule in Wikipedia. Interpretation of complex evidence from original sources is extremely difficult and dangerous, which is why we must avoid it, and especially in WP:BLP situations.--Jimbo Wales 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

    There is currently an ongoing dispute in relation to potentially libelous material in this entry. That the material is potentially libelous has been argued by four editors: Asmodeus, DrL, Sheerfirepower, and FNMF. User Asmodeus is the subject of the entry; DrL is the wife of the subject. Other editors disagree that the material is libelous. Asmodeus and DrL are presently banned from editing the entry. In my opinion, not only is the material potentially libelous, being a one-sided representation of an uncontested lawsuit, but the material is totally non-notable and unimportant in relation to the subject of the entry. For these reasons I believe the section should be deleted. The editors that disagree have a clear antipathy toward the subject of the entry for several reasons, and I do not believe they are in an objective position to judge the issue, despite some of them being long-term editors of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the bad faith of many of the editors of this entry extends far beyond the particular issue I have raised here, and constitutes a campaign in violation of Wikipedia's official policy in relation to living persons.

    I believe the potential libelousness of this section of the entry has been raised in this forum previously by user DrL. But whatever was the outcome of that process, the current state of the dispute is unsatisfactory.

    I wish to point out that I have no association with Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design (with which he has been linked, a link he insistently contests). But I am appalled at the editing which has afflicted this entry.

    As is the way with these things, there are an endless number of potentially relevant diffs. Here, however, are the diffs I consider to be the most critical:

    I hope this helps make the issue clear. I believe this is a serious and ongoing policy violation with potential legal consequences. I believe outside assessment is necessary, given the antipathy to the subject by the involved editors. FNMF 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I disagree with Jimbo; however, WP:BLP applied to the Mega Society, itself, requries that the Mega Foundation be excised from the article if some reference to the dispute between L and the Mega Society is not there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
    The above argument by Arthur Rubin is ridiculous. The references in question are to Langan's work. The notion that mentioning a foundation of which Langan is a member and a founder is somehow libelous, just because there was, in the past, a legal dispute with another foundation, is nonsensical. It is also evidence of the destructive editing pattern afflicting the entry. FNMF 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Further to the above is the comment I left on the Langan talk page here.
    A summary of the arguments for and against removing the links to published secondary references accessible on Langan's website has been made here. FNMF 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Certain individuals are disruptively editing this entry in an attempt to slant POV. Users FeloniousMonk, Arthur Rubin, and Guettarda have reverted reasonable edits that were worked on by a number of editors who established consensus. Instead of involving themselves in the collaboration process, they simply revert. As admins, these individuals should be fostering a cooperative environment rather than editing in a disruptive fashion. --Honorable citizen 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

    A few impassioned disputants are still, pardon the expression, going nuts on the article talk page (some even arguing that the term "autodidact" should not be used in the introduction but that "self-taught" should be used because autodidact is, what, too obscure? excuse me, in an encyclopedia? when it's linked to the article yet?) but if they understand Wikipedia policies well enough that the article itself will remain at least as encyclopedic as it is now, this section can be archived. That's a question, hence I'm not archiving it yet. — Athænara ✉ 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I would just like to point out a couple of things. The dispute about the word "autodidact" was initiated by a party previously not involved in editing the entry at all, and I don't believe is going to be an ongoing issue. Some of the issues above have been more or less resolved (such as the NOR violations in relation to the lawsuit). Others persist. Several editors continue to treat the entry as a battleground about intelligent design, despite little or no evidence that the subject of the entry is an advocate of ID. Because of the perception by some editors that Langan is an advocate of ID, however, they remain hostile to the subject, and persist in a campaign against improving the entry. The most recent problem is the question of whether to include a section describing Langan's ideas. False objections are being raised to the idea of including such a section, arguments such as: that it would unnecessarily "promote" Langan's ideas; or that Langan's ideas are not notable enough to describe in an entry devoted to him; or that to include such a section gives his ideas undue weight. See the recent talk page discussion of this matter. Problems may well continue with this entry, so long as some editors continue to view the entry as a battleground in the war on ID, and so long as they do not attend sufficiently to the requirements of BLP. Any assistance in this matter would be most welcome. FNMF 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I take your points as cogent observations of the situation.
    The trivial dispute about "autodidact" is symptomatic—a few editors are far more interested in squabbling about tangential issues than they are in improving the article. The latter is the primary purpose of any article talk page as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — Athænara ✉ 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    It may be worth watching this entry for another few days. FNMF 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Update

    Some conflict at the entry has resurfaced over inclusion of a section describing Langan's ideas.

    After several weeks of drafting and preparing the section, an editor who had refrained from all involvement deleted the section shortly after inclusion, on the grounds of NOT and NOR.

    Opposing editors have pointed out that Langan's theories are notable in relation to the subject of the entry, and that secondary sources support the statements made in the section.

    It has further been pointed out that when the entry on Langan's ideas was deleted,* one justification given for the deletion was that the ideas could be discussed in the Langan entry itself. FNMF 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • Sections:
    Added userlinks, specific article/talk sections, CTMU AFD. — Athænara ✉ 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Clarification on CTMU debate: Since my username is posted up here ... The sole removal done by User:Dreftymac diff here was done strictly to balance the article which was in an indeterminate state. Not to advocate exclusion. A prior editor removed disputed content that was favorable to Mr. Langan, but did not remove equally-disputed content that might be interpreted unfavorably. I considered this outcome to be unfair and unbalanced. Since at the time the preponderance of the evidence seemed to favor exclusion, I completed removing the disputed content and requested additional rationale for inclusion (since the burden of evidence always rests with the proponent). FNMF gladly provided a rationale, and I considered it to be a good faith and consistent interpretation of policy, and I indicated such on the discussion page. I next made proposals for calm and compromise between the two "sides" of the debate, since both had raised valid points. (see Talk:Christopher Michael Langan#Moving Forward and Talk:Christopher Michael Langan#Proposal for consensus ).
    I endeavored earnestly not to take "sides" in this matter. I do consider that FNMF has been quite rigorous in requesting both adherence to, and express justification based on Wikipedia policy. Also, some of his legitimate questions posed to other contributors seem to have gone unanswered. This article appears to be a battleground. I have attempted to represent a singular voice of calm, neutral deliberation, but it seems a safe bet that it's just a drop in the bucket. dr.ef.tymac 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    OK, thanks for clarifying that for those of us who have not been closely involved. — Æ. ✉ 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Update: I remain unpersuaded by those editors arguing to exclude a referenced section explaining Langan's ideas. Unfortunately, these editors are determined, ignore counter-arguments, and don't properly explain their own position. I believe the fundamental reason for this is that there is a group of editors biased against the subject of the entry. Editors attempting to improve the entry have, one after another, dropped off editing the entry, no doubt due to frustration. In this context, it has become nearly impossible for me to continue arguing the case. For these reasons, I believe the entry will remain in an inferior state for the foreseeable future. FNMF 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
    • David Gaiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a small number of users are CONTIUALLY adding to the David Gaiman's page that his son is the fantasy author Neil Gaiman, there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Gaiman's own website never mentions his father as being called David, similarly the article they use as basis, has no evidence that this is the same Neil Gaiman. I accept that it is possible, but to add something that is merely possiible (even probable) does disservice to wikipedias attempts to be a reputable encyclopedia --90.241.1.65 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I believe this is in fact true. According to the Contemporary Authors Online database, Neil Gaiman was born to David Bernard Gaiman (a company director) and Sheila Gaiman (a pharmacist) on November 10, 1960, in Portchester, England. A 1974 book, The Hidden Story of Scientology, refers to "David B. Gaiman, Deputy Guardian of the Church of Scientology (World Wide)". David Bernard Gaiman is listed in the Companies House database as the proprietor of G & G Food Supplies, a vitamin shop in East Grinstead (where Scientology has its UK headquarters). The company is co-run by Sheila Gaiman - see http://www.gandginfo.com/en/ . Issue #50 of Scientology's "Impact" magazine lists David Gaiman and G&G Food Supplies as being "Patrons" of the Church of Scientology ([1]), and G&G Food Supplies is listed as one of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises network of businesses ([2]). I don't think there's any real reason to doubt that the David Bernard and Sheila Gaiman who fathered Neil Gaiman in Portchester in 1960 are the same David Bernard and Sheila Gaiman who were working for Scientology in the 1960s and 1970s, and who are now running a company selling vitamins to Scientologists in East Grinstead. -- ChrisO 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    The point is not whether Wikipedia editors think there is no reason to doubt this; we need reliable third-party sources to cite on this. Otherwise it's WP:OR which should be removed from biographies of living persons straight away. AvB ÷ talk 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I found this on Neil's own website: "Gaiman is the son of a vitamin-company owner and a pharmacist." [3] It's actually from a CNN article. I'd suggest that was fairly conclusive. -- ChrisO 22:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    You may want to check out WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I'm well aware of WP:SYN, which is why I've not rushed off and added the points above to the article. The challenge now is to find reliable sources that can be used to tie the narrative together in terms that will meet WP:SYN's requirements. It's not going to be doable overnight. :-) -- ChrisO 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Good to hear you're well aware of WP:SYN. I take it you will no longer be arguing here as if it does not exist or disputing a perfectly correct report regarding clearly disruptive policy violations. I fully agree with User:Athaenara: "It's basically vandalism—if you see it, revert it." AvB ÷ talk 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    PS It should be clear to anyone who understands the basics of WP:BLP, or human nature for that matter, that the author does not want this info, correct or incorrect, out on the street. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we are not paparazzi, and should not be helping anyone, let alone disruptive editors, to create a rumor. AvB ÷ talk 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    ChrisO, please explain this edit if you're that well aware of WP:SYN. I've reverted it as a WP:BLP/WP:SYN violation. AvB ÷ talk 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    The issue is plainly not a rumour - it's well documented in an extremely reliable secondary source (i.e. The Times). However, I do think we could make use of a primary source - i.e. public records - to verify it unimpeachably: "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source." (WP:BLP#Public figures). I wouldn't presume to guess what Neil's wishes are but since the information is already out there and documented in the national press, I don't think there's any harm in citing it. I agree that it would be different if it was some wholly undocumented private matter but the question of which schools he attended doesn't fall into that category. -- ChrisO 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    The Times article is just one of the two pieces of information you're joining in typical WP:SYN fashion. Do you know you are referring to a Times article that does not say X is the son of Y or any other permutation to that effect? I see no citations from reliable secondary sources that have this information, only articles about X and articles about Y. Also, you seem to require those assisting here to look up the actual citations you should have been providing. FWIW, for the Times article this is: archived copy, The Times, 13 August 1968, p.2 col. c, Head Bars Son Of Cult Man. I feel I am wasting my time explaining WP:SYN to an admin, on the BLP Noticeboard no less. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Rather than take up space here, let's have this discussion at Talk:Neil Gaiman. -- ChrisO 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    No, this was posted here for a very good reason. Others had inserted clear violations of several policies in the encyclopedia. On joining the discussion here you have not only asserted that this can in fact go into the encyclopedia, you have also underhandedly added this information yourself to yet another article while claiming here that you were abiding by WP:SYN and therefore not adding it to the article reported above. You are an admin and should be able to understand the rules. These policies are not trumped by consensus. If you do not agree with my interpretation, by all means ask another admin or ask around on the WP:BLP and WP:OR/WP:ATT talk pages. Don't forget to point others to the full explanation I put on that talk page yesterday and to the warning on your talk page.(diff) Or someone else may want to chime in. I'm logging off now, not sure when I'll be back on line. Have a good weekend everyone. AvB ÷ talk 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    This boils down to a dispute over interpretations of the policy. We both believe that we're interpreting it correctly. The best remedy, I think, will be to present the evidence and our conflicting interpretations (after Easter!) to other admins and maybe Jimbo and ask for an independent view. In the meantime, I'm logging off too - we can discuss this further on Talk:Neil Gaiman after Easter when we hopefully have some more substantive evidence to discuss. -- ChrisO 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    This would have remained a discussion about policy interpretation if you hadn't made exactly the same disputed WP:SYN edit to another article during that discussion. In addition to looking like a convoluted type of WP:POINT, it also was a pretty big mistake to make in a WP:BLP context where we remove first, talk later. This is now also a discussion about your behavior. The violation prompted a warning. I will not reward this type of behavior in someone who ought to know better and do not want to encourage contempt of a rule that is becoming more important every day. I want you to realize that. In a BLP, when in doubt, remove. When in doubt, don't add. When disputed, don't add. AvB ÷ talk 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I find it interesting that content and references had been added to the David Gaiman article in such a way that the name "Neil" now appears a total of five times, twice in the text and thrice in the references section. Undue weight, anyone? I'd even characterise it as sneaky. — Athænara ✉ 10:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Undue weight, certainly. Which automatically makes it a WP:BLP issue too. It looks like we're a tabloid setting the stage for a scoop. The real information content here is that the subject's son was a Scientologist too when he was seven years old. Which seems non-notable to the degree of its inclusion being an undue weight and WP:BLP violation in itself. AvB ÷ talk 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Exactly. I have now removed that content and placed a pointer in the edit summary to this section of the noticeboard. — Æ. ✉ 13:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Great. You removed the existance of Neil altogether. He no longer exists. Before you came, David Gaiman had two children. Now he has only one left. --Tilman 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    This complaint as well as several others were attended to in subsequent edits. Tilman, whose POV regarding Scientology is well known,[4] kept doing full reverts, in the last one once again sneaking in the wikilink to the author (diff, intermediate edits not shown). He also re-added (diff) the reciprocal link to the author's article against consensus on the talk page that a reliable source for this is lacking. I have reverted the two inappropriate wikilinks per WP:BLP/WP:SYN. Someone please keep a close look on this situation (I'm online for a couple of minutes only). UG perhaps? AvB ÷ talk 11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I've found a newspaper article in which David Gaiman (the Scientologist) explicitly says that Neil Gaiman (the author) is his son. This should hopefully resolve many of the difficulties we've encountered here. More at Talk:Neil Gaiman#Possible reference found. -- ChrisO 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    And for the record, here are the referenced and reliably sourced additions that I've made to the two articles: [5] and [6]. The addition of this source will hopefully put this controversy to bed. :-) -- ChrisO 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    This article still suffers from biased editing. See the talk page and the problems of the article lacking "full citations" (over thirty external links are not identified as "full citations"); the article clearly does not clearly, adequately, and consistently identify the authors, titles, publications, dates of publication, and dates accessed of the sources used in the article. I have pointed this out, but no one has stepped up to correct these violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP#Public figures, and Wikipedia:Manual of style (with links to several of these other articles). I have previously given much of the needed information for providing "full citations"; this information is accessible (see talk page archive pages). There is no reason not to disclose fully the full citations, unless one is engaging in trying to hide what the sources actually are. Assuming WP:AGF, one hopes that that is not what is going on in that article. But the article appears to be trying to present the subject in a positive light but avoiding citing the titles of articles used as sources and showing how much of the material comes from Pipes's own websites [and/or from other sites; from articles sympathetic and/or critical of him; authors and titles etc. are needed to see nature, reliability, and notabilty, and verifiability of the sources linked]. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles in Wikipedia dealing with subjects relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the parties to that conflict, the Middle East, and living persons whose notability relates to their work on that region and that conflict and the parties to it seem continually to suffer from biases and lack of actual Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (This is my second attempt to call [attention] to this article in this noticeboard. Subsequent editing by others of this article has not assuaged my concerns about it. Please consult the editing history of the article and the current and archived talk pages and the misleading way in which the archive of the talk page was constructed initially. Such obviously-biased and misleading articles do not represent Wikipedia in a positive light, in my view. To mislead Wikipedia readers, who may be students, is not doing a service to these readers.) --NYScholar 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)-[corrected typo. error. --NYScholar 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    I tagged the "Hicks in custody" section with {{POV-section}}. — Athænara ✉ 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    Louise Lanctôt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Completely unsourced, with quite nasty claims. Quick Google search suggests that the article is generally accurate, but I've not the time (nor, for that matter, the inclination) to wade through it all. Jonel | Speak 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Jonel has blanked the article per WP:BLP and left a note to that effect on the talk page, which seems the right thing to me. AvB ÷ talk 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    User:WAS 4.250 restored the content without edit summary or discussion on the talk page (probably saw it as vandalism). I've blanked the page again, requesting discussion/sources and directing editors to this report on the BLP Noticeboard. AvB ÷ talk 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    User:WAS 4.250 also added nine different sources when he restored it. I have not checked them myself, but since the original complaint was for the lack of sources, wouldn't it be useful to see if the addition of sources has dealt with the problem? - TexasAndroid 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks. When I didn't see the required in-line cites (see the WP:CITE guideline) I didn't scroll down far enough to see the list of refs added below the article body. I will self-revert for now on the assumption that the article is fully supported by the provided sources. I can't guarantee though that others will leave it in place since the assertions in the article still need to be linked directly to the relevant (portions of) the sources. Once in-line cites have been added, the article can be reviewed regarding any remaining WP:BLP issues. Until then, the WP:BLPN report should remain open. We don't expect our readers (or reviewing editors) to read through a lot of material to verify assertions, especially not regarding BLP material. AvB ÷ talk 00:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    David Miscavige

    Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

    This person is the president of the Church of Scientology, and as such an object of controversy. An accusation against him was added to the article based on the statements of a former church member posted to three anti-Scientology websites. The charges may be true but it doesn't seem to me that they can be stated as fact on WP. I have removed them twice and they were put back. Steve Dufour 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
    • Isn't it the case that anyone can basically allege anything in an affidavit? I'm not sure we can regard such a document as a reliable source given the lack of any editorial controls or verification. A court judgment might be a different case, but an affidavit doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory source. -- ChrisO 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    That still does not give us the right to repeat the charges as if they were a fact. For all we know the person giving the testimony could be mentally unstable. Steve Dufour 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    In that case, why not remove otherwise citable references for everyone? They might be be mentally unstable too! AndroidCat 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Most of them are not making charges against living people. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    The issue seems to be now resolved. Steve Dufour 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I'm afraid I have to take that last comment back. The statement has been returned to the article. Steve Dufour 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    A brief search found this as a possible source for some of the material. The CREW item on their filing can be found here. That's obviously a primary source, but it could be used to support the fact that CREW indeed made a filing. JavaTenor 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Those sources look sufficient to me. Someone removed the section though. Can we/should we put the section back? Fieari 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    This bio is terrible. It needs a full re-write with some fact checking. The subject's (purported) just came through and deleted some extensive info, possibly justifiably. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    FYI to anyone who cares, I have deleted that revision as the edit summary contained a phone number. --BigDT 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
    • Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I don't know a lot about the subject of this article; however, it has been the subject of a protracted revert war as of late over one section in particular. The article is about a fairly notable blogger, and the section in question discusses a "controversy" in the blogosphere where someone accused the subject of sockpuppetry on other blogs to support himself and his own views. The article cites 3 sources; 2 are partisan blogs, and the other is the subject's response on his blog to those allegations. My understanding of WP:BLP is that it applies very clearly to this paragraph, and explicitly disallows it in the "Reliable sources" section. The user advocating that the paragraph should stay, David Spart (talk · contribs) has not been able to provide a reliable source (though he has claimed that the blogs cited are not, in fact, blogs, and are "very very reliable"). He has also accused a number of accounts reverting the edits reinstating the paragraph of being sockpuppets. I attempted to interject in the discussion on the talk page as (what I felt was) a neutral third party, to no avail, so I am asking for further third-party input. Is my reading of both policy and this particular situation correct? Thanks in advance. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I'd like to add that the "sockpuppetry" section carries a negative POV and must be considered libelous. WP:BLP begs Editors to "especially" avoid potentially libelous material. --AStanhope 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    This whole article seems way too heated. Steve Dufour 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Hello David Spart here, the comments above are entirely shameless and mendacious in misrepresenting my position. It gives the impression that I as saying that blogs are "very very reliable" sources, when in fact the reliable sources the section are based on are Townhall.com, US News and World Report and Greenwald's own defense, which is actually the bulk of the 70 word paragraph. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    It's not my intention to misrepresent your position or attack you (by all accounts, you are an excellent editor). However, the Townhall.com source is a blog (and a partisan one at that, which WP:BLP specifically addresses). The U.S. News & World Report source is a partisan blog. I am unsure whether Greenwald's own post on his blog about the issue makes the issue salient if we have no reliable sources that cover the incident in the first place. And note that I said that I am unsure — one of the reasons I have asked for 3rd party input here. I have no objections to the text itself, if it can be sourced to a (or preferably multiple) reliable source(s), as WP:BLP explicitly requires. I am positive that your position is held in good faith and in an attempt to make the article adhere to a neutral point of view. However, at the moment, from my interpretation of the facts and BLP (which is non-negotiable, overarching policy), the section cannot remain in the article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    The fact that some major publications and outlets publish some of their material unter the heading "blog" does not in any way impair the WP:ATT status of the material in question. It has the same editorial overdight, and legal accountabliity if for example someone were to sue.Townhall.com is one of the biggest online outlets and is owned by a major corporation. The US News and WOrld Report is a major journal. Is the Gaudian's Commentisfree not a reliable source? Are the comoment pieces in any number of newspapers not reliable simply becasue when they are put up onine they are under the title blog? Is printing on paper the Gold Standard of ATT? No, if major coorporations are putting millions of dollars on the line to disemenate contention information then that satisfies ATT. No ATT problem, no NPOV problem, no BLP problem. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, the editorial oversight on all 3 of the blogs sourced is nil, which is exactly why blogs aren't allowed to be cited as reliable sources per BLP. The amount of money being paid to disseminate information has no bearing on whether a source is reliable or not. I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your position. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Outednt. You are wrong about that, for practical legal reasons. Here is the blurb about the commentisfree blog:

    I can't find any staffing information for the US News and World Repost, but I asure you the same applies, as it does with Townhall.com owned by Salem Communications. If a major organisation is disseminating information through its own staff, you can sure there is editorial oversight, because anything libelous puts them at unlimited liability. There will a team of fact-checkers and a lawyer, as well as sub-editors. So, I guess we now have a question to ask the oracle. Are articles disseminated by major publication online under the title "blog" count as blogs or as reliable sources? Where do we go to get this question resolved?David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    This is something that's been bothering me for a while, too. I would suggest a simple metric. The criterion for reliability isn't whether it's a blog, per se; it's whether it has editorial oversight. The Guardian's commentisfree site clearly does. It's unclear whether US News and World Repost does and we shouldn't assume it in the absence of evidence. I would suggest excluding major-publication blogs if there is no evidence of editorial oversight, but including them if there is such evidence. However, this would require a change to WP:RS. Given that, this discussion would be better continued on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources rather than here. -- ChrisO 11:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    The chances of such a policy change seem remote to me. For one thing it seems to override existing requirements regarding the source's fact-checking reputation (as derived from (other) reliable third-party sources) and replace it with an editor-dependent metric. AvB ÷ talk 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Well, personally I wouldn't care to speculate on the chances of a policy change. There might not need to be one, depending on how the current policy is interpreted. But you have a good point about the reputational issue. I've posed a few questions at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Major-publication blogs? - hopefully we might get some useful responses. -- ChrisO 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I agree that insights from others (and certainly veteran editors monitoring the policy page) may prove useful in answering David Spart's "oracle" question and resolving this BLP problem. AvB ÷ talk 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straight, Incorporated

    • Straight, Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Both the article and the article's talk page have some strong criminal allegations against the organization and its members/employees that are not currently supported by reliable sources. I had originally nominated this for deletion but additional sources were provided in the deletion debate and the discussion seems likely to close as "keep" or "no consensus". It sounds as if there is some basis to the allegations (which keeps me from simply removing them) but I'm concerned the article may be considered libellous in its current state. RJASE1 Talk 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Roger E. Billings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Billings is a promoter of hydrogen cars who had an article about him a couple of years ago on Time. However, he's also revered as a "prophet and patriarch" by a small breakoff sect of Mormonism located in Missouri. This sect has always been very secretive, and information about them has maily been in news articles and court documents. One member (or former member, according to her) of that sect, User:Firewriter, has been attempting to fill the article with unverifiable information about Billings that portrays him in an absurdly glowing light (i.e., he supposedly invented the PC, networking, and the hydrogen car), while ignoring the published information about his links to the religious sect. User:Firewriter works with Billings in their underground Academy, and as far as I know, may even be a relation. Her contribution amounts to creating a vanity article for her religious leader. I've attempted to limit the article to documented published sources, but she insists on adding material in violation of the BLP policy. Please help! // MotherHubbard 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Also to be watched is User:Treepoet, who admits she is another member of Billings' organization. Treepoet and/or Firewriter may also have been using sockpuppets, because I've traced an anonymous IP to Missouri, where Billings' organization is headquartered. MotherHubbard 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Getting a car to run on hydrogen is not terribly hard, similar to converting to natural gas. Anyway, the article looks like it's been improved. I'll keep an eye on it too. -Will Beback · † · 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_HaKohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.18.214 (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    Please see the entry for Nadine Gordimer. Ongoing violations of BLP have been occurring there for months. In summary, the issue stems from an attack and robbery at her South African house. There has been months of argument about whether to include mention of the race of the attackers. No reliable and legitimate secondary sources have been provided establishing that the race of the attackers is notable for the subject of the entry. There is clear evidence of POV-pushing, and a general refusal to edit this BLP entry with sensitivity. I have only begun contributing to this entry today, making clear my view that no justification for including discussion of the race of the attackers has been provided, and making clear my view that this is a clear violation of BLP, NOR, and NPOV (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability). FNMF 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    • BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an article's subject is notable "if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself." Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that.
    • The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact by either side. The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The Sunday Times of London and Daily Telegraph are RS. It's an NPOV debate, not BLP. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    "Nobel writer Nadine Gordimer, 82, attacked and robbed". The Sunday Times (London). October 29, 2006.

    "Gang who robbed me should have jobs to do, says Gordimer". The Daily Telegraph (London). November 2, 2006. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

    • The entry has been blocked for a week by user Durova, who did not take a position on the dispute. However I refer others to the discussion mentioned above, at Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#BLP_and_notability, in particular my detailed explanation of the policy situation here, as well as to the explanation I gave to Durova here. It seems to me that rather than a dispute-resolution process, the clear violation of BLP occurring at this entry requires more decisive action. FNMF 08:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • I further note that user Yakuman has insisted on posting the disputed material on the talk page of the entry (in a section called "Missing material"). If the material is indeed a violation of policy, then its inclusion on the talk page (as it already is numerous times) is another violation of the policy, and ought to be removed also. FNMF 08:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Jeremy St. Louis Biography

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

    This template contains a list of alleged "advocates" of and "organizations" associated with the Dominionism movement. The term "Dominionist" describes an extreme element of the Religious Right, and is used almost exclusively and pejoratively by opponents of the Religious Right. The problem here is that there is at least one IP user who insists on including mainstream Religious Right figures like James Dobson and Rick Warren on that list. There are only a few little-known extremists who self-label as Dominionist; Dobson and Warren, among others, do not. The IP user is presenting a list of exclusively partisan and mostly non-notable sources as cites, and doesn't seem to understand that WP:BLP does not allow one to use partisan sources to make a factual statement about the membership of an individual in a controversial movement. - Merzbow 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Poison the well much? That is not a balanced description of events. The facts are that both User:Yakuman and User:Merzbow have ignored and dismissed literally a dozen reliable sources given supporting the inclusion of these individuals. Notably, Merzbow claims here that Harpers and Slate (magazine) are not reliable sources because they are "well-known left-wing magazines." In that same comment falsely portrays SeekGod.ca, ThePropheticYears.com, ProphecyForum.com as "forums" and "left-wing" and hence not reliable sources. Viewing those 3 sources it is clear they are neither "forums" nor "left-wing," so the misrepresentation and stonewalling by these two (which following their pattern appears to be based on their personal ideologies) needs to stop. An example of a source that Merzbow objects is a May 2005 article in Harpers which described James Dobson as "perhaps the most powerful figure in the Dominionist movement" and "a crucial player in getting out the Christian vote for George W. Bush." Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters (a subscription is required, but it is reprinted here: [9]). 151.151.73.167 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Incorrect, there is no Slate cite being presented, you mean Salon, which along with Harpers are partisan left-progressive sources, as their Wikipedia articles acknowledge. Listing names of people as proponents of an ideology is stating a fact - a claim of consensus. WP:RS is quite explicit about this situation: "Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion... In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources." You cannot use exclusively partisan sources to establish a fact. And WP:BLP comes in because Dominionism is a pejorative term that the figures in question decidedly do not self-label as; the progressive media often equates Dominionism with Fascism. - Merzbow 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for correcting my mistake, I meant Salon, not Slate. Again, you're presenting and attacking a straw man of my original points, which still stand, and offering a slanted view of the actual issues. "The progressive media"? Your choice of language belies your own motive and bias. Harpers is hardly the Guardian, as you'd have us believe. 151.151.73.164 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    We do not list people in categories in Wikipedia solely on the say-so of their political enemies in opinion pieces. As it seems you have no intention of budging, I encourage those reading to chime in here so we can establish consensus against this ridiculous position and get the template unlocked. - Merzbow 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Until you acknowledge that Harpers has long been accepted across Wikipedia as a reliable source as an admin, User:FYCTravis, just pointed out to you there, I highly recommend not unlocking the template. The only ridiculous position there is the one that dismisses or ignores reliable sources because they do no align with personal beliefs. 151.151.73.164 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Harpers and Salon are both reliable sources (Harpers easily so). There's no BLP issue here. JoshuaZ 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Representing negative political opinions about a person as fact in Wikipedia articles is not a BLP issue? You sure about that? - Merzbow 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    There isn't a BLP issue when we have reliable sources. Harpers is reliable. Period. That's the end of the matter. You have now been told this by a variety of people and simply don't seem to want to listen. JoshuaZ 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    And a whole other variety of people, including at least one admin, have said otherwise. "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner... The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." That is from BLP. It's also similar to language in NPOV. One could argue that NPOV is the more relevant policy, except that a template here is unconditionally listing certain living people as adherents of a fascist ideology, a claim made ONLY by the political enemies of these individuals. But if you want me gone from this noticeboard, then so be it. This can just as easily be argued on NPOV grounds. - Merzbow 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Er, what part of CMummert's comment do you interpret as supporting your assertion? Must be something written in a magic hidden script. The simple fact is that the connection is based on Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists and serious academics. At the same time, Merzbow has yet to provide a shred of evidence that anyone (except him and a couple of his friends) questions. Can the unsourced opinion of a Wikipedia editor really nullify the work of serious journalists? 72.198.121.115 04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I don't object to noting that dominionists are such, and saying who they are when there is a broad consensus in the sources. But we should not be carrying water for people who want to advance their own agenda by labeling their political opponents. We don't put Michael Savage in Template:lazy people and cite it to Salon[10]; we say, "Critics such as...Dave Gilson of Salon.com accuse him of fascist leanings,[39] racism,[40] homophobia[41] and bigotry,[40] because of his controversial statements about Jews, Arabs, Islam, homosexuality, feminism, sex education, and immigration." Tom Harrison Talk 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see Michelle Goldberg as having such a political or ideological ax to grind in her Salon article that it would preclude it being used as source there. Her views are pretty run-of-the-mill for the large segment of society that does not accept the aims of the religious right. As long as the individuals listed in the template are named in published in reliable sources that are not hit pieces or smear jobs, but reflect notable and relevant viewpoints, I don't see an issue here. FeloniousMonk 05:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Is it really a good idea to have a template for someone's views, even if they are run-of-the-mill and reflect those of a large segment of society? Is this template really needed at all? It could also be asked why are people interested in dominionism at all? Why are they talking and writing about it? Do very many believe in it? Are people interested in learning about it? Or do they think that by talking about it they might influence the outcome of the 2008 elections? Steve Dufour 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    I have added the article to my watchlist. Obviously, the addition of unsourced negative claims violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. If the vandalism returns, the user in question can be blocked from editing or the article can be temporarilly protected from being edited by new users. --BigDT 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    • 81.96.161.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Kris Weston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Kris Weston, a former member (early 1990s !!!!) of the techno/ambience/experimental British act The Orb, complains that the article regarding him is full of mistaken info, sourced on faked info taken from untrustable and malicious "paparazzi"-style sites. He really doesn't want to have an entry here, though he is (or was very) notable, I think he's the right to ask such removal. He no longer want to talk to this site 'cos he feels that many mot..fuc... are here just to have fun on him.Doktor Who 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • He has been highly uncivil when dealing with us and has not even attempted a dialog not filled with death threats and cursing. None of the sources are from paparazzi sites, but from British print newspapers. There is no attack/negative information in any articles about him, so I really don't know what his problem is. I don't understand what specific information is contentious. Wickethewok 01:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • Oh, this story is very simple: he feels that over a dozen of ppl are deliberaterly misrepresenting him and some of his past; therefore he regards almost everyone here as a potential and actual harrasser. Anyone would behave like him. Furthermore (but this is just my opinion), I sadly realize that none took some minutes of his/her time to talk to him politely, avoiding at the same time the use of any term or sentence that may sound so "Wikipedia slang".Doktor Who 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
    He doesn't seem to be very notable either, at least from what we are given in the article. Steve Dufour 04:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I would think being president of a notable organization such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship would be sufficient claim to notability, and there seems to be plenty of news coverage. JavaTenor 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Please put some in the article. :-) Steve Dufour 14:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Scientology Finance

    Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

    It doesn't name any individuals but it seems to violate the spirit of WP's living persons policies. Steve Dufour 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    It doesn't really have anything to do with WP:BLP, but that article could use a trip to another three-letter acronym. --BigDT 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    It talks about the policies of "Scientology organizations." I think that involves living persons, even it they are not mentioned by name. I have been warned not to nominate any more articles for deletion, after I nominated their beloved Xenu. :-) Steve Dufour 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I am putting this section back after it was removed. It seems to me that if the article is saying that these are policies being followed by Scientologists then living people are involved. On the other hand if they are just L. Ron Hubbard's opinions the article should be deleted as non-notable and original research, which is what BigDT seems to be saying. Thanks. Steve Dufour 15:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Steve, this isn't a BLP issue any more than an article containing criticisms of Microsoft would be a BLP violation directed at Bill Gates. Could I remind you that this noticeboard is about biographical articles? Please take it elsewhere. -- ChrisO 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Um no it's not. It's for reporting problems with articles with regards to the BLP policy, which covers all articles which reference living people. Check out the policy. I haven't looked into this particular care, but as the issues Steve is discussing are with regards to BLP, then it is appropriate to discuss here. If you don't agree with his intepretation of BLP in this regard, that's fine, but it's still the appropriate place to discuss an article with which an editor has BLP concerns. Nil Einne 21:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Exactly. AvB ÷ talk 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I did take a look at the article (which I agree isn't very well written) - since the only person named is L. Ron Hubbard and he's definitely dead, I fail to see the relevance to BLP. Hence my analogy to Microsoft. If we (hypothetically) had an article that said "Microsoft does bad things", it would be stretching a point and then some to claim that it was some sort of BLP violation directed at a specific Microsoft employee. Then again, since corporations are regarded as legal persons, perhaps BLP could be construed to cover them too. But do we really want to go there? :-) -- ChrisO 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Like BigDT and ChrisO, I fail to see the relevance to BLP. However, the fact that this material is allowed per WP:BLP does not warrant the deletion of the article per nn or OR claims as suggested by Steve Dufour. Solution: make sure the article is sufficiently sourced where possible, and remove any remaining disputed material. AvB ÷ talk 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks you all. I tend to think that an article titled "Catholic Finance" or "Jewish Finance" wouldn't be allowed on WP. Steve Dufour 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    And Steve Dufour just twisted the facts: catholic and jewish are adjectives pertaining to adherents to those religions. Scientology is a noun pertaining to the subject or organization of scientology. Looks like Steve is promoting a tendentious argument.--Fahrenheit451 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    If reliable sources would report that e.g. the Catholic Church had such a policy, a similar article would be hard to keep out. Not that disallowing one article would automatically also disallow another one. Having said that, I'm not so sure that the article would survive AfD, although Steve's argument re other churches will not be decisive. His earlier arguments (non-notable and OR), however, might. AvB ÷ talk 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    • Lindsay Lohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - another user has expressed concern about the following passage: In 2006, Brandon Davis called Lindsay Lohan a "firecrotch" while Paris Hilton laughed on. The term stuck with many celebrity gossip magazines and websites, becoming a derogatory nickname and spawning parodies and the references cited to support this. I've removed one obvious copyvio YouTube link but as to the BLP/reliable sources situation, I'm not really sure what action to take. Anyone more experienced with this sort of thing care to take a look and give me their opinion? Thanks. // Kurt Shaped Box 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I could not find a discussion of the firecrotch edits on the current talk page or the last archive. Discuss an issue on the article's talk page before bringing it here. --Gbleem 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry - it was mentioned here... --Kurt Shaped Box 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Pascal_Duquenne

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    The information that Pascal_Duquenne actually suffers from Down syndrome is repeatedly added to his biography page and my corrections are reverted, my question on the discussion page remains unanswered. I explored the sources and found no trustworthy information that would prove this statement: from two sources one does not mention him at all and the second one, where he listed as a person with Down Syndrome, is just a compilation of the "readers' opinions", rather than any official page. Since it is not clearly proved by sources, I would avoid putting this information into the bio article. Alaudo 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Marcus Allen

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I could not find my original post in the archives. Ronnie Lott said in an interview with Byron Allen that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated without cheating help from Byron Allen. Can this be posted on the Marcus Allen article  ? On the talk pages someone is saying that it cannot be because Marcus Allen has made no comment about the interview. --Gbleem 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Sheikh Adelabu

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Hi all :) The above referenced article doesn't seem to claim anything controversial or alarming, but is always alarms me when living person bios are completely unsourced--there's not even an extenal link at the bottom of the page. I'm going to notify the page's creator once I find the right tag... I've tagged the page with {{Blpdispute}}--is there anything else I should do? THanks! Wysdom 02:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I saw wait a couple of days and then put a speedy deletion non-notable tag on it. --Gbleem 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I added a speedy delete tag to it. --Gbleem 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Howard Zinn

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    After attending a lecture given by Howard Zinn, recently, at UMass, Boston, I added material to the Iraq section to further explain his views. A few days ago, I noticed while Googling "Howard Zinn" that the Wikipedia entry defaulted far down into a section called "Criticism" to introduce a very negative remark about the author of "A People's History of the United States" into the Google slug line. Yahoo searches default to eh beginning of the Wikipedia article, offering biographical info and thus is neutral, not negative. It was as if this section of Wikipedia had been rigged, and Google hacked, to create a negative first impression of Zinn to users of Google and Wikipedia.

    Coming back to the bio, I noticed that there was talk about whether the Criticism was even valid. I decided to add background explaining Zinn and his critics, in the context of the schools of thought that each represented.

    Coming back a couple days later, I noticed that someone named Skywriter had appointed him/herself judge, jury, and executioner to destroy all of the work that I had made trying to elucidate Zinn, his relation to other historians (such as the Schlesinger school of consensual history) so someone, a layman, could understand the context in which Zinn labors, and the mainstream (right and left) that he rows his boat against.

    This Skywriter destroyed any contextualization, such as putting the conservative critic who had been mentioned in the context of his relatinship with certain reactionary elements that have flourished recently.

    I admit, and expected, someone to read it and recast it in a more neutral light than I, having recently read much of Zinn and being familiar with the man, likely had written it. (That is, I was likely more sympathetic to Zinn and negative towards his critics as I was writing about the man.) In other pieces I've come in on, this is usually the case, and frequently one gets a better, more balanced article out of it.

    Here is what Skywriter wrote jusitfying his wholesale destruction of my work:

    "The focus of the criticism section is on the individuals other than Zinn. It is not necessary and indeed bogs down this article by including vast amounts of unrelated material to this biographical sketch of Zinn. I intend to delete unrelated material. Feel free to take this material to the pages of the individuals where it is relevant." Skywriter 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    My comment: No, the focus of the CRITICISM section is CRITICISM of Zinn, and how it relates to him and the critics, and the field of American history, that is, how it is studied and related to the American people.

    This Skywriter made a comment about B.U. President Silber that showwed his ignorance of the issues.

    Another comment of Skywriter: "Some folks went far afield writing various essays within this article on subjects unrelated to the topic at hand. Although lengthy, that material also lacked references. It's now been cleaned up. Skywriter 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    My comment: This was all referenced, and if there were a LACK OF REFERENCES, that could have been highlighted, and thos references put in. One thing I do when writing is, since there is no spell-checker that I know of on Wikipedia, I cut and paste my work to another program, spell-check, and bring it back. Sometimes formatting related to references, and thus the references, are deleted if I'm not careful.

    MY ARGUMENT:

    While I might be considered pro-Zinn, this Skywriter, I believe, is definitely anti-Zinn (as opposed to someone seeking neutrality or a neutral tone). He just destroyed a great deal of work, and research, trying to contextualize Zinn, and why he would be meaningful, and why he would be relevant in 2007 (as opposed to 1968, or 1972, or 1962, all times when Zinn had influence), and why his critics denigrate him.

    I would consider Wikipedia a resource that would seek to explain and contextualize the people that are written about, within the limits of an obtainable objectivity. The histories/biographies of the Zinn critics, and contextualizing them and their place within American history since World War II (as the two examples, NOT CHOSEN BY ME, are evocative of the liberal strain of history as exemplified by the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., someone Zinn mentioned in his recent Boston lecture, and Joseph McCarthy. They and contextualizing them in history are entirely relevant to any discussion of Zinn AS HE SEEKS TO ELUCIDATE AMERICAN HISTORY so people know its impact on the HERE AND NOW and how certain strains, such as the anti-intellectual stain of the Accuracy in Academia/Accuracy in Media crowd (who called Walter Cronkite a fellow traveler) persist. THIS IS THE GIST OF HOWARD ZINN'S WORK, and why the critics have to be contextualized. As this is at the root of his philosophy of history, Santayana's dictum "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

    I believe Skywriter should not be allowed near the Howard Zinn article as he is an editor who cannot see the forest, but for the trees. I also believed he is prejudiced against Zinn, and destroyed the work, the Iraq and the Criticism sections, out of malice.

    I ask: Why did he keep the criticism section in, which is utterly barebones and meaningless as he judged these two men not to be representative of two strains/schools of thought antithetical to Zinn, but as something to serve as minor sluglines that fill space. And thus, once again, we can GOOGLE to the negative comment about Zinn.

    Let me reiterate, I belive Skywriter is prejudiced, and on the thesis that "If it looks like a duck" is involved in the hack of Google to denigrate Howard Zinn. He/she shold be pulled off the article and forbidden to touch it. A new editor, a more experienced editor, should be assigned, and after reinstating the text of Iraq and the Criticism sections, edit them for the purpose of neturality, and to perhaps compress them to eliminate redundancy or superfulous detail. But Zinn and his critics, and his stance on the war on Iraq (as one of the most prominent anti-war critics and arguably the most popular "populist historian" in US history (as his liberal critics said, need to be part of any article on the man that is aimed at educating the public, so they understand him. Robert Dalziel

    I'm not an admin and won't comment on the other aspects here, but the text that Google displays in its results is entirely dependent on which search string you use. There is no "hack" involved. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

    Jenna Elfman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Some new users,not familiar with policy, insist on adding poorly sourced materials. (See talk page for clear evidence that the best sources are rather dubious). I've reverted twice already (with comments on the talk page), so some help would seem necessary as it seems some people would not bother to read or understand the BLP policy. I'm not sure how the talk page material should be edited, as BLP also suggests some removal of talk page material would be appropriate here. Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Legitimate discussion about whether to include something can stay provided the offending material attributed to another entity. Discussing whether Bob said Jane is a slut and whether the National Inquirer is a reliable source when they print an article that says Bob called Jane a slut is not the same as wiki user calling Jane a slut. --Gbleem 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I just posted something on the talk page. Unfortunately you may just have to keep an extra eye on the page until he gives you a better source or gets bored. --Gbleem 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    BLP says, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In this case, the discussion has not, luckily, gone to the point of great detail of these allegations, but there are some mentions and links given. So perhaps editing of the talk page is not necessary. But note that even discussion of poorly sourced material, "legitimate" or otherwise, has often been removed or heavily edited at the behest of official Wikipedia personages. The difference would seem to be that it's ok to discuss whether a said source is reliable, without going into detail about what the accusation is. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Removing poorly sourced claims from the talk page is fully legitimate and the arbiration committee agrees with that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart (while not involved in this controversy, I made a length comment in the talk) and also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. I myself have removed poorly sourced and unsourced comments and claims from talk pages. In this case, from a brief read through, I would agree there's no reason it shouldn't be removed, altho I don't think it's that urgent either. The purpose of the talk page of course is to discuss additions and sometimes it can be helpful to include something which you've heard but don't have a good reference for. So it does come down to a bit of a balancing act. But it when it comes to a living person, especially a private figure (although it's not clear whether this applies to Jenna) we should usually err on the side of caution in removing poorly sourced claims even from the talk page, especially if there has been no success in finding a source (of course this may mean the same thing will be repeated in a year's time but this can't be helped) Nil Einne 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I have added (2) separate citations to this article from About.com, which is published by a little company called The New York Times Company. Also added a citation from MSNBC. Smee 07:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC).Reply
    We have to be careful. Although the New York Times newspaper has a certain reputation this does not mean that any property owned by the New York Times Company should be treated the same. --Gbleem 10:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    See Talk:Jenna Elfman#Gossip added to Biography of a living person. — Athænara ✉ 09:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Kevin Potvin

    Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    Libelous material is posted and reposted to the entry about me, despite my repeated attempts to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

    This is in reference to the article Kevin Potvin. I've attempted to fix any possible libelous material and asked Mr. Potvin to please stop editing the article and address any problems to the discussion page. sinblox (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I have tried to remove libelous material about me at this site over and over because it keeps getting reposted. For example, the sentence "it was revealed he wrote a column in 2002 in which he described his pleasure in watching the September 11, 2001 attacks" is inaccurate. n example of what critics of Wikipedia warned could happen: Someone self-serving could use Wikipedia to inflate his resume or otherwise mislead readers for personal gain", is inaccurate, I was not inflating a resume, i was not misleading anyone.

    Potvin said that he had "substantial letters" in both magazines and he considered that work because it was work for him to write them.--you can obviously see where this person is coming from. I explained why "letters" are articles in peer review academic journals, and that these two magazine's letters sections are like those.

    I have removed the libel material more than 12 times or so. I would like the page removed, I am the one who put it up in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk • contribs).

    I have updated the article based on your complaint above as well as the sources given in the article. I just saw you've also added a large critique on the article's talk page; I'll read it now and see how far we can accommodate you within the limitations of our principles, policies and guidelines. You can find full information on our rules using the links posted on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    After reading your talk page contribution I did not find additional material in the article that could be adapted to your comments. I hope you can accept the current version of the article. If there are any specific items left in the article which you feel do not conform to our rules, especially WP:BLP, or are factually incorrect in your opinion, please post them here so that other editors can check them out. The most important aspect I'm asking you to consider is that everything in the article is (or should be) supported by what Wikipedia calls reliable sources (see WP:RS). AvB ÷ talk 12:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    An anon (probably Mr. Potvin) made this edit. I think it's OK but would like someone else to double check. Anon, could you please confirm or deny you're Kevin Potvin? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    • CBC has run a 10-minute segment on their morning radio show, and they plan to have a TV segment this evening. Regional-only, but still. I'd prefer the article isn't semi'd, as I hope this segment brings new editors from the province to the site... there's way too few currently. -- Zanimum 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • The problem isn't publicity; it is great that Wikipedia gets the occasional piece of publicity from the media. What is the issue here is negative publicity. With the current edit war ongoing with this page, it has drawn perhaps unwanted media attention to Wikipedia, and the article by the CBC on the edit war is written in my opinion in a somewhat negative tone against Wikipedia. I am wondering who alerted the CBC to the edit war... Anyways, I am hoping that a solution can be found here. - ThePointblank 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
    • Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a bit of an unusual issue but my concern here is that one editor does not agree a BLP template is merited. The article in question is basically a list where we list scientists who supposedly oppose the mainstream..... In fact we not only list them but categorise them according to their supposed claims/beliefs. We base this on sourced quotes which we include. As you might expect, we get the occasional poorly sourced addition and also a fair number of times when what someone is saying is disputed (i.e. whether or whether not they actually oppose the mainstream assessement). Check out the talk page and archive for that.
    • While some contributors ask on the talk page first, some just go ahead and add names. There are a number of editors watching who usually quickly revert controversial additions so the actual additions don't usually last long. But given the fact that this is obviously a list which many scientists will not want to be on, I feel it is important to remind editors of BLP in the talk page with the template. The template will hopefully remind or inform editors they should discuss additions first. And the template should also remind editors taking part in discussions that unless we can be highly sure we're right, we should not add people to the list. However one editor in particular doesn't agree with my addition of the BLP template.
    • So basically, I'm wonder if others agree the BLP template is warranted? And if so, is anyone willing to try to explain this to Childhood's End? Nil Einne 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I agree with you. However that will not count for much around here. :-) Steve Dufour 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Hi. I would only like to add a few comments here. First, I do not entirely disagree with the motives explained by Nil Einne herein. The point that I have tried to explain to him/her is that as of now, BLP applies to the article whether or not there's a tag on the talk page, and nothing in the article as of now is under dispute as to whether it is a misinterpretation of the author's views. There being no emergency or BLP issue, and BLP applying anyway to the article, I do not understand this sudden need for a tag, especially since it could be used to push a POV (see the whole discussion for further details if needed). Regards. --Childhood's End 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I checked out the discussion. After all that was said it seems that a BLP tag is a good idea. How could it do any harm to remind people of an important WP policy? Steve Dufour 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Agreed. I'm puzzled how someone can argue against a reminder of policy on an article where such policy is especially relevant. No one is born with a knowledge of WP policy, so pointing it out for the benefit of new editors (or even experienced ones) is helpful. Raymond Arritt 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


    Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

    Cho Seung-hui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a bit of a mess at the moment with frequent attempts to include irrelevant details about his parents and sister. I don't see any reason why the names of any of these people or their addresses or even their place of work is relevant. Perhaps mention of their job and what city they live in but anything else seems gratiotious. Some contributors are defending these on the premise that the media have already revealed these but BLP requires additional considerations IMHO. Nil Einne 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I don't understand the rush to have an article on him. The same with the next person down the list. Steve Dufour 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I have not looked at the details of the article, but I agree with Nil Einne on this - details about his family are really beside the point. A sketch of their background is ok, but otherwise I think it can well be a BLP problem. As for why there's an article about him, it's obvious, Steve - people want to find out basic facts about someone who leaps into the news, and Wikipedia is about the only place you can do that in this breaking-news way. But again, his family have privacy rights - they didn't choose to put themselves in the public eye, and I think we need to be careful. Tvoz |talk 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    It appears information has been removed where there is no more BLP violation. The only thing given is the sister's name and the fact she works for the U.S. Department of State which is slightly relevant to the part about her "response". Cbrown1023 talk 19:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Since Cho Seung-hui is dead, is BLP relevant to an article about him? 129.97.79.144 21:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    The concern here is what is said about his living family memebers. --Gbleem 10:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed

    • Michael Sneed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Newly created article on a columnist whose initial reportage of the Virginia Tech shootings erroneously identified the suspect as a Chinese national, thereby generating some furore. It seems to be attracting edits from multiple sources inserting direct and even potentially defamatory criticism, which is unsourced and presumably merely the opinions of the contributors themselves- check history & talk pg. It's been cleaned up a couple of times, but given the high profile concerning anything associated with the incident it needs a few more pairs of eyes on it, as these unsourced additions are continuing. Quoting some criticism from notable and verifiable sources is one thing, but making the wikipedia article itself the vehicle of accusation is quite another.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I agree some extra eyes on the article are needed to keep possible repetitions of such WP:BLP violations out of the article. It's on my watchlist now. I've also removed some redundant material and added the db tag. AvB ÷ talk 14:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I've removed a number of WP:BLP violations, some of which I had removed before but had been reverted by the editor who filed this report, which made it difficult for me to help out there. (I don't want to defend an article against WP:BLP violations when I'm not allowed to weed out existing violations first).
    Depending on any responses in reliable sources this incident, and with it, Michael Sneed, may be on its way to becoming notable. AvB ÷ talk 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Can someone else take over? I've kept an eye on the article but I'm going off-line (i.e. I'm falling asleep). The current version is reasonable in WP:BLP terms, with mostly well-intended edits, but every now and then unsourced accusations are being inserted. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Hi AvB, I am now back online and will continue to monitor developments as best I can, though I would prefer that others also take a hand in watching it. It will probably continue to be a hotspot over the next couple of days.
    I have appreciated your (AvB's) assistance in maintaining the article's integrity. Please note, my partial restoration of text you had removed and which you allude to above was intended to restore two sourced (if not directly cited) quotations from other reports; reports which were at the time the article's sole evidence that Ms. Sneed had actually written what the article claimed she had. It was not intended to discourage or contravene your other removals of unsourced and defamatory material.
    Since semiprotection was applied to the article, remaining contributors have mostly been adhering to wikipedia policies in respect of BLP, NPOV and sourcing; however the protection I applied was only for 48 hours and it will likely require continual monitoring for some time yet.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, while working on the article I soon saw where you were coming from there. Such news-type articles remain a balancing act at best, and the fine line that separates guiding editors and irritating them into an edit war is often hard to see. The sprotect was certainly warranted. AvB ÷ talk 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I've been bold and stopped this from pretending to be a biography at all. Michael Sneed is currently a redirect to Chicago Sun-Times, pending a proper, actual biography being written, and the original article is now at Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. Note, in light of the WP:BLP policy, that we have zero sources that call this a "Michael Sneed Incident". Uncle G 17:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks Uncle G, a good call all around, I think. No-one has shown the slightest inclination to add any biog material to her entry (it actually appears to be hard to come by in any case, so there doesn't seem to be much value in an article on her). I'm still of the view that the renamed 'media reports' article has no good reason to exist separately from what is already covered in the main VT shootings article, but we'll see how the astroturfed AfD progresses.
    In terms of a BLP alert this one is probably closed, although related articles are worth watching out for further defamatory statements- eg it is now proliferating thru into the paper's article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Dobie center

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Although it isn't a biography, I believe this attribution of blame is a violation of wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons. When I mentioned this to the editor on their talk page, they blanked their talk page and yet again undid my changes. TerraFrost 12:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    I think you're right; after your warning and reversions this indeed amounts to vandalism with a WP:BLP twist. I've restored the anon's talk page and added a final warning. If the anon returns, I recommend a quick block for vandalism. AvB ÷ talk 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    This may still be below the threshold of immediate action necessary, but perhaps some experience editors can watchlist this page. single purpose account User:Liam Patrick is busily expanding the "Jewish Controversy" section and I'm not clear whether the stuff should be copy-edited, shortened or deleted. --Pjacobi 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    • Jodie Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The question of Ms Foster's sexual orientation is a subject of great interest and, in the absence of reliable sourcing for any statement, has been kept from the article. No problem so far, the subject gets raised every now and again, most offered sources are pretty lame and any added information gets edited out. A US magazine recently "outed" Ms Foster but not in an clear unambiguous way that would meet the RS requirements. It has engendered a lot of discussion and I feel that a further eyes are required to offer guidence on the point. In particular the following citation would undoubtedly be acceptable for a non-BLP issue. Canada.com article This article has a named byline, the website is part of a reputable mass market publishing corportation and the site reeks of proper journalism. The statement that Foster is in a relationship with Cydney Bernard is unambiguous and I believe that it may meet the threshold for inclusion. Given the long standing consensus for excluding this information, I'd be obliged if some of the regulars here who are more knowledgeable on BLP than me could pass their eye over the discussion on the talk page and offer some opinion on this question. Thank you // Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Prokofy Neva

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    An entry about my Second Life avatar, Prokofy Neva, contains a number of factual errors and also libelous statements.

    It links the avatar in the private world of Second Life with my real-life identity against my will. It actually contains the wrong name, a common error. While this is the Internet, and links like this get made all the time, I would question Wikipedia's policy regarding the publication of profiles of avatars from virtual worlds or games, and the linking of such avatars to their real-life persons.

    The article was likely filed by Joshua Nightshade/Joshua Meadows and other members of Second Citizen with various sectarian axes to grind.

    The article falsely claims that I incited or called for violence against another resident of Second Life.

    I have not incited or called for any violence against any other person, real or virtual.

    What's left out of this entry is the fact that Joshua Nightshade and others have been stalking me in RL and SL, by taking my real-life picture and inserting it into the virtual world of Second Life in various obscene poses (contrary to the TOS); reporting regularly on purported "sitings" of me in real life; distribution of a picture of my real-life door, and so on, and stalking of me at a public event in which I participated. In response to this concerted harassment, I once wrote on my blog a perfectly acceptable and colloquial statement, which was not removed by typepad.com or Six Apart management, namely that I'd "cheerfully strangle" anyone who came near me in real life. This followed an attempt by several Second Life griefers/harassers to call me at home repeatedly.

    I would request that the entire entry be removed. Another entry about Second Life on Wikipedia mentions me as one of the prominent people in Second Life, and mentions that my avatar, Prokofy Neva, is controversial and banned from the forums. There is no need for a separate entry, or if one is prepared, it should remove the errors occuring in every line, and remove libelous and tendentious material.

    Prokofy Neva

    I cannot find Prokofy Neva. It was probably deleted for being non-notable. --Gbleem 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I should have closed this - I deleted it. :) FCYTravis 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
    More media coverage:
    The Globe and Mail: "Libel lawsuits takes aim at Internet postings"
    The Vancouver Sun: "Former Green campaign manager says he was libelled, sues Google"
    WebProNews: "Canadian Sues The Messenger"
    CKNW: "Local man sues Wikipedia"
    --A. B. (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I suggest someone take a look at Talk:Wayne Crookes. I don't have the time, but some of the stuff may be problematic. --A. B. (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Fiona Forbes

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Fiona Forbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had the same "trivia" items inserted into the article several times with a month or so between edits. The most recent attack seems to be over, but this needs to be watched a little more. If you can help, please do. Thank you. MECU≈talk 20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Don Rossignol

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    This page should either be removed completely or altered drastically. Rossignol was recently convicted for 4 felonies in Latah County in the state of Idaho -- as well as for perjury regarding some of the content currently posted on Wikipedia. (For example, he was not an MP for 10 years.) This page is self-aggrandizing and is not remotely accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qclara (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

    You will need to cite a source for this extraordinary claim. FCYTravis 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Martha Beck

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    This article is thoroughly cited, but it has issues with the quality/sources of the citations, and serious issues with balance. I don't know much about the subject, and since I think the primary need is for more content to be added to the article to balance out negative viewpoints, I don't feel qualified to fix the article myself. Thanks, Mak (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Jim Lampley

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    See #Recent developments. He seems to have been arrested on a number of charges - and pled guilty. But the article seems to imply (at least at times because there's an edit war here) that he was convicted. But he may only have been technically convicted of something much less than the charges. There seems to be some sort of POV pusher here. I'd received OTRS complaints, but now that someone has posted to my talk page I can put the info here and get more eyes in it:

    "Did you know that, in addition to his sportscasting duties, Lampley is an outspoken liberal commentator? That the judge was the daughter of a GOP kingpin, Gerry Parsky? Of course, domestic violence charges are a serious matter and need to be investigated thoroughly; however, the investigation show there was no evidence of the allegations in this case. Even Mr Lampley's former wife, Bree Walker publicy stated that he was not capable of the charges that Ms Sanders brought. That the apartment the complaining party was living in was not hers, it was his....although all news accounts say it was hers. That the DA dismissed the case and investigation due to lack of evidence. That the only thing Lampley was guilty of was 'coming within 100 yards of his own apartment' by having a meeting with his property manager. If you'd like to contact his attorney for the facts, his name is Thomas Warwick in San Diego. Perhaps he can provide the court papers and what the facts showed re: the no contest plea. Mr Lampley could not factually dispute that he was technically within 100 yards of his own apartment the day he was meeting with his property manager. The investigators, on the property to interview the complaining party, noticed Mr Lampley leaving the mgr's office and arrested him at that time. The complaining party also was driving Mr Lampley's BMW until the proceedings concluded. We live in a litigious society and anyone can charge another party with a variety of claims. Your treatment of highlighting the charges and not of the ultimate disposition is not totally fair, despite whatever take you get from the media. The print media in San Diego is definitely skewed right. The north county of San Diego is generally a very conservative climate, where the charges were brought and where the court was located. There is much more to this story than the sensational headlines."

    Can someone check the sources and make sure that the article a) reflects the facts b) doesn't give undue weight to dismissed allegations/investigation.--Docg 19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Unreferenced BLPs

    Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. united contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Jasper Johns Bio

    Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Hi! Don't know how to edit here, but maybe someone can add to the Jasper Johns bio that he provided a voice as himself on The Simpsons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.141.44 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC).Reply

    This page is for disputes. I have copied your comment to the Jasper Johns page. --Gbleem 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Gilad Atzmon

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Has been classified under the category antisemitism for being accused of antisemitism, a charge which he denies. The accusations are sourced but the inclusion in the category is dematory, and I've just had a 24 hour ban for a 3R vio for removing the category. The counter-argument offered is that the category includes groups and individuals notable for opposing antisemitism, however the reason for including Atzmon is that he's accused of antisemitism, a charge which he denies [14]. In my view it would be like putting an accused paedophile in a paedophilia category. It's contentious and defamatory and Atzmon's alive, so surely BLP is applicable? And (without wanting to sound whingey) is it OK that I get a 24 hour ban [15](on my block log) for a good faith BLP revert?FelixFelix talk 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Crystal Gail Mangum

    Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    I've tried to explain to Duke53 that just because Crystal Gail Mangum's accusations are no longer being pursued by the authorities, does not necessarily mean that they are false. In fact it definitely does not mean that legally and factually. He does not understand this and has reverted a minimum number of changes that I have made simply removing the word "false" from the statements. I have no dog in this fight and only care that we don't have potentially libelous statements on Wikipedia. You may wish to examine Duke53's other contributions, which I have not done in detail but, based on the labels seemed disturbing. Student7 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    The NC Attorney General stated definitively that the "attack" Ms. Mangum claimed happened never occurred. That would make her accusations false. If you've actually been following this case, there is no longer any controversy over the fact that her accusations were false. That is what prompted the AG to take the extraordinary step of declaring that the people Mangum accused are factually and legally innocent. Unlearned hand 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Duke University lacrosse team scandal

    While not a biography, they are defaming the same person in this article. RipCurl this time. Kind of a team effort you might say! :) Student7 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Nathaniel Branden Libel

    Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    On the Nathaniel Branden article put the word "unaccredited" in front of the schools name from which he acquired his PhD (about the second paragraph of the article).

    I did some research and discovered that the school is approved by the state and that accreditation is fairly complex and that there are 11 other private colleges that the state approves for degrees and whose degrees are accepted for licensing. It is a matter or large state institutions and small private colleges. Using that word, without a detailed explanation that would be inappropriate to the article was a form of implied libel. It creates a false impression that Branden has a suspect degree and therefore might not even be properly licensed - which isn't true.

    I deleted the entry and explained on the talk page. And edit war ensued. User Pia proposed a compromise that he would be happy with. Remove the text from the body of the article, but put it in the footnote. He and I and CrCulver agreed on that. Here is a link to the compromise diff.

    Then recently someone put the word "unaccredited" back into the article. The edit war started over again. An identified sock-puppet, FraiserB, became involved. The old compromise wasn't acceptable to the sock-puppet and User Pia. That is where it stands now.

    Here is my case for treating this as libel:

    - "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious". taken from the "In a Nutshell" section of BLP

    Branden's livelihood as a psychologist, publishable author and public speaker depends upon his reputation. (He is the author of about 18 books and does public speaking)

    Because a word or phrase about "unaccredited" could be construed as implying that his degree is from a diploma mill, that would be very contentious for someone whose professional license depends upon a valid degree.

    So, as to the Nutshell, if it is implied libel, Branden could be hurt and it is a contentious issue.

    But is it libel? The statement that the school is unaccredited is partially correct factually but unless it is given in a full context would always be misinterpreted. The school is accredited by the American Psychoanalytic Society and it is approved by the state and it is not a diploma mill and the state recognizes this particular school for the purpose of licensing. But this isn't known by a reader who sees the word "unaccredited". What is also not know is why the Western Regional Accreditation wasn't given. They require a larger library that a small college is likely to have and they require sports facilities that a small college might not have. But that kind of information is also not available to the reader.

    In an encyclopedia article every fact is presented in an order and in a context that results in an impression on a reader. Editors choose the right words and phrasing - judging what is "on topic" and appropriate - Editors choose which facts, what emotions the reader is likely to have, what writing style, and to stay on topic. The use of a phrase or even a sentence about the nature of the school is not fitting for this reason as well. It is information that belongs on the schools article and perhaps in a footnote. But the only reason to put it in the text would be if it were an exception to the norm of having a PhD - a bad PhD. And that isn't the case. We don't say anything about all the scientists all around the world who hold degrees that aren't from an accredited school (unless that is a noteworthy fact - like it was a phony degree or from a diploma mill).

    Here is the quote from Jimmy Wales on the BLP page: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

    The references are of high quality and they are properly cited sources - that is not the problem. But it is misleading in its presentation and therefore highly questionable.

    - BLP policy calls for: "The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity" This is not being shown by those who are edit warring to keep something in the article that can not help the reader in understanding Branden who is the subject of the article. But it could hurt him. The hurt would be unjust since his degree is valid.

    - BLP also says, "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" It isn't responsible or conservative for the reasons given to the point above. The tone in so far as word style, is neutral. The impact on the reader is not neutral.

    - The footnote can be a full sentence that describes the school as unaccredited but approved and the school name is a link the school article that describes the various approvals and accreditations the school has and the accreditation is doesn't have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Graduate_Institute Footnote: # ^ According to the State of California Board of Psychology, the California Graduate Institute is an unaccredited institution approved by the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE). See Unaccredited California Approved Schools: A History and Current Status Report. Government, State of California. Retrieved 1 March 2007.

    - Libel can be implied. "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel The implication here is that there is something fishy about the degree. And that is a seriously harmful thing to say about someone making a living based upon their reputation.

    That is my take on this issue. What I need is some kind of ruling and if it is favorable for Branden some kind of Admin action to put it put it in place since anything I do would just start another edit-war. Thanks. Steve 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=125049088"