Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive26

• WP:COI[1] has now apparently gotten an account (Special:Contributions/Jade2K) and apparently now a different IP (Special:Contributions/70.194.112.60) now says he's contacting the office (User_talk:Bill_Huffman#Archbishop_Timothy_Paul). I could use some help so that it doesn't appear that I'm somehow biased. Can someone PLEASE help out? I don't like the threats and someone else reverting would really help. Or, perhaps I'm wrong and the current puffery version with no reliable sources is better than this one[2]? :-) My perspective is that perhaps a reasonable alternate is to delete the article due to a lack of notability and therefore a lack of reliable sources. // Thanks, Bill Huffman
  00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• User:Phil_Sandifer is currently edit warring even though BLP issues have been brought to his attention. // 166.166.105.245
  17:34, 7 September 2007

• Subject of a

  current arbitration - the reliable sources used in the article unfortunately document the behaviour Mr Bagley is famous for - David Gerard

  18:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But then so did the reliable sources in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I favor deletion of the article of this small-time corporate flack, and I've said so in the AfD and in the previous AfD. However, if there is to be an article, I don't see how you can put lipstick on this pig. Such is the reliable sourcing, as David says.--Mantanmoreland 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And so does Qian Zhijun, yet we don't have an article making fun of "little fatty". See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Why the double standard? 166.166.216.21 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say, Phil Sandifer (

Murray Waas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Please see discussion posted in
  WP:BLP#Reliable sources (See top of this page as well). Thanks very much. (This is from a concerned Wikipedia editor; I do not, however, have time to participate in further discussion or disputes about this matter due to heavy work obligations. I am just bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard out of "good faith" editorial concerns. Thanks again.) I have to log out of Wikipedia to do pressing work. --NYScholar 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) [tc: trouble posting correctly; sorry. --NYScholar 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)] [Updated. --NYScholar
  07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

• Dudley Laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have added unsourced, negative information to Dudley Laws which I have removed. See an earlier version. Given the nature of the information I'd like to ask that these versions of the article be deleted. 67.71.85.116 01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The procedure for requesting this is set out at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. When making your request, please be as specific as possible about which versions you feel need to be removed. {Note: this answer expanded at User talk:67.71.85.116) --Moonriddengirl 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

I've removed some of the most egregious violations, but this still needs a lot of work. Jpatokal 03:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Clay Aiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Months ago material was removed from the Aiken article by individuals who have not edited there before or since, on the stated basis of BLP violations. In the last couple of days a huge debate has suddenly developed over this, and now there is a RfC. If anyone would like to comment, please do.[3]. Thanks. -Jmh123 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there need to be more clear standards about this issue. It seems to be one of the most common reasons for an article to be mentioned on this page. Steve Dufour 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Steve Dufour. I'm attempting to launch clarification of these standards at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sexual_preference. You are mentioned in my proposal; if you don't want to be, let me know, and I'll unmention you. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention me all you want. :-) Steve Dufour 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ty Pennington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following malicious information was placed in the Biography of Ty Pennington, replacing correct information.

"Pennington is gay and was considered an unruly child and had difficulty performing throughout school. It wasn't until he was seventeen years old that he admitted he was gay and was tested for AIDS and was diagnosed with HIV. He is now a spokesperson for the Organization of Celebrities With AIDS. Additionally, his mother, Dr. Yvonne Pennington, is a psychologist who focuses on the treatment of HIV."

This info cannot be edited, because upon going to the Edit page, the true information (that Mr. Pennington has ADHD, not AIDS) is still present.

Your assistance in correcting this will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordshop (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebyabe has cleaned out the vandalism. Looks fine to me now. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sajeeb Wazed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Kapedkrusader adding controversial, non-neutral potentially defamatory material to this article, using one reference which I would not consider reliable. I have already reverted several times, and I would appreciate it if someone gave this a look over. Recurring dreams 05:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Jane Eaglen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A few editors have repeatedly changed the content of this article, and in doing so, in my understanding, insert libelous material ("...communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or *implied to be factual*, that may *harm the reputation* of an *individual*, business, *product*, group, government or nation")

These repeat edits inject unsupported statements which reflect a tone of preference. The personal bias shown in these statements is only provided to demean the subject and counter the biographic material included, as sourced from printed concert-program biographies and music institutional websites (e.g. Metropolitan Opera).

Unless the editors are prepared to contrast, in detail, the nuances of season schedules of every major opera house in the world, I do not believe they can make claims as to “career stasis”, “career decline”, “clearly documented fact[s]”, and compare the subject with competitors without detailed in-depth writing on vocal fach, roles, size of venue, etc.. – I do not believe Wikipedia is the place for this.

21 Feb 2007 “That said, it is a clearly documented fact that Eaglen has had less engagements with top opera houses around the world compared with the case in the past.”

10 Feb 2007 “That said, it is a clearly documented fact that Eaglen has had less engagements with top opera houses around the world compared with the case in the past. Some have attributed this career decline to the rise of other dramatic sopranos, such as Deborah Voigt, Susan Bullock and Karita Mattila.”

10 Jan 2007 “Yet, her career seems to be already in decline after 2005, and her appearances in the top opera houses have become rather infrequent. The rise of certain other dramatic sopranos like Deborah Voigt, Susan Bullock and Karita Mattila may have contributed to Eaglen's career stasis.”

3 Oct 2006 “Yet, her career seems to be already in decline after 2005, and her appearances in the top opera houses have become rather infrequent. The rise of certain other dramatic sopranos like Deborah Voigt, Susan Bullock and Karita Mattila may have contributed to Eaglen's career stasis.”

Urgent request, someone please delete this page asap. As soon as I started to read it, it already seemed suspiciously like an attack page. Upon reading the talk page, this was confirmed. Clearly a hatchet job. Someone please delete this. The Evil Spartan 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

From

If there is a problem with this template then maybe there should be another one for articles which mention living persons but are not strictly biographies. Steve Dufour 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My name is Joshua Gardner, the person this Biography is about. I called Wikipedia last month asking that my page be deleted. It has not been. I am now respectfully asking on here that the page concerning me be deleted. If it is not than I will be forced to take legal action. Information on this page is NOT correct and I wish for it to be removed. Thank you for your understanding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.218.119 (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. --Moonriddengirl 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed deadlinks, unverifiable information (which may be restored if proper sources are found) and, given the subject's concerns, ensured that every remaining claim has an inline citation from a reputable news source. I will duplicate this in substance on the article's talk page, where the subject has also expressed his concerns. --Moonriddengirl 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

After Moonriddengirl's editing, everything in there should be sourced to an external source. If any of that information is incorrect, I would suggest you first work on getting those sources to publish a retraction. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

UK journalist. The subject of the article isn't happy about some of the rubbish that keeps being put back into the article. This one needs severely hard-arsed BLP attention for highest-quality sources. (Note that e.g. Private Eye, though responsible for some top-notch investigative journalism in the back, mostly runs industry gossip in the front sections, so some bits are good sources and some are much less so. If the page number's in single digits, I suggest treating it with a very jaundiced eye and looking for a better source.) Soonest attention possible to this one would be best, I've been meaning to get around to it for ages but haven't managed it. (I've also pointed Mr Hari at this notice.) - David Gerard 10:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article also seems to give undue weight to his controversial political opinions. Steve Dufour 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is clear that Private Eye and the other websites are not acceptable as reliable sources for the criticism which it is proposed to include in the article. Sam Blacketer 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself a neutral party here. I have no opinion on Joseph Estrada other than I wanted to learn more. I already wrote a comment on the discussion section of the article. I find the current article very biased against him. It lists all negatives and all accusations as if fact. It lists nothing positive that I could find. I would greatly appreciate it if the article could be rewritten so I could learn more about this controversial figure. Thanks very much. -Larry Freeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.214.64 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does have a very negative tone. I think it should be rewritten too. On the other hand, the statements made about him seem to be sourced. Steve Dufour 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Loren Toews does not/has not ever been involved with mortgage fraud. This is totally false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.202.37 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Definite unsourced/unverified libelous material. Removed, offender warned, page watched.

FCYTravis

22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a proposal to merge the FOIA aspects of this article into Freedom of Information Act (United States), and redirect the bio to the FOIA article. The discussion is taking place here. // Crockspot 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Kevin Thomas, a defensive back back with the Buffalo Bills (American) football team, seems to be under repeated spam or self-promotion attack by anon user at 64.109.44.20. Kevin Thomas, football player, is the legit biography. Google and Yahoo searches produce many relevant hits. The anon user has repeated inserted or substituted a promotional blurb about a Kevin Thomas, business development manager at a cell phone technology company. There is no mention of this KT at that co's web site. (So, not notable if not spam.)

History is this: insersion of spam into the footballer's article on Aug 29, reversal on Sep 8 by user Frankthetank; blanked the page on Sep 12, reverted by ClueBot; substitued spam for the entire article on Sep 12, reversed by me on that date; reversed my reversion on Sep 13.

I'm a new editor myself and do not wish to engage in a revert war. I have no axe to grind about Kevin Thomas; I came upon this completely at random. Is this the right place to report the issue? Hult041956 19:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to help on this one. There are two problems here: first, it's against policy to overwrite articles with other articles (or to subdivide them, unless it's a disambiguation page). Second, the bio that he or she is inserting seems to fail

WP:Bio. I have explained both of these policies to the editor on his or her talk page and will keep an eye on Kevin Thomas for a while in case further intervention is needed. At this point, these seem potentially to be misguided good faith edits. The editor may not understand the way the system works. If it persists now that alternatives have been explained, we may need to conclude otherwise. --Moonriddengirl

20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I share your hope that 64.109 is working with misguided good intent. Thanks for your help, Moonridden. Hult041956 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Thanks for bringing it to our attention. --Moonriddengirl 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Cansei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Can articles about organizations, in which members of the organization are named, be considered BLP violations? This article is making claims about political motives without sources. Corvus cornix 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tightened up the material a bit. The political motives are what the sources provided claim they are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized their page. It is already protected for editing. Their bio describes them as American Whores. I'm guessing this is defamation of character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.165.206 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is. And it has been fixed. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ben Domenech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Regnery Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article cites Wonkette, among other questionable sources and likely

Everything seems well-sourced to me - this was a rather notable exposé of plagiarism and I think a good example of the effects of the intersection of journalism and the blogosphere.

FCYTravis

21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A blog citing an "unnamed source" -- "Wonkette subsequently cited an unnamed source at Regnery who said...." is really appropriate under

WP:BLP? It was also on the Regnery page. THF

21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a notability tag on the article since he is only known for being fired for plagiarism. Steve Dufour 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it, because Domenech certainly meets

FCYTravis

02:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't talk about that. It is 90% about his being fired from a job because of college plagiarism. (I have never heard of his blog BTW) Steve Dufour 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be expanded and edited, not deleted. The fact that you have never heard of his blog is not cause to delete the article. I have never heard of

FCYTravis

02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

However if the article doesn't ESTABLISH that the person is noteable then it should be deleted unless someone edits it to establish the person is noteable, particularly when it is a BLP and currently it only attacks the person because of some past controversy. I haven't heard of Stanley Fish either, but from reading the article I know why he's noteable. Nil Einne 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't consider that a great analogy - Domenech is most definitely not of comparable notability to Moulitsas. JavaTenor 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we probably shouldn't use Wonkette as a source for that, because no other reliable sources have reported on the same issue. Out it goes. If other sources are found later, it can be reinserted.

FCYTravis

02:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The same language is in the Regnery Publishing article, and needs to be deleted there. WP:BLP applies to all information about living persons, not just the information found in the main subject article. THF 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonkette cannot be used as a source for information on any individual other than possibly Nick Denton. And even that's iffy. Quatloo 17:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Domenech Steve Dufour 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was decided to keep the article. However 80-90% of it is still taken up by his college plagairism and the 3 days he worked for Washingtonpost.com. I don't think it would be right for me to be the one to work on the article since I nominated it for deletion. Steve Dufour 12:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Regnery Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've removed material and protected this over blp concerns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda objects to my removal and protection.[4] Review appreciated. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's (a) from a reliable source, and (b) about a corporate decision, not a living person. And, of course, because it seems that every time I run into Tom it's because he is using his admin powers to win content disputes. Guettarda 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the history of the article, and I see that Tom harrison never edited it prior to seeing a report (whether accurate or not) of a BLP violation made at AN/I, and going in as a completely uninvolved administrator, deciding (whether rightly or wrongly) that the complaint had merit, removing the passage, and protecting the article. I can't see how that's remotely similar to using his admin powers to win content disputes. And, as usual, he has brought it to the community for review. If he's wrong (and I don't know whether or not he is), then the only accusation that can be made is that his judgment in deciding that it was a valid BLP concern was faulty. Every uninvolved administrator who acts on a BLP report has to make a judgment as to whether or not it has merit. ElinorD (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the issue here whether

WP:BLP-related stuff? MastCell ^Talk

15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, I hate to say it, but it's probably not a great source for this kind of thing.

WP:BLP, as currently written, has a blanket prohibition against blogs as sources. I personally think this needs to be tempered with common sense, and I'd generally make an exception for a blog like Wonkette, which is in the top 1%, or 0.01%, of blogs in terms of stature and reliability. Nonetheless, BLP also enjoins us to "avoid repeating gossip". An unnamed source speculating about the reasons for firing an employee, reported in a blog (no matter how good of a blog), strikes me as repeating gossip. Because of that constellation of issues (blog plus somewhat gossipy nature of the content), I think BLP, at least as currently written, suggests that the passage in question should be removed. As to abuse of admin tools, I have not looked at that issue and this forum might not be ideal to do so. MastCell ^Talk

15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a blog for those purposes. Similar to how the New York Times now has "blogs" written by some of their reporters that are fact-checked and have editorial oversight. Wonkette may be called a blog but it has fact checking, editorial oversight and is published by a major publisher. So it is a reliable source. Simply because something self-identifies as a blog doesn't make it off-limits. It is a blog only in name. JoshuaZ 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're calling Gawker Media a "major publisher"? That is LOL, seriously. And you're claiming they have "fact checking"? A heartier LOL. If you read the drivel that frequently appears in their publications such as ValleyWag or Defamer, one thing you know it is not, is fact checked. Quatloo 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonkette seems to be fall under the category of a blog-that-isn't-really-a-blog, i.e., it has content that is similar to lots of other sources and appears to have a reasonable degree of editorial control. If it distributed on paper instead of Internet tubes no one would think of it as a blog. I'm more concerned about the shadowy unnamed sources on which the Wonkette article is based. This isn't the sort of thing we should rely on. Are better (preferably named) sources available? Raymond Arritt 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would generally consider Wonkette a decent

reliable source, but with the current BLP fetish and the "gossipy" nature of the content in question, I'd lean toward excluding it. Just my 2 cents, though. MastCell ^Talk

16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Good reporters use anonymous sources all the time. If this were from a print publication I doubt that anyone would be still objecting to the use of an anonymous source. In any event, if this is all the problem is, it certainly isn't severe enough to justify Tom protecting the article while he is involved. JoshuaZ 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not involved. He never edited the article before. He came to it as an uninvolved administrator after a complaint was made at AN/I. He judged that the complaint had merit. He removed the material and protected the article, in accordance with the BLP policy. He brought it here for review. I don't have any opinion as to whether his judgment was correct or not, but if it wasn't then it would be just like blocking someone you have no prior involvement in because you were acting on a 3RR report, and erroneously judged a particular edit to be a revert when it wasn't one — a mistake, not an abuse. ElinorD (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No Elinor - Tom came in, reverted the page, participated in a discussion with Joshua (in which he conceded that Wonkette was a reliable source) and then protected the page. He said it was an acceptable source, but that it wasn't "good enough". So after admitting it was a content dispute, not a BLP issue, he then protected the page and raised the issue here. That's abuse of admin tools. Don't protect pages when involved in content disputes (much like that other rule he ignores "don't block when in content disputes"). Guettarda 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with JoshuaZ on this. Refining BLP to prevent content from being used solely because a reliable source uses an unnamed source is a little troubling to me and seems to start BLP down a slippery slope. If Wonkette is a reliable source, then the inclusion of the content should be taken purely from a content inclusion standpoint without a consideration of it being a BLP violation or not. The very nature of a reliable source means that Wikipedia should "trust" the content they include. To do otherwise would make the source an unreliable source, wouldn't it? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I have nothing against anonymous sources in general, and of course good reportage and reliable sources use them all the time. But we're not talking about Deep Throat blowing the lid off Watergate here - we're talking about water-cooler gossip about office politics. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is a NPOV decision, not a BLP decision. The undue weight claim may have merit for the very reason you say, but that reason should not be applied to to the BLP claim. It shouldn't really be up to Wikipedians to decide where the line is drawn in regards to what content from a reliable source is a BLP violation and what is not. The presumption is that a reliable source always acts reliably when reporting, even when it comes to water-cooler gossip. That, of course, does not mean that just because a reliable source reports something that it has to, or even should, be included in an article on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Wonkette is a reliable source, if we're going to decide that this is, in fact "water-cooler gossip" then that alone would call for its removal. See the third paragraph of

WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. And of course this would apply to biographical material in an article like this. If the information remains, it would clearly make us the primary vehicle for spreading this information about an old scandal, whether or not it's been reported back in the spring of 2006. Also, I think it's definitely a BLP decision because more than neutrality is involved -- the importance of the information to the Regnery article needs to overcome the mandate to write articles touching on biography "conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy". Is this information important in helping readers to understand Regnery Publishing better? I don't know, but I think the answer to that determines whether the information should go or stay. Noroton

19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct - I was referring to the portion of BLP that enjoins us to "avoid repeating gossip". MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Samantha Ronson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Independent research et al, unsupported commentary regarding Lindsey Lohan. Tessemily 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Altaf Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: RolandR keep inserting personal opinions of different people in Altaf Hussain page. It is totally BPL violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaf_Hussain#British_Citizenship Neutral Ray 04:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The user was addressed at his talk page about the material on September 9th, and he has not re-inserted it since, though his contribution log shows he has been editing. It's possible that this situation has been resolved. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue was also addressed on Neutral Ray's own talk page by the admin who blocked him for BLP violation on this article, and by a second admin who concurred and declined to remove the block. The comments have been deleted by Neutral Ray, but can still be seen at [5]. Following the expiry of his block, Neutral Ray has continued to add libellous material to this article, and has again been reported for vandalism and BLP violation been blocked for a further seven days . RolandR 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Damien French was recently nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. I have moved the discussion to AFD instead, because French might meet the notability criteria. But there may be some BLP issues with the article, that would override any notability the subject might have. I would like to ask someone more versed in BLP to look at the article, and to speedy the article if it is determined to violate BLP. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There was one claim in there not supported by the sources. I have removed it. I have also gone to support your AfD. :)--Moonriddengirl 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• [[:]] (
  sock puppets and/or meat puppets to do so. Steve Carlson^Talk
  21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been stripped to verifiable material posthaste according to BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." I've looked through the two external links and removed everything that could not be verified there. I also removed the autobiography tag, since it no longer seemed necessary in the current stub state; NPOV is not an issue. (Notability, on the other hand, seems to be a big issue.) I'm in the process of explaining source requirements at the pages of substantially contributing editors. --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the article looks much better. Agree that notability is still an issue, but I'm waiting for another editor to slap a {db} or {prod} on it, since I was the one who tagged it for notability review in the first place. Any takers? Steve Carlson^Talk 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This situation continues to be problematic, with various IP addresses re-inserting unsourced information and (in some cases) attacking editors who attempt to remove it. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Like

good faith, but it still feels disingenuous. :) --Moonriddengirl

02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. The article keeps being restored, so there's no reason for me to worry that I have stripped it of a fair hearing. I've initiated an AfD. --Moonriddengirl 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bev Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bev Harris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A subject appears to have edited an article about herself. Just quickly scanning it, I am a bit concerned about the statement and sources added about Jeffrey Dean and John Elder. The sources are primary court documents which are published on a website she controls. I'm not sure if this violates

Sid Haig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while back much of Sid Haig's article was removed because it came from Haig's official website, which was a primary source. I reinstated the article the other day, using interviews with Haig to cite the information and changing other areas. Another user, User:Quatloo, one of the article's more prominent critics, still has a number of problems with it. For example, much of the most recent section isn't cited, but that is only because most of the information is readily available. (Such as his role as Spaulding). This can be seen in the discussion page. My question is if this article passes or fails BLP standards.--CyberGhostface 00:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Much more information is available at the Conflict-of-Interest noticeboard at [6], wherein it was revealed that the author of the article was Sid Haig's publicist. All I have done thus far is remove unsourced information, yet I have faced resistance to even that (even though, as stated above, it was written by his publicist). Now for my question: Blogs cannot be cited for third-party information on living persons, that much is absolutely certain. I'm not clear on the rule as to whether interviews in such blogs can be used. Can they? Quatloo 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more information is available on the article's talk page. It was never a secret, as you seem to think, that his Publicist wrote the bio. She is the one who licensed it to Wiki and worked with two admins to improve upon it. She "revealed", as you put it, herself from day one, not just to users, but to the admins as well. Almost everyone who helped with the article knows that, and everyone, admins included, was fine with it......except you. Why don't you know all this if you're so very involved? Try reading ALL the dscussion before you go witch-hunting. This obsession with that page and how absolutely no source fits YOUR requirements is silly and tiresome. You constantly remove sources, vandalize info, and generally make a nuisance of yourself. Why is that? I would also like to know what the admins think about the sources you have deemed unacceptable, as GyberGhostface does. I would also like to know what they think about your consistant abuse of this page and the people trying to fix it. At this point, they are pandering to YOUR standards, not Wiki's. I would love to know how Wiki feels about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, removing uncited information is not "vandalism", even if you want to characterize it as such. As for removing sources, yes, I removed a source "wickedcoolstuff.com" that was a commercial site offering a bobblehead of Sid Haig. I don't think any sane person would consider that vandalism, either. Finally, if you think having a WIkipedia article written by the subject's publicist is a good thing, you're probably alone here. Quatloo 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not much of a reader, eh? Try again. Almost everyone who helped with the article knows that, and everyone, admins included, was fine with it......except you. If you took as much time to read all the available info as you do removing it from the page, you'd see that. It's really quite clear...to most. As far as saying you only removed one source, I could laugh til morning at that. Your numerous removals of all types of sources, too, is easily noted by the history of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If I removed sources in the past it was because either (a) it was a message forum, which cannot be used in any circumstance, (b) a blog used for third-party biographical information, which is disallowed per

WP:BLP, (c) a source which did not in any way vouch for the information it was sourcing, (d) a highly inappropriate source such as a commercial offering for bobbleheads[7]. Removing any such sources is not vandalism. Instead of waving your hands yelling "we was robbed", if you actually state which specific past source removal is peeving you, and the reasons why it was wrong, it would be more helpful. You probably will not find very many sympathetic ears on this noticeboard. Quatloo

10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am severing this from the discussion above because it is an independent issue. Blogs cannot be cited for third-party information on living persons per BLP, that much is absolutely certain. I'm not clear on the rule as to whether interviews in such blogs can be used. Can they? Quatloo 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular BLP prohibition extends only to self-published blogs. A blog associated with a newspaper, for example, is not self-published. Also, blogs written or published by the person who is the subject of the article are citeable. Note that just above that language on the BLP policy page is a caution about citing "questionable" sources, and a prohibition where they are derogatory. However, you could argue that an interview is actually "written" (in a way - it's spoken) by the subject of the article. It's also not self-published material. I would say that if the interview is legitimate, accurately transcribed, and presented in full or large portion (as opposed to selective quotation, which could be biased), and it's not available from a more solid source, and you're not pointing to defamatory or otherwise inappropriate material by citing the blog page, then there is no reason not to include the interview. It's as reliable as an interview found at any other site. Wikidemo 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My query is restricted to third-party information, so blogs by the subject are not under consideration here. As for newspaper blogs: Some newspaper blogs would be considered not self-published, I agree. I would not necessarily blanket-extend that to every newspaper blog -- there may be newspapers out there that are less selective about the persons they allow to blog under their domain name, in the current desperate climate of that industry. Comments attached to newspaper articles are de facto blogs, and surely those fall under that category as well. Finally, I also think it would be an error to accept on faith the statement that "It's as reliable as an interview found at any other site." -- that clearly cannot be right. This issue is complicated. Quatloo 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. With that in mind there is only a small class of interviews on blogs that would be appropriate. If it's a totally self-published small time blog and the blogger managed to get an audience with a notable subject, the reliability of the interview could be challenged. Having done a number of interviews myself, I know that transcribing them is harder and involves more judgment than you would think. They are almost universally copy-edited and cleaned up because few interviewees speak in perfect grammar without stuttering, repeating themselves or correcting what they just said, making an aside, placeholder words ("like, you know, um), etc. If you printed what came out of their mouth verbatim they would accuse you of trying to make them look bad. But when you edit people's words you can intentionally or unintentionally introduce a bias. There's the issue of selectively quoting an interview, as I mentioned above. Plus some are probably just plain misreported / misquoted. Even serious journalists are often accused of that. That's why I qualified my statement by saying it should be a substantial section of (raw) interview, not an edited report of the interview. If the blogger is just reposting an interview then chances are it's a copyright violation, which is unciteable. What's left are blogs published by reliable experts, such as a newspaper columnist, a commentator, a recognized industry blog (e.g.

techcrunch), etc. Maybe the answer is that people have to use some sense and judgment in deciding whether an interview is reliable.Wikidemo

17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was with you until you cited TechCrunch as a paragon of reliability! Quatloo 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not the news part, the interview part. I don't know if tech crunch does it but some of these bloggers will do interviews. Maybe there's a better example. Wikidemo 19:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is a biography posted on a person's website with a GFDL license a useable source? This answer will hopefully resolve this editor's issues, at least the ones with this site. That is what the article used to be, and it was acceptable to both admins CBD and Glen S (who helped the original poster edit it to fit Wiki standards), and rated a B class article. Then Quatloo came to town, and well, you see. So, once and for all, for Sid Haig's page (or anyone's, I suppose), is a licensed bio from the actor's own site ok to use as an article on here as long as it's edited to be NPOV? (Which was done with admin help) A lot of people know the story with Quatloo and what they regularly do to his page if anyone dares make an edit to it, and I'd like us all to be sure, finally, whether or not they have any right to have destroyed the page as they have. Thanks. Still waiting for an admin to weigh in on this.

The above diversion is off-topic and inappropriate inserted between a query and reply, so I have moved it to the end of this section. However: Such material can be used with certain caveats, specifically addressed in [8], which is official policy. Two of these caveats are highly relevant. First, "it is not unduly self-serving." And the second, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." In the case which the anonymous editor above is complaining about, the entire Sid Haig article was the biography written by Sid Haig's publicist. That author, Sid Haig's publicist, was exerting ownership over the article and maintaining defensive edits over a long period of time, which was why it had been brought to the COI noticeboard. Later a bizarre claim was made to revoke the irrevocable GFDL license over the material in the first place [9] For whatever reason, certain parties want a lengthy, in-depth article on the subject. Inconveniently, almost no established sources write about Sid Haig. Because of this, what citations that can be found have had to come largely from interviews in obscure or questionable blogs. Quatloo 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first, I was addressing Wikidemo. Second, this is a perfect example of you restructuring Wiki as you see fit, although this was not as destructive as others...kindly keep your mitts off my posts and keep your little labels ("diversion") to yourself, dear. Third, I will repeat yet again, all of your removals are right on the history page. All one has to do, such as an admin, is LOOK. Since when is IMDB not an acceptable source? Dread Central? Fangoria? Oh wait, that's right - when YOU decided so.

I'm no exert or authority, I was just giving one editor's opinion. I've been talking about the problem in the abstract. It really boils down to what the interview is, where it comes from, and how it's used in the article.Wikidemo 07:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think just about everyone who reads this Noticeboard on a regular basis will tell you that IMDB is not a reliable source. Quatloo 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it should not be that difficult to wait for an admin to answer, right? My questions stand.75.82.58.52 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrators carry no more weight than others in content matters, but here you go: the only aspect of IMDB that can be considered reliable as a source are its film credits (and only those not marked as "Uncredited"), because they are not from IMDB at all, but from the Writers Guild of America. Everything else is unreliable. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely incorrect. The WGA tagged films are a relatively small percentage of the films in IMDB, probably less than 20%, and probably much less if you include foreign films which are outside the dominion of that organization. And WGA only covers authorship of the screenplay, not the actors appearing in the films. No reliabilty whatsoever should be ascribed to their listings, as they are anonymous and user-contributed. Quatloo 04:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, then. I was under a different impression, and checked

WP:RS/examples before posting, which seemed to back up what I thought I had read many moons ago. Perhaps some discussion about removing that from the page is necessary. —bbatsell ¿? ✍

04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Raphael Bergmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page was blanked here [10] by User:Bergmann88 who is presuambly the subject. The editor claims the content is libelous. I have no opinion one way or the other, but somebody should give this some serious attention. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced material and added some material with sources about this individual. I will keep in my watchlist for a while≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kamau Kambon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• SenseOnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has been edit warring to re-add poorly sourced self-published contentious material that clearly violates Wikipedias BLP policy. This material is unsourced, contentious, clarly negative, and is meant to push a certian view of Kamau Kambon. [11] [12][13][14] Sefringle^Talk 03:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• User warned. If he persists, please post a note here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He just restored it again. [15] Sefringle^Talk 03:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

SenseOnes just self-reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User 216.93.229.62 made an edit on the Phil Hendrie Talk Page, under section "Phil Hendrie Dead" link [[16]]. Although he claims "why would someone made wikipedia say it" even though he was the one who made that false edit link to the edit from August 18th [[17]]. This user hasn't learned his lesson. ELO MnLynx Fan77 12:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The subject is an anchor on the

Another alleged closeted gay person. There is a lot of discussion about this on the talk page which probably should be removed. Steve Dufour 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, This is my first time at BLP/N, so apologies if this is not the place for this. Although there is currently no real dispute going on, the subject of the Article Tammy Duckworth has made a comment on the article's talk page under an IP, requesting that her maiden name and birthdate be removed from the article, citing privacy concerns about identity theft. In the past she (or at the very least someone claiming to be her) has edited the article directly to remove this, although there doesn't seem to be much of a revert war going on. Just thought people interested in BLPs might want to be aware. the discussion is at Talk:Tammy_Duckworth#Request_from_Tammy. --Ybbor^Talk 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like her mother's maiden name has been published in multiple sources, including the

Washington Post. I haven't found a source for the birthdate yet, though - if there is one, it should be inline-cited in the article. If no reliable source can be found, it should be removed. Videmus Omnia ^Talk

01:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The birthdate has been cited as well, from a reliable source. I'm afraid that removing the info from the article would do little to deter identity theft, as the information is easily found elsewhere. This genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it was Tammy Duckworth and not an impersonator? Quatloo 01:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(insert comment) It was TD. See my comment lower in thread. R. Baley 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't. For what little it's worth, the IP address comes from Springfield, which is where her elected office would presumably be based. --Ybbor^Talk 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, it is where those most likely to impersonate her are also based. Quatloo 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that those most likely to impersonate her are the residents of the 6th district, which is about 160 miles Northeast. The full WHOIS registers the IP to the "State of Illinois," particularly "Illinois Department of Central Management Services." I'd be fairly confident that it's her. --Ybbor^Talk 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I really don't see why honouring the request should be such an issue. Neither her birth date, nor the maiden name, are relevant to her notability or needed to cover the important aspects of her life and activities. The rationale that the information is "out there" and "available" doesn't wash in my mind, considering the visibility of Wikipedia is significantly greater than most any other source of information. She's not asking us to remove any important information or asking that the balance of the article be altered. She's asking for trivial information that's not necessary to the article to be removed. This is a real person we're dealing with and I don't see any harm in being polite and responsive to her request. Vassyana 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but the information is encyclopedic and has pretty impeccable sources. We don't delete information just because article subjects want us to. I'm speaking as someone who has fought in the past to remove this type of personal information from articles - for example, one case was a porn star whose article included her real name, and she was being stalked as a result. There have been other instances. But in all those cases, the information was sourced to obscure, self-published sources that someone would be unlikely to stumble across without the information being in the Wikipedia article. We can't really say that about the

Honolulu Advertiser, these would come up high in seach engines as well. And the information harms her no more than does the same information does the thousands of other living people who have the same type of personal info in biographies here. Changed my opinion per Newyorkbrad, below. Videmus Omnia ^Talk

02:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the exact date of birth (leaving the year which is the only relevant information) for privacy reasons and per policy (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays). I would favor deletion of the maiden name as well given the subject's request. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the policy link, Brad - I forgot about that one. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree on removal of the name actually. It's not like it's a glaring hole, people aren't going to stop trusting wikipedia if we don't get a State official's mother's maiden name. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names offers the following guidelines:

• • "the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" -- check, Tammy's trying to conceal it, and it's not all that frequently cited.
  • "especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" -- check
  • "When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." -- check, most mentions have been brief.
  • "onsidering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" -- I would say it doesn't.
  • "The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger"

So if no one object's, I'm going to remove the maiden name too. --Ybbor^Talk 02:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, running in a highly visible congressional election,

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Not to sound cynical, the sword can cut both ways. Shall we start, after this by removing the names of all the wifes and mothers of elected congressmen? Again, what good for the Goose is good for the gander. Now I would be for the removal, across the board for all public figure's birthdays and birth mothers names if it is established policy and applied with equal vigor? To put it very simply, this information is "fair game" for a major public figure as Tammy Duckworth.TEAMCrocko

00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec, and disagree with the above comment by TeamCrocko -2day old SPA) I support the removal of both her mother's maiden name and the birthdate per id theft concerns with respect to less prominent public figures. I don't think this info is needed whether the subject is the one requesting the removal or not. R. Baley 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack is not very productive for this discussion... It should be noted that the Ip claiming to be Tammy Duckworth could be classed, by R Baley standards as a "SPA". So we talk the points or will we just attack the massager of the point of argument per Ad hominem wikipeida seems so famous for? TEAMCrocko 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, SPA =

single purpose account. Not an attack, just a fact. For the record, I would assume Tammy Duckworth's account, though anonymous, is single purpose as well. R. Baley

03:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Can you tell me why it is so critically important that we override someone's privacy concerns in order to include a name that is mentioned once, and a birthdate that isn't extremely important? Or put another way, Tammy has expressed fear of a potential harm if the information stays. What potential harm can you demonstrate by removing the information? --Ybbor^Talk 02:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is... Do we make exceptions for "special people", only to ignore others, who have just as valid claims to the same standards of "privacy" that Tammy Duckworth (A very public figure) is requesting now? Or, do we say, yes, to this request and establish policy "Across the Board" for all others with equal or less notoriety as Ms. Duckworth now has? Now I would be inclined to grant the request, as long as other bio's with similar information, is dealt with in the same manner.TEAMCrocko 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have an across-the-board guideline: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_birthdays! When a subject requests it, we usually remove the birthday. What's so unreasonable? --Ybbor^Talk 03:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tammys birthday is notable and does no harm to her, in light of the fact she is a public figure and this information is important in doing research on Tammy as to delineate her from other "Duckworth's" with the same name. Again, This information (her birthday) is not harmful and is reasonable under the principles of notoriety. OR is it only now that Special people warrant this treatment? So it ok if I remove birthdays from any and all Bios of Notable people, as it is now a firm policy of wikipeida?TEAMCrocko 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read

WP:POINT before you consider such a course of action. There is no loss of encyclopedic value if we remove the information as a courtesy to the subject. - Crockspot

03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let this one go. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has deleted this same info from the Peter Roskam article. I reverted it because: 1) Rep. Roskam has not requested this info be deleted in his article and 2) as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he is a much more notable person and the same level of privacy doesn't apply. --rogerd 03:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where we draw the line, but in Roskam's case. . . well I would assume that members of congress are better able to protect against ID theft than your average bear. R. Baley 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not be be argumentative, Tammy Duckworth is little higher up the food chain, then your "average bear" being the Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, "very notable" as well as a dear friend of most of the more powerful Democratic office holders in the state of Illinois (starting with Governor Blagojevich. Raham Emanuel etc...) so, humbly, your augment is a bit of a stretch.TEAMCrocko 04:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, happily, Mr. Roskam hasn't made such a request, so there's no need to argue on that point. For what it's worth, I tend to leave out the day and month of birth when adding info to a living person's bio, even when I suspect it could be found with a little digging. With regard to TD, I'm sure she has an important job and lots of good connections, but I'll guess that we just disagree on how prominent of a public figure she is (currently, if she moves up in the grand scheme of things, I suppose this issue might have to be revisited). R. Baley 05:29, 18 September 2007(UTC)

Lets hope Mr. Roskam don't ask for a "courtesy stubbing of his bio considering the abuse he received for the last 12mos on wikipedia. In leaving this subject, lets get some thing very straight here, Tammy Duckworth is A Very Notable Person and published information on

WP:BLP

it reads as follows:

Well known public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.TEAMCrocko 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think her (or whoever the IP was) request is quite reasonable and I support leaving the birthdate and maiden name out of the article. I don't think that piece of information is important to the overall bio. Sarah 06:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing who this IP is, so I don't think Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays) applies; unless we know that she herself has made this request, Wikipedia is not censored trumps it. --Orange Mike 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the concern raised by OM, I have contacted Ms. Duckworth's assistant at the Illinois Dept. of Veterans' Affairs. I can confirm that this is a legitimate request. I don't think the inclusion of this info is helpful, and still stand by my earlier position for no inclusion. (FWIW: I have no connection to Tammy Duckworth, her previous campaign, her office, or to the state of Illinois.) R. Baley 21:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable or not notable matters not to me. If a subject asks to have their exact date of birth and mother's maiden name removed, we should do it, unless there is an overwhelming encyclopedic reason not to. (Such as the subject's mother being notable under her maiden name, or their birthday being notable for some reason.) The IP address traces back to a relevant public agency. Couple that with the rather mundaneness of the request, and we can just assume that the request originates from the subject, either directly or indirectly. If it was an outlandish request, then we could start second-guessing the source of the request, but under the circumstances, we should honor it. - Crockspot 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(Since I haven't said so already here, I'll do it now: full disclosure: I spent dozens of hours campaigning on behalf of Duckworth's opponent, Rep. Roskam.) re:TEAMCrocko: No one's saying Duckworth's not noteable. I said her mother isn't notable, and her maiden name especially isn't. Unless she's had an identity crisis over her last name, I don't see much of a compelling reason to include it. Same with her birth. Unless when born she accidently knocked togehter two bottles together and discovered a cure for cancer, I don't see much reason it absolutely has to stay. Also, what's with all the quotation marks? Who are you quoting? Who ever said "other special secret reasons because Tammy merits special treatment over other notable people who have wiki bio's"? And what special treatment? Most people of comparable notability would recieve the same treatment if they asked; there's no "'secret'", and

I campaigning for Roskam as well. Did you ever talk to Matt? or Jason? Any rate, I guess, my point is that I want to be sure that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and no more POV pushing and Wikilawyering crap, which was rampant on the Roskam's bio, during the last cycle. My interest is really to see the Roskam's bio is fair and honest, and with out the partisan Ramhbo spin, and abuse of process, which the past was rampant by connected and partisan admin and editors connected to the DU. So leave off the birthday and mothers name , as long as the same can be done for the Roskam mother and father, who are not notable. Logic being,its only fair. I leave this subject, with what I have said, stand. Thank you.TEAMCrocko 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually wasn't too involved on West Wesley Street, I spent my time at the IL GOP DuPage headquarters, under Patrick.

In any event, the fact that there may or may not be some bias in Roskam's article is entirely irrelevant to the inclusion of this stuff in duckworth's bio. There's no partisanship here, simply a desire to honor a polite request. We aren't removing unfavorable votes, or skewing quotes. Thanks for your coöperation thus far in the matter. --Ybbor^Talk 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will let this lay, as it is not an big point. I was only trying use it as a lever as you will, to protect the Roskam bio with "reciprocity" as you understand. I truly want to see a fair and honest bio. Peter is a good guy and his record can stand on it's own. I want to protect it from manufactured dirt and oil. BTW, I worked with Anita, at the Wesley St HQ, during the campaign... I must know you.TEAMCrocko 03:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)..

Apparently, you didn't bother to read

WP:POINT like I suggested. - Crockspot

12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I read it and your condescending and patronizing crap. Now, to make it simple for you...The POINT is - whats good for Ms. Duckworth and her family is good for the rest of the non-notable families members which are victims subjects of Wiki bios. Now are we going to game this, make points, or agree that this policy should apply, equally to all? Thats THE POINT. BTW I have little patience for this asinine wiki jabber and gamesmanship. Stick to the argument at hand and leave out the Ad hominem, assuming you understand what that means.TEAMCrocko 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The real point is that Duckworth asked for this courtesy, and Roskam did not. - Crockspot 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful there TEAMCrocko, that comment is pretty

WP:COI. And, finally, an inability to distinguish between personal information that can typically be used for ID theft (mother's maiden name and exact birthdate) for less than prominent (but still notable) persons and your edit here to a US congressman, is not good. Please reconsider your effort here. R. Baley

19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

according to the Frankie_Muniz article he died recently in a car crash, though it isn't verafied through any sources, and I can't find any information on it on google or any news sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangefizzlebiz (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because it was vandalism. As a rule, if Wikipedia is the only place you can find a reference to something that you would have thought was a big news story, it's vandalism (in fact, Wikipedia can't by its very nature "break" stories, since then it wouldn't have any sources to cite).

Sarcasticidealist

10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please look at recent edits to Paul Laxalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A user with no other contributions recently added some material to the article which seems mostly true though unsourced. I reverted the edits, in part because some of them were placed so as to appear that existing sources in the article are also sources for the new added information. But perhaps there is a better way to deal with this; the other editor is acting in good faith and I don't want to get into a revert war but I also am not interested in spending much time on this article. By the way, the subject of the article is a former governor of Nevada and former U.S. senator, who once was involved in a libel lawsuit against the Sacramento Bee. --Mathew5000 09:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[[:]] (edit | [[Talk:|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Mousepad (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mousepad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In a longstanding dispute over who invented the mousepad, an IP is posting allegations of plagiarism on Talk:Mousepad and repeats (and reverts removal of) those allegations. He accuses editors who remove this material of "pushing plagiarism". I've already removed the material a couple of times, warned the IP, and raised this issue at ANI. I think someone with experience here might want to take a look at it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on the forign-language versions (e.g. French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc), the same editor added the person as the inventor. Since the statements used the term "invented" from a source that did not properly substantiate the claim, they were removed. However, the Spanish version of the page had some resistance from regular editors who thought the change was potentially vandelous. --Sigma 7 07:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As of this date, the user is adding same information to other articles. --Sigma 7 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Mitt Romney (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mitt Romney|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A longstanding dispute has popped up again about whether to include a brief mention that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a polygamist. The arguement against is that it is irrelevant to his bio and might promote ill-will towards

I'm not sure if this is really a BLP issue. The information isn't about Mitt Romney, it's true, and it's about someone who's dead. The only issue is whether it should be included on the Mitt Romney page or his father's page, or if the actions of someone who isn't notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page are notable. I wouldn't worry about ill-will towards Mormons. Polygamy is documented and covered somewhat on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'd probably leave it out. Mitt was 8 years old when his grandfather died, and wasn't alive when his great grandfathers died. He's very distanced from them. 69.12.143.197 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My contention here is that his great-grandfather's polygamy in the 19th century was placed on the third paragraph of Mitt Romney's biography as a way to incite ridicule. If his great-grandfather's marital experience is notable and relevant a separate page for him should be created. This does not belong on Romney's biography because, obviously, when all these events transpired Romney wasn't alive.--JGoldwater 19:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the paragraph is to tell the story about how 3 (and only 3) generations of Mitt's family (father, grandfather, and great-grandfather) were in northern Mexico for decades. This story can not be told without mentioning the outlaw of polygamy in the United States. The other 3 top 2008 presidential contenders mention ancestry beyond parents: Barack Obama includes two sentences about his ancestors, as does Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani goes back two generations to mention that his grandparents were Italian immigrants. I don't believe we are giving this issue undue weight with two sentences as the last paragraph of his biography. Pro crast in a tor 21:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And 60 Minutes thought it important enough to ask him about it a few weeks ago (not to mention the multiple articles cited previously). Notmyrealname 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the paragraph non-offensive. It even added some interest to the article. The whole article could use some work, especially if you compare it to Romney's peer Barack Obama for instance. Steve Dufour 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm calling this as 'resolved'. It stretches a point too far to include information about the deceased great-grandfather of a living person as being material about the living person, so it is not a matter for this noticeboard. That is not to express any opinion about whether including this material is legitimate, of course. Sam Blacketer 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)