Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive59

This page is an current main page .

The Aryan Guard is a neo-Nazi group, so it's particularly important not associate anybody with the group, without reliable sources to back up the claim. In this this edit a user labelled a picture with the caption "Members of the Aryan Guard at an anti-Israel rally on January 10, 2009.". The problem is most people, including the person at the front, were not members of the group. They were marching in a common protest, but weren't members. The intent of the editor is to make all protesters appear to be Nazis or friends of Nazis. --Rob (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the image and the caption as being an unverified and unverifiable negative allegation contrary to

WP:BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc)

13:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm opposing your action, but how does

WP:BLP apply to the Aryan Guard? Does it apply to corporations, groups and other group entities as well? GrizzledOldMan (talk

) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bradley Schlozman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) We are having a bit of discussion about this article concerning its political neutrality. I've started to have enough concerns about the article that I thought I would bring it to attention here. In addition to concerns about the political spin of some of the recent edits, with a revert war lurking in the wings, I'm concerned about the overall political neutrality of the article. By most accounts, Schlotzman's behavior at the U.S. Department of Justice was outrageous - how exactly do we go about discussing that while retaining NPOV? Perhaps we might have an objective look at the situation by disinterested editors. (I find myself contemplating the amazing Conservapedia and the fluidity of truth.) Bdushaw (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We've reached a suitably ludicrous phase with the article; I will stand aside. I've concluded that Boxcutterman (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account with an agenda for this article. Bdushaw (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a lot of history to this one, which needs careful attention for a full understanding of what's now taking place. Way back when, the article was slowly but surely inflated and degraded with an unduly large "criticism" section, most of which was poorly sourced and negatively biased. I joined Wikipedia last month to help put things right, declaring a personal interest in the subject and my intention to help bring the article back into line with Wikipedia standards, instead of it looking like a "debunking" as one editor had said of the huge criticism section. There was one editor in particular who kept soapboxing his own original research and poorly sourced/unsourced negative criticism of the subject on both the talk page and his own and at least one other editor's talk page. I took my initial concern to

There is no doubt that Talbott's ideas are contentious, however they deserve nothing more than accurate portrayal in his biography. Being acutely aware of my own potential COI I have not tried to paint a "rosy picture" of him, but it is not Wikipedia's place to take the place of Usenet groups and forums in debating the value or otherwise of his ideas, only to report that they exist, are notable, and have recieved a mixed reception amongst scholars.

My understaning of

Anyhow, I would like some advice on where to go from here, especially regarding the abuse of Wikipedia space as a forum or Usenet group. It is not only detracting from the formation of a well-worded encyclopedia article, but also bringing Wikipedia into disrepute should something not be done about the blatant abuse thereof. I have looked through the dispute resolution process, and as these editors are breaking nearly all of the rules, the BLPN seemed the only appropriate place to air my concerns. Davesmith au (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to be more specific about what you think in the article breaks our BLP policy. As for the talkpage, it's an interesting question -- is calling Talbott or Z Sitchin a crackpot, charges levied publicly against both many times, against our BLP rules for a talkpage? I honestly don't know but I'm sure both of them are inured to it. - disclosure, I've discussed Talbott myself many years ago and think he's wrong. Very wrong. And that criticism of him needs to be in the article. And I note that you've mentioned possible offline conversations with other editors who don't use their real names, please stop that as anything that might reveal an editor's real name is very much frowned upon and can lead to being blocked.

talk

) 16:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Dougweller, though not very helpful in the main. I have already specifically spelled out many of the breaches of BLP on the talk page to which I've referred (here for instance, and elsewhere), I don't think snotting up this page further will help.

"... And that criticism of him needs to be in the article." No, criticism published by reliable sources is OK both for the article and the talk page, however your own thoughts on his theory are irrelevant, as are those already expressed in bucketloads by a couple of other editors. This is a biography of a living person, not a forum for discussing his theory.

As to the "real names" or potential 'outing' issue, I'm well aware of the rules regarding same, and have no intention of revealing them. I will however continue to assert a COI until they both admit (or refute) same, and start acting accordingly. On the forum where I had experience with ScienceApologist, he used the same pseudonym, and appeared happy to drag Wikipedia's name through the mud in the process. As for Phaedrus7, the communications I speak of are not in the public domain, in that they are on private email lists where he seems quite proud of his abuse of Wikipedia to further his own apparent obsession with attempting to discredit Talbott. As he has admitted direct communication with Talbott himself, on Wikipedia space, it's hardly a problem to direct people to it to show evidence of his COI. Davesmith au (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a persecution complex and paranoia to me. My advice is to ignore and make sure he doesn't do too much damage to article space. I said as much at

talk

) 21:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with SA's advice about what to do here. DGG (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I moved this artice to the

Fraud is not NPOV. Article moved to

Enten currency investigation. Exxolon (talk

) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good move. Scandal is so clichéd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Not wedded to "scandal", but just couldn't stand "fraud" or "allegations...". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seemed the most logical title at the moment. Enten is a (supposed) currency and there is a current investigation. When it's all resolved we can look at moving it to another title if required. Exxolon (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Immediately after the lock expired on the article for Levance Fields, the same anonymous account returned to vandalize the article. I think that the lock should be re-implemented to curb this vandalism, perhaps this person will eventually forget. Infamousjre (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If anybody is bored, it would really nice if somebody took a look at this list and cleaned up some of the unsourced info in it. Please mark the completed entries. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the discussion there be removed under

I wrote an article of

I'm not sure how you should word the post-mortem sightings, though. You might want to refer to CAMERA articles to see how to use weasel words and twist facts to make it sound plausible. They're a gold mine of examples, if you need to research that style of writing. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The procedure of declaring a person dead due to disappearance is not an easy or brief one in Estonia. According to Tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus (translated roughly as Law of Main Part of the Civil Code) §19, a person must have been missing for five years before a court can declare him dead; in case of Neuvonen, the earliest such time would have been in 1998. All of the sightings listed in the article predate that time by several years; they are clearly not post-mortem sightings. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I need an outside opinion to help cool things down at Talk:F. William Engdahl#Removal of Engdahl's contribution to Real News Network: bias?. Another editor has accused me of censorship[1] while making unsourced claims that the subject is "A unique example of the highest level of economic reporting". I have not found good sources for this article in the past, and had to clean out a lot of cruft. NJGW (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time convincing this guy about

wp:5p. Could somebody lend a hand. NJGW (talk

) 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The BLP of Wouter Basson has been prodded with reason "Virtually unreferenced biography of a living person with very serious allegations listed". The allegations are indeed rather horrendous, as far as I see, Basson has not been condemned for any crime, so perhaps he should be judged innocent unless proven guilty? On the other hand, there are some sources and given the high profile of the case in South Africa, I do not doubt that more sources detailing these allegations can be found. As I have absolutely no expertise in this kind of cases, I thought I should bring it here and would appreciate if somebody more knowledgeable would have a look at this article and either delete it (or parts of it) as BLP violation or deprod and source it. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I added some sources, but the article still needs clean up. Much more can be found here and here. NJGW (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible

This is cross-posted at

Alan Shawn Feinstein is repeatedly editing his bio to insert puffery and remove unfavorable material. You can see this by looking at the history of edits by 70.184.13.225. The url below shows that this is Feinstein himself http://webmail.warwickschools.org/Public%20Announcements/FAV1-00016C5B/I00676BD4?ShowInternetHeader=1

Really, can't this be prevented? There are better uses for everyone's time than to keep monitoring and correcting his stuff.

This fellow made a bundle selling "collectibles" of somewhat dubious value, gives money to places with the provision that his name or family members name be prominently attached, runs commercials on local RI television lauding himself for doing so. Often the amounts of money are tiny. For example, a local animal shelter had a notice that he would match a portion of contributions for a month or so, and it turned out the match was like 1% or something. He's been in at least two significant controversies about his self promotion.

"

Agreed. And a SPA account has appeared to try keeping the article puffed up. Unfortunately I can not use "personal knowledge" about some of his philatelic "investments" as I was a stamp dealer for a long time. Collect (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• G7 speedy deletion, and there's at least an assertion of notability, if little sourcing. I thought I'd ask for input on whether this should or could be deleted if the subject so desires. – The Parting Glass
  12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably could have been deleted before you posted here. The only edit of significance before that time by anyone other than the original author was this one.[2] On the other hand, while the page is completely unsourced, it does appear to be the sort of person on whom we would like to have an encyclopedic article if we can, but don't have to have one. I'd say that if sources don't appear soon, send it to AFD.

GRBerry

16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A slew of IPs are continually adding a list of living people supposedly convicted of this crime to this article. While I object to the whole list as trivial to the law and possibly a BLP problem even if they people really were convicted, 2 of the names they keep restoring weren't even convicted of this particular crime. They don't seem to care about my objection though. --

Definitely trivia unless someone manages to make a full encyclopedic list <g>. Collect (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems resolved for now, but the IP(s) do continually come back over time. --

talk

) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the right place to discuss this but I do not know a better one. There are four images used in connection with strip tease related articles which show an apparently identifiable naked female dancer. The photos were apparently taken in a private setting (looks like a private party). There is no claim of a "model release" or anything similar from the person pictured indicating that publication has been authorized. The pictures came from flickr and while a person claiming to be the photographer gave permission, that cannot be verified. I believe use of such pictures, without any sign of permission, violates the subject's privacy. And it could expose the Wikipedia to liability. [3] [4] [5] [6] I believe the pictures should be removed. Summarily. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

These are from Commons. Shouldn't this be addressed at source? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was one of many victims of a grand theft of $400,000 committed by this person. I occasionally Google his name to see what he might be up to. I found this Wikipedia biography Sunil Abeyesundere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I did not find in it any mention of his conviction, which is documented in the newspaper South Bay Daily Breeze in a series of 4 articles in 2001. I have attempted to add this to the biography, but it has been speedily deleted now three times (see this difference). A group of editors, TruthInNews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), LotusPetals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Puhul Dosi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and LegalLuminary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have opposed this edit. The reasons given are that it violates biography of living persons policy. The main objections are that the edit is libelous, that I cite as sources newspaper articles that are not available for free, that the edit is sensational, that the Sunil A. of the Wikipedia article is not the Sunil A. of the newspaper stories, and that I am biased. I have answered all these objections in a long dialog on the various users' talk pages, but we are unable to achieve consensus. Am I, in fact, in violation of the BLP? Thanks for taking a look at this. Spottykitty (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The other editors are all socks. Maybe even the guy himself (even though I'm still not 100% sure you have the right guy, the messages they left on your talk page are very suspicious). I nominated the article for speedy deletion because it does not assert notability. NJGW (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Per issue I raised on BLP:talk, the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources policy reads: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages...Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. However the article about the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon uses two long, poorly google-translated articles to include negative opinions (also WP:UNDUE since English sources share same information). (2005 German book reading paragraph and Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism.) People who don't like Atzmon, including someone who insists on including his own barely WP:RS negative article comments about Atzmon, have refused to removed the material. Other opinions? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us some difs that show which edits you are questioning? These's very little recent activity, and the issues you're talking about all seem to have taken place last week or before. I also don't see the Swedish source you're talking about in currently in the refs. NJGW (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs are old ones that have been debated over several months, a few months back. Evidently someone found an English translation of the Swedish source. Here's the German refs: Untranslated German. I guess at the very least they should have the full translate.google translation of relevant material in the footnote? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Telerman

"A possible reason for Telerman's defeat in 2007 is his alleged ties with the impeached Aníbal Ibarra."

This last paragraph is only a speculation and is not evidenced by any source. Please remove, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoldita (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Tom 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirstie Allsopp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Phil Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new user,

They are surely relevant to a biography of a person who is in wikipedia on the basis of their status as a "property expert"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Panorama among others have mentioned Location Location Location as having contributed to the housing boom and bust. TonkyWonky (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it's relevant in the Micahel Fish article is that's it's mentioned everytime he's been interviewed in the press ever since. In the case of Allsopp, if there was really a controversy, there would likewise be plenty of third-party media coverage. Taking a quote from an old interview and amking something of it is

verifiable media coverage of this controversy and fine, but you can't make up the controversy yourself. David Underdown (talk

) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove nonsense and block editors for 3RR please! Redvers, you are right on about this. I am sorry some brits are taking it hard, but wiki bios are not the place for retaliation. If multiple reliable sources provide coverage of these folks and there is some resemblemce of balance in respect to the rest of their bio, then MAYBE take it to the talk page and reach consensus amoung a few other editors. If not, leave it out for now, please! Thank you, --Tom 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I added Phil Spencer to top of this, seems like both are getting hit. --Tom 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So an article by Kirstie herself? [7] "In recent weeks I've been described as a “property porn queen” in the New Statesman, sniped at on the pages of The Guardian and lambasted by Panorama for excessively inflating house prices. "

So the New Statesman, Guardian and Panorama have mentioned her in relation to her part in the bubble, such that she gets an article in the Times to deny the accusations? And its STILL not relevant. Blimey - do you have to murder someone to get a negative note in a wikipeda biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I came to this wikipedia article was for material, having seen many references to Kirstie fuelling the house price boom that caused many of the economic problems we now have. I was looking to get links to such sources - instead I found an article that could have come from the pages of Hello Magazine telling me about her blue blood, kids names and where she was born. Nothing about why she is being mentioned on Panorama, Times, Guardian, Newstatesman etc in relation to the housing slump - which is never far from the news these days. This is the biggest rolling story in the UK at present, Kirstie is often mentioned in relation to it, yet her wikipedia article has not a mention of why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think she actually writes fairly regularly in The Times on property, so it's not really true that the article was specifically to rebut those claims. Now you're actually finding some sources, it might be possible to work something into the article. However, please read

WP:SOFIXIT, sure the article's not the best, so improve it, but make sure you understand how the article writing process here works first. Find the source, then add the material, not vice-versa. David Underdown (talk

) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article also doesn't mention she was appointed as an advisor to the conservative party either. I won't bother spending the time editing that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[8] "She and her co-presenters of property shows have been vilified for distorting the market and encouraging people to buy beyond their means.

No accusation could irritate the Tories' adviser on property more. "People had been asking me even before the sub-prime and credit crunch whether I felt I was responsible for the hike in property prices and first time buyers finding it hard to get on the ladder. Absolutely not," she says."

Many articles mention the allegations re the property boom. Shouldn't wikipedia at least MENTION them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What you originally added to the article wasn't an improvemnt, simply taking a comment she made in 2004 with no context and labelling it a controversy was in breach of a number of policies as we've tried to explain. However, if use some of the links you're subsequently found, there should be no problem. David Underdown (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"if use some of the links you're subsequently found, there should be no problem"

I'm confident someone will have a problem with it. When I look through the history of this article people have tried to amend in this way in the past - and its always been deleted.

I just don't see the point of wikipedia. If I look up someone I don't just want to know where they are born, what their kids are called. I want to know who they are and why they are in the news.

Tell you want David, how about you update using these links - and we'll see how long it lasts? I know as soon as I edit it, it'll be deleted.

TonkyWonky (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[9] "Want ketchup with that? For Kirstie Allsopp, the TV property presenter who once promised to eat her hat if UK house prices crashed, yesterday’s data from Nationwide will make chewy reading."

Another reference to ignore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. Wikipedia is

WP:NPOV way, that is also a biggie. Anyways, --Tom

17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think an experienced editor could rewrite, then perhaps you can have a go? I'm not trying to put a spin on it or give it an angle - I have no axe to grind - I just find it staggering that the article reads like Hello Magazine rather than the wikipedia articles I've come to expect. As far as UK press coverage is concerned, Kirstie and Phil and their TV show have come to epitomize the housing crash in the same way Lastminute.com and Martha Lane Fox came to epitomize the dotcom crash. Wikipedia is incomplete without such references. The current article is pretty much what her PR company would turn out, except it doesn't include a nice photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another mention in the Telegraph [10] "Meanwhile, many fireside entrepreneurs, no doubt egged on by the kind of property porn programmes fronted by Kirstie Allsopp and her sister-in-crime, Sarah Beeny, are encouraged to put together a buy-to-let property portfolio.

Why not? Rent it out. Do it up and sell it for a profit. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, as thousands will find out when cheap mortgages run out next year, the days of the buy-to-let property deal as a one-way ticket to the pot at the end of the rainbow are well and truly over.

Can we blame it all on Kirstie Allsopp? Well, it would not be entirely fatuous to suggest that she, and others like her, have a case to answer. Allsopp, a genuinely kind person who has recently been co-opted by the Tory party to give advice on house-buying, does not specialise in the gritty reality of cheap housing rented out to even cheaper clients; those who have no intention of fulfilling their obligations as tenants.

Last year, she was still encouraging pundits to seek buy-to-let properties in Oxford, where a decent rabbit hutch costs a king's ransom. Financial troubles begin when tenants stop paying their rents and arrears mount up, which is the kind of dark side television pundits like to wash over with a tin of magnolia eggshell." TonkyWonky (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is a bona fide controversy about her earlier predictions regarding the housing market you should be able to justify it via significant mentions in multiple reliable third party secondary sources (i.e. a neutrally written news, scholarly, or analysis but not an editorial piece in a major publication that says that a controversy arose over her statements). If there is significant criticism then you should, similarly, be able to find such a publication (not the criticism itself) to verify that there is criticism. Otherwise the sources are either non-existent (in which case it is a synthesis, personal opinion, or original research problem) or not reliable, and that makes the material unsuitable per BLP. Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy afoot here; text formatting indicates a copypaste, the creator's only contributions are to this article though it uses proper referencing in places. To the point: this is a poorly sourced BLP that needs attention from editors fluent in American politics/academia. Skomorokh 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the page for its issues and started a discussion on the talk page. The article's creator (Ftohme61 (talk · contribs)) tried to fix it up and removed the tags, but it still falls short. Ftohme61 is probably the subject himself. More eyes would help. NJGW (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we have a little issue with sourcing and relevance of an article subject's religion going on in Talk:Noam Elkies/Archive1#Noam Elkies is Jewish. It's only in the talk page, not the main article (after a few reverted attempts to put it into the lede of the main article) but it's getting a little heated and I'd be tempted to wipe that whole section of the talk page if only I weren't so involved myself. Suggestions (other than the obvious, to back off and let someone else take over)? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And now he's branched out to an article about me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Hey, nothing to do with sourcing. Eppstein seems convinced being Jewish is totally irrelevant, and I can't understand why. It's simply an ethnicity, if there's a source...list it. Big friggin deal. Do we really need a 4 paragraph life history of a relative who died in the holocaust to justify the inclusion? You are the one is obsessed, not me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Eppstein has accused me of being racist. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be for removing that section from the talk page, maybe remove certain comments if they are considered

WP:ANI#Some_wikihounding_going_on if interested. Cheers, --Tom

15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is very slow but I don't generally go over 1RR so am not going to revert again [11]. The youtube links may or may not be edited or geniune but several editors have explained that they are non-notable, and the same guy has added them 4 times in the last month to Zakir Naik and another four of five times before that. [12] --BozMo talk 12:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alekboyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alekboyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding information on living persons which is unsourced, sourced to primary sources and poorly sourced to secondary sources (depending on the living person) [13] [14] at Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JRSP (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alekboyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hate to have to make this report, but an editor is edit-warring to include his synthesis of primary sources about living people into this article. I've tried mentoring him, because I think he's correct that there are a number of unbalanced Venezuela-related articles; if he would just be more careful and conservative about his sourcing and his prose, he could make Wikipedia-compliant edits that provide much of the information he thinks is missing from the encyclopedia. But I'm apparently not a very good mentor. THF (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

additions comply with

WP:RS (US DoJ, LA Times, BBC). Individuals cited are in the public record advocating for Chavez, and have been identified as such in sources.--Alekboyd (talk

) 12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Talk:Flag desecration#The guy in the picture an anonymous contributor claims to be the "guy in the picture" and wants the picture removed. Does BLP policy apply here and should we remove the picture? -- Barrylb (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if the person can be identified from the picture then yes, we should remove it if they object. Especially if they're depicted doing something that could potentially harm their reputation. It's kind of a legal gray area, we might not need the release under the letter of the law (a newspaper wouldn't, for example, if they were using the image for editorial purposes). But BLP generally defers to the wishes of the subject in borderline cases, I think. Oh yeah, it would help if they could authenticate it was them. Maybe they should contact OTRS. --

talk

) 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Fortunately it seems we have found an acceptable solution by using a different image. Barrylb (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal life information about Alok nath is very controversial, and have never heard of. I am from India too. This kind of information harms Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.152.13.67 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to a version prior to an IP adding BLP violations as well as straight vandalism. Might not be a bad idea for a couple of people to add it to their watchlist in case the IP comes back.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the section, early life:

"Gabriel was born in City of Bilal, , [[in tripura], In India.[1] His father, Ralph Parton Gabriel, was an electrical engineer, and his mother, Edith Irene Allen,[2] from a musical family, taught him to play the clarinet at an early age. He attended Cable House, a private preparatory school in Woking, Surrey, then Charterhouse School from 1963. The President Bilal Bajar proposed to Gabriel but Gabriel said no and Bilal Bajar raped him. Peter Gabriel then got aids. He then changed his name to The Rapist and raped millions of people. He denied every time he was charged. He blew up the police station. And He raped the dead bodies he was caught using a time machine then raping the circuit. He was arrested for life in 2010."

Aids? he was raped? the man, the Rapist was arrested for life in 2010???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaox (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, garden variety vandalism. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, I'm advocating any information regarding the domestic dispute be removed from both articles until the investigation is over, per

I'm an involved editor in regards to this particular part of the Rihanna article. My sole involvement has been noticing the section, rewording and sourcing the information. I don't believe that the small section that has been added to this article violates any Wikipedia policies, including all of the above mentioned. There was discussion on the talk page in regards to the information, and consensus indicated that it should be added. The information added is well-sourced, neutral and does not place undue weight in respect to the rest of the article. --Chasingsol^(talk) 10:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify, my objection is not based on the reliability of the sources or the tone of the section, but on the very limited information itself, as the case is three days old. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This topic has to be covered carefully, if at all. Wikipedia is certainly not news. Per the RECENTISM page, I am not sure this incident will be notable in 10 days let alone 10 years. It is, after all, celebrity tabloidism. If it does become a long term legal issue (trial, etc), then clearly it should be covered. But sourcing and actual language needs to be impeccable. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except in the case of Chris Brown, it already appears to be having major impact on his career (advertising cancellations, shows featuring him taken out of circulation, etc). It's unknown that the impact will continue, but I think evidence is strong enough to keep a couple sentences on the incident in Chris Brown (entertainer) (not in Rihanna, though). -kotra (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, better keep the finger in the dike on this one. A brief reliable sourced factual mention is probably okay. I've shortened the section accordingly in the Rihanna article. As the victim, assuming she was not seriously hurt this is a lot more notable to the article about Chris Brown (entertainer) where, alas, the detailed use of contradictory sources and unproven criminal charges is also a BLP issue. Whatever we do for now, sooner or later it will be yesterday's news instead of today's, so the articles will settle back down to an encyclopedic state. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Chick Bowen
  23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist. Penthamontar (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I direct your attention to

NB appears to be sourced. The issue would then be WEIGHT or RS; do you have a source for rejecting the Bret claim out of hand? (I see a lot of unreferenced criticism in David Bret, which is a BLP, but nothing sourced there.) You could well be right (I'm skeptical of biographers who make a career out of diagnosing previously-unknown homosexuality) but as an uninvolved editor, I don't have anything to go on. THF (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, I will go check Bret article. Yes indeed: the entire freaking book has been thoroughly debunked. The main issue is the persistent IP, whom I've reverted 3 times now. He seems to be a Flynn-hater bent on unbalancing the article against Flynn and in favor of not just homosexuality, but unproven (and in several cases, disproven) homosexual exploits of a ... well, a slutty nature. A bit homophobic, true. Friends of Gays, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was thinking of Erroll Flynn: The Untold Story KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Flynn-hater is strong; if the claim in Errol Flynn is correct, Bret defends Flynn against charges of Nazism, which is the other lurid allegation against him. THF (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, the same claim appears in Ross Alexander whenever this gets resolved. THF (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which claim? That Flynn was bi? That's been around for years and is unlikely to be "proven" one way or the other. Seems fairly likely he was; however the laundry list of ppl he supposedly had sex with is almost all made up. for example; Capote, when simple who-was-where-when calendar and location checking shows Capote had the ability to be in two places at once, on opposite ends of the continent IIRC. But its one thing to have rumors of his bi-sexuality, and quite another to lenghten the article with lurid details of his supposed affairs with multiple male stars, and/or adding completely unsourced content, or content sourced only to an Amazon book review (by an Amazon customer not the official reviews). KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found that celebrity articles, particularly about deceased actors, tend to become overweighted with salacious material, particularly regarding sexual proclivities. However, Flynn was as much notable for his off-screen behavior as on-screen, so I am not sure there shouldn't be a neutral section on that, one that would explore the books that have appeared and the criticism of them. A more significant problem with Errol Flynn is that it lacks sufficient substantive content on his career, his influence on the profession and on acting. Were that present, a section on his behavior would seem less disproportionate. I have some source materials that may help and I will try to find them and add. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be lovely. I agree Flynn had a rep for sexcapades, but as you say, weighting in favor of salacious gossip over career puts Wikipedia in the category of a trashy tabloid, which I sincerely hope we can avoid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep,

WP:Weight has canny sway on these BDPs, but either way, something tells me Flynn would be cracking up over this stuff. Gwen Gale (talk

) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It isn't a BLP issue by any stretch. However, we've got a POV pusher playing with the reputation of someone, with a poor attitude to V RS and NPOV, any help offered here is appreciated. I've reverted twice and demanded good sourcing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And totally good edits by you. I just get twitchy sometimes when I see BLP invoked in non-BLP matters because I don't want it to ever get watered down.

T

) 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You should consider the possibility that others do not want to further increase the disparity in content standards. — CharlotteWebb 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what we have here mainly is a weight and neutrality issue, one that arises frequently with deceased celebrities, usually minor ones. William Eythe, for instance, at one point was dominated by his arrest on some morals charges in the 1950s. I'm not clear about Flynn, as he received extensive publicity both before and after his death on his off-screen actions. I had hoped to review some books on Flynn that I have but can't find them. They'll turn up. The Flynn article could use expansion. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Pancho Pepe Jazz Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An entry about a schoolboy rock band. Said entry has not adhered to the Music Notability guidlines. It has no sources apart from a myspace link, and some dubious TV appearances. // HeadTalking (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard; here we are concerned with protecting the reputation of living people against the slings and arrows of poorly sourced contentious claims. If you are concerned about the notability of a topic, I suggest you google for coverage in reliable sources, and if that fails,

WP:AfD. Sincerely, Skomorokh

21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Only major issue brought to RSN --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversial content there as far as I can see. The article consists mostly of simple facts about the career of the subject, and is sourced throughout. The sources all seem of acceptable reliability for the claims cited. Fighters Magazine looks to be a quality high street publication (carried by

WH Smiths for example, staffed by professionals. With little else to go on, I see no cause for concern with this article. Skomorokh

21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which revision you saw, but seems like you timed it just right before Theserialcomma removed a bunch of stuff. This was the revision before removal. Him having fought (illegal) bare-knuckle boxing was only sourced to "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)", a source previously brought up at WP:RSN, but only in the context of whether it's suitable to establish that Darren exists (from what I gather) and the conclusion seemed to be that it was barely reliable for that. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted much of the removed stuff. Bare knuckle boxing is illegal in the UK, so should we require a better source for the claim that he has fought it? --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And the article was now reverted to a revision from a week or so back. I'll just call this resolved and bring the bare-knuckle business to

WP:RSN

.

Resolved

 – page edited

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

Gigantic BLP violation here, as the article is a COATRACK for non-RS Daily Kos posts criticizing Domenech. Can someone please clean? THF (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that "coatrack" - the assertions of plagiarism concern the subject, not some 3rd-party. The materials on Daily Kos are excerpts from writings by the subject, comparing them to the published writings by others. If these were used on their own then I could see the problem, but these are the postings that lead to the subject's resignation from the Washington Post. For that reason the blog links appear to qualify as primary source cited by reliable secondary sources, such as Salon.com.[15][16]   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not how those postings are used in the article. And there are more than just Daily Kos blog postings there. I am very disturbed that an editor such as you, who is very conscientious about removing any hint of BLP violation when it involves a center-right blog that is a primary source and meets SPS, is shrugging off unsourced claims and claims sourced only to random blogs and anonymous bloggers when it involves a BLP who is on the right. THF (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And your second footnote there of "reliable secondary sources" is to Raw Story, yet another SPS that is inappropriate in a BLP. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also has huge problems with

Which person is the self-published writer of Raw Story? It doesn't appear to me to be an SPS. Daily Kos is more than a source for the article, it is a part of the story, and therefore a primary source. Can you be more specific about what problems you see with the article? The tags don't say.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, at least some of those Daily Kos posts were after Domenech resigned, so they weren't part of the story. Second of all, they're cited not as "Here are the posts that led to Domenech resigning" but as "Domenech plagiarized story X"--clearly inappropriate in a BLP. Third of all, it's your own original research that Daily Kos was why Domenech resigned; neither the Salon story nor the Raw Story blog supports that claim--the latter is just a reposting of three blog posts without additional content. Fourth of all, there are several other SPSs in that article. THF (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your fourth point, please specify the sites you're concerned about rather than playing a game of "guess the problem". The other three issues are simple things to fix.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Text supported by footnote 10 violates WEASEL. The whole paragraph has WEASEL problems. Footnote 16 is all blog. Footnote 18 is blog. Footnote 23-26 are blog comments, of questionable relevance. Footnotes 28-29 are dead links. Footnote 31 is blog and of questionable relevance. The entire section violates WEIGHT: cite to the NY Times and the WaPo articles, fairly summarize the events, and be done with it. The minute-by-minute accounting is not duplicated on any other BLP on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deal links can often be found by searching for the new URL, or by checking the Internet Archive. A similarly detailed analysis is in a biography of another plagiarist,

Jason Blair. The Daily Kos postings have alredy been discussed. The "Red State" blog is also part of the story, and may be suitable as an exception. You're right that "Your Logo Here" is also a blog and I don't see any good reason to include it. The Malkin blog is used as a source for her own opinion. Is she relevant? Perhaps not. You left out several links to blogs that aren't formatted as references - those should probably go too. As for the overall weight, what else is he notable for?   Will Beback  talk

  07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed the

WP:SYN violation is removed, is much shorter, barely detailed at all, consists mostly of quotes from her defenders, and certainly none of the blog posts about Goodwin's plagiarism are in her article. THF (talk

) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing the article. You may be right that it should be nominated for deletion, and there's only one way to see how that would go. BLP1E is intended, I believe, to handle smaller "events" than a plagiarism scandal that stretched over years. I'm not sure that a barely notable blogger and a Pulitzer Prize wining journalist have much in common, but the one thing that they do have in common seems to be handled in similar depth. I haven't looked at the Blair article recently, but there are plenty of reliable sources available. The NYT gave a very detailed accounting of events. IIRC our article went into possibly excessive detail.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not handled in "similar depth." The Domenech article details every to-and-fro that blogs had about the subject. Leaving out the last paragraph, which I will delete now as a violation of SYN, the Goodwin article has exactly three sentences putting forward the affirmative case of her plagiarism, two paragraphs defending her, and one and only one footnote detailing the allegations--and that's to Slate, not to blogs. And the Goodwin plagiarism was much more serious, as it resulted in money changing hands in subsequent litigation, rather than a college newspaper movie review getting puffed. THF (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've edited the article to remove most blogs as secondary sources, and to trim to material slightly. Some blogs are presumably reliable and relevant, like the NRO blog or WaPo postings from the editors there.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added one quote from the NY Times article, and conformed a couple of sentences to cited material, but feel free to revert that if you find it inappropriate. THF (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maryang (talk · contribs) has repeatedly blanked much content and the image from Mary Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone may want to take a closer look.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Yang. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that File:A Cute Looking New Rochelle High School Cheerleader.jpg could be an infringement on the privacy of the teenage girl who is depicted. This image was contributed in good faith, and I assume that the contributor had the girl's permission to make the photo, but I wonder what protocols need to be followed to ensure that all parties are properly protected in a situation like this. (I know that Commons has policies on this, but I haven't seen anything similar here.)--Orlady (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to the Commons policy on this for reference. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people. Skomorokh 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That standard commons link isn't working. Try this one: [17] --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor has been inserting material sourced to an inteview in an online porn magazine, www.xcitement.com , and edit-warring to keep it in. He has justified this on the basis that "Xcitement is an online magazine covering the adult entertainment industry" and that those removing the source (and material) have "puritanical beliefs". Is www.xcitement.com a reliable source for BLPs? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the claims it is being used to support, the editorial policies of the publication and so on. Can you provide a link to the article/discussion to which you are referring? Skomorokh 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why Jayjg is being so coy but it seems to be Evan_Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and this interview. CIreland (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say not - but perhaps not for the reasons typically given. Porn star interviews (whether for actors or directors/producers etc.) are often given completely or partially in character and so are extremely unreliable for material about the individual that has adopted the particular porn persona. This seems doubly likely to be true for porn star interviews in an online porn magazines and appears to be the case for the interview in question. CIreland (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems the goalposts have been moved. The claim in question is that the gent is Jewish. On an interview on his band's official website, he states "I was raised Jewish and that was the biggest hypocritical thing I've ever seen." Seems like an open and shut case. Skomorokh 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The source is for the claim is Tera Patrick (i.e. the subject of the interview), not the magazine. The magazine simply relays that she said he was a "nice Jewish boy". It is reliable enough to stand for the proposition that Patrick commented that Seinfeld is Jewish, i.e. of Jewish heritage, but under the circumstances of its publication it seems unlikely that the comment would undergo the usual things that make reliable sources reliable, e.g. fact checking, editorial control, accountability, etc. On the other hand she is his wife so she should know. It is an unremarkable fact that ought to be uncontroversial. I mean, come on. Is anyone really questioning that Evan Seinfeld is Jewish? Facts ought to be challenged only if they are unverifiable and subject to reasonable dispute. If you want to verify it, you can follow this trail[18] to a more reliable source.Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if he's Jewish or not, and have no objection to

WP:BLPs. And the answer I'm getting is "no". Jayjg ^(talk)

01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get any feeling that the interpretation CIreland gives applies to this interview. I know nothing about xcitement.com, but I haven't seen anything that says it should never be used as a source. If that's going to be the case, some sort of wider consensus should be reached, or at least some hard examples should be provided. NJGW (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an online porn magazine; are they noted for editorial oversight? Rigor in research? Peer-review? Playboy used to have notable interviews, but it was printed, and in any event I would say that it was unique among "adult entertainment" publications. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Text on such websites should be taken as fictional (or riddled through with fiction), like a Hollywood movie, unless quite boldly put forth otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

Check out the sources used at

Death Grind and all the associated genres and subgenres. When there are no peer-reviewed research journals with editorial oversight, it's really a moot point to ask for one. You use what you have to use. If there's a specific problem you've noticed with the magazine, then that should be raised. If it's just a gut feeling you have then it doesn't sound like enough to make a blanket injunction. The interview I read has the artists talking about their real lives, their kids, their entry into the business... and it happened to have some a lot of naked pictures all over it too. Doesn't mean it's false or not to be trusted. I haven't made a decision about it yet, I'm just asking what made you make yours. NJGW (talk

) 03:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking just at the first page of news results, some news services consider it quote worthy, and it seems to be mentioned outright as a notable adult industry news source (I don't feel like paying for the full article though). NJGW (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Margaret Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two IP addresses keep deleting well sourced information in the expenses section without giving any justification for doing so. Additionally, their edits generally leave the article in a state that the remaining content doesn't really make sense. I've reverted the changes a few times now and tried to improve the section, but for the latest edit information has been added which is of no relevance at all - i.e. stating that other MPs claim expenses too. It's not the fact she (or other MPs) claim expense that is notable - it's the amounts she has claimed which is the issue as si the items on which it was spent. Would appreciate it if someone could take a look, thanks. --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing wasn't so good, as it relied on original research and interpretation of

primary sources. The anon IP's edits were also OR. I've proposed a compromise edit on the page that relies solely on the one secondary source provided. THF (talk

) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. I've found a better source now as well (it is secondary) - it discusses her case in more detail, so will restore some info on postage costs. One final question - in this situation it is also useful to link to the primary source as well or would that be of no use? --Shakehandsman (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to flag an

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro

• Fred Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

User:FredShapiro42754 claims that the article is inaccurate, but the material he is removing comes directly from the biographical squibs of articles written by Fred Shapiro. Editor, often editing as an IP, keeps trying to blank the page or delete the offending sentence; other editors, pounding Shapiro with the COI policy, revert and template his page. The man is of marginal notability at best, and I moved for an AFD, but editors are overwhelmingly voting to keep. (Clearly, Shapiro should have taken the other approach to autobiography and turned his article into a hagiography so that editors would be offended and vote to delete.) I'm trying to reach out to Shapiro on his talk page to find out what precisely is inaccurate so we avoid any BLP, but he hasn't responded to me yet. Can a more experienced editor or admin with a fuller understanding of the nuances of the BLP/COI interrelationship provide another set of eyes to this issue? THF (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that this article has since been deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro. The title has been redirected to my friend Fred R. Shapiro, the Yale librarian and quotations maven.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NB some redirects need G8 treatment. THF (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This article really needs to be checked out by someone experienced with BLP. There are alot of counter accusations against living people who conflicted with this guy. Links to news articles are given but the tone is not at all neutral and it need a closer examination than I can give it.--BirgitteSB 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out this week if I get time. Makewater (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the subject of the biographical entry

• I'd say you've got fair reason to be annoyed. I'll try to keep the article watched, and encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. Small point, but "references" ought to be for the sources cited by the article - it isn't a place for a list of relevant thinks otherwise, which should be "further reading" or "works published".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a prime example of what's wrong with our BLP policies and their enforcement. All these little-watched biographies have tremendous potential for harm, and should be deleted.
    talk
    ) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've been saying that for 2 years now. No one listens. See User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah that is not an example of our better work. Kudos for SS bringing it to the attention of the noticeboard rather than just gutting the article, even though that would have been a plausible choice. cleaned OP's link Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been more IP POV pushing on this (now reverted), can any passing admin please semi-protect it for a long duration.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The conflict is between editors who have had accounts for several months. Semi-protection would achieve nothing. I also note that there's another side to this coin. Although KevinOKeeffe does not approach biographies correctly in general, the issue that the subject is not editing with the neutral point of view appears to be legitimate, given that the subject's edits also include undoing edits such as this one (both of whose sources do appear to support the quoted material, and at least one of which, being a book review, is directly about the subject's works). Notice too that there's no mention of this content on the article's talk page. It does appear that a legitimate concern about two specific matters has been silently extended to removal of other negative information throughout the entire article, even negative information about the subject's writings on history sourced to accredited experts in the field. This issue is neither a simple nor a strictly one-sided one. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry. Where are the "two sides"? If KevinOKeeffe "does not approach biographies correctly in general" then we have absolutely no business allowing the user to edit biographies of living people. Period. He should be banned. The subject is less than neutral? Well, perhaps. Subjects tend to be. But the subject has an absolute right not to be libelled - and if our bio has been libellous or a one-sided hatchet-job we owe the subject an apology and a guarantee that he not have to endure that again. That he will never need to remove bad stuff from his bio, and even if he chooses not to partol it himself he will not need to worry. Fat chance of that though. Sure, ideally we'd not have subjects whitewashing their bios, but once subjects learn that we let libellers and dodgy editors loose on their reputations, who can blame them. We've failed to be neutral, why should we expect them to be? I'm really sick of us viewing COI whitewash by subject in the same way we look at negative BLP bias. A subject spinning his bio to make him look good (which anyone tries to do with the internet persona) is not in the same league of vice as the defamation engine we've created and allow people who "does not approach biographies correctly in general" to edit with almost total impunity.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The two sides are as I stated them. And what KevinOKeeffe does elsewhere is not the issue here, so stop making it the issue. And stop trying to oversimply an issue that I just said was not simple. I suggest more than the customary BLP Noticeboard Drive-By. This article has a long history. Go and read the talk page, the deletion log, the deleted revisions, and the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
      • We have thousands of dreadful articles. If a few bios are maintained by subjects grinding axes, I'm not losing sleep over it. However, no subject, no matter how much they may yield to the whitewashing COI tenancy, should need to put up with editors who are careless with their reputations editing bios. That worries me. The rest I leave others to fret about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor has been editing Times journalist Giles Coren's entry in what appears to be an attempt to show that Coren favours Israel and has promoted that country in this article, notably where Coren used Israel as an example of a country that had banned the Staffordshire breed most responsible for the killings of infants. The editor (whose entire list of contributions appears to be in regard to Giles Coren) inserted a soapbox comment into the 'The Campaign to Ban Dogs' section noting how many children Israel had killed in Gaza. Now he's deleted the entire section - shame, as his first edit improved that section. It's becoming somewhat tiresome to continue reverting; some peer comment would be useful? Little grape (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Globestrobe's edits are clearly inappropriate editorializing and
  POINTiness
  going on, also. I've told him so.
• However, you are
  edit-warring
  , which isn't cool, either.
• The whole paragraph is a
  WP:NOT#NEWS, so it's not a tragedy if the encyclopedia doesn't take note of a two-day-old column immediately. THF (talk
  ) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; fair points. In my rush to write the para I hadn't considered that the original article needed to be noted by other publications, rather than being noteworthy all on its own. Obvious really....Little grape (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coren appears to be an interesting columnist much in the tradition of Mencken. IMHO, use of single columns to ascribe actual positions seriously held by him is either impossible, or just not possible. A splendid case where

WP:RS actually allows really bad material to wend its way into an article. Collect (talk

) 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello fans. Yes, he's interesting... and this is an interesting quote from Giles Coren, Times Online, Feb 14 2009: "Israel has gone one better, making the breed illegal altogether - and I doubt there are many who flout that little law. You don't go breeding dogs to scare your neighbours when you know that one false snarl and a helicopter gunship's going to whoop into view, flatten your house, your nan's house and your local school, and then blame it on the dog. And don't think for a minute that I would consider such a response disproportionate." Globestrobe (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – deleted

The subject of the article is requesting deletion via a prod, this isn't possible though as the article has been kept at AFD twice before. Maybe someone would like to renominate it for AFD.

Looking at the previous AFD discussions, the article was only just kept. Martin451 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

His entry states that he "received a BAFTA in 1981 for his exclusive coverage of the imposition of martial law in Poland and won a medal at the New York Television Festival for his nightly coverage of the 1991 Gulf war" I have examined the lists of both Bafta and the New York Television Festival online and his name is NOT mentioned in any awards. 89.243.83.169 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is wrought with poorly sourced, unsourced, and non-neutral information. A complete mess. I tried to clean it up, but I fear it is beyond my wiki-knowledge to even make a dent. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. (User_talk:Amishlliason) —Preceding undated comment was added on 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC).

Assume you are referring to

Mike Brown (football team owner) ? Exxolon (talk

) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Amishlliason (talk) 18 February 2009

Note: don't go vote, read and comment on talk:

The article was edited today by Kristerlinder (talk · contribs), this may need some eyes on it for now. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I just spotted this in recent changes. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any BLP issue but you may wish to bring this up at

the conflict of interest noticeboard. JoshuaZ (talk

) 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why this one didn't fall under the BLP guidelines. According to the article, she should be assumed to be alive, and yet there is all sort of repeated speculation about her sex life. There is also the question of three individuals named in the article in connection with her disappearance, but whom have never been charged with any crime. Needless to say, all four people are only notable for this one event. Everything is referenced to media reports. I would welcome a second opinion. Physchim62 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to ask the

owners of that article, they hang out on the talk page and are open to answering questions about most things related to it. --Tom

17:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) ps Good luck.

The

WP:FAC in that state, but the question of BLP was never discussed during the featured article nomination. Physchim62 (talk)

10:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss your concerns, with references and explaination of precisely what you want to change on the talk page rather then engaging in revert wars? Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a second opinion, but as nobody here seems to care enough to actually go and read the article and give their opinion… Physchim62 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:VeritasEst, citing documents from "riteofsodomy.com," added potentially controversial claims about a living person, the subject of the article. After removal by myself, user has repeatedly reinserted content despite warnings about the BLP req't for multiple independent sources for such assertions. DickClarkMises (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The site's personal content is not referenced except for scans of actual documentation that is available in public records. These materials themselves are valid references. The opinions of the person hosting them is incidental and were obviously not used. However, I also used several other references which were deleted en-masse! That was just one source and you deleted them all Mr. Clark!

To the Admins, note that by searching the history of this article that the user DickClarkMises has made several deletions to the article anytime someone tries to make progress on it or add content, referenced or not. Notably, anything related to Rev. Sirico's work towards promoting gay rights. Is this sort of discrimination acceptable on Wikipedia? I think not. I request an admin add the NPOV dispute and help restore referenced materials to preserve neutrality. Thank you for everything you do for this wonderful source of free information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasEst (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources should only be used if they've already been mentioned in reliable secondary sources. See

WP:PSTS. There are numerous problems with using primary sources on their own, including misidentification and misinterpretation.   Will Beback  talk

  21:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This list was previously mostly unsourced and defamatory (individuals on the list are accused of participating in a global conspiracy to rule the world or something.) I removed all unsourced individuals, and have since been removing any additional unsourced additions. One user has a problem with the removal of living George Pataki from the list, and has now reinserted his name multiple times. This article has external attention from less-than-responsible sources. Assistance would be useful. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The list looks like a

WP:COATRACK and does not seem to serve any useful purpose. Is there anything special about going to this particular invite-only event (as opposed to, say, TED (conference) or a party at the Playboy Mansion) that makes it a notable subject on Wikipedia for which we need an article? I see no reliable source to suggest that the defining criterion for list inclusion, being part of the corps of attendance at the conventions, is a notable in its own right, only that attendance is considered by some conspiracy theorists to be a sign of participation in a world domination cabal. That makes the entire list article a problem for several reasons. Why not nominate the article for deletion? Wikidemon (talk

) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd happily do so if I believed it had a chance in hell of passing. However, external sites of less than reliable nature would make that nearly impossible. I attempted to PROD the article, hoping that would be more "under the radar" and the prod was featured on a less-than-reliable website as a conspiracy to cover up the truth. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not just an innocent bad article. It looks like the remnant of some tinfoil hat thing, which discredits the project. It does not matter how many people !vote to keep, they would have to come up with a valid policy reason. IPs, SPAs, and new accounts would be discounted anyway - but better act fast now that it's here because people are known to make sleeper socks. If there's evidence of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, external canvassing, and such we can deal with all that. This wouldn't be the first time. Maybe I should do it because I've never edited the article, never even heard of this conference before today.Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock pupptery? When somebody disagress with hipocrites blatant vandalism hes a sock puppet? Nonsense and its nothing but a ad hominem attack against me User:Butcer

Case in point - Butcer is a 2-year old account with a dozen or so edits, most in the past day. Has been warned, comes right here with accusations of bad faith against me just for looking into the issue. Probably ought to be blocked or topic banned if this keeps up, no? Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some uninvolved admins should take a look at Ray Joseph Cormier. My sense is the subject has annoyed a number of users on-wiki and that resulted in an AfD nom (along with "applause" for that nom from another user). I think the page should perhaps be protected (though of course I think the current version is the Wrong Version) for a bit. 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, is there a BLP violation on that page? I must be missing the uncited information about a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but I figured this was the right place to bring the issue as it involves editor conduct involving a BLP. ANI seemed like the wrong place. Hobit (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So what, exactly, is your concern with the article, other than your constant assumptions of bad faith? Hipocrite (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are editing an article about someone and pulling information out that is not in dispute. Things like where he lives currently and his birth date. It involves an active on-wiki user. The talk page is full of back and forth between you and that user. I think it needs more eyes. So I came here. Hobit (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If I left in the purported birthdate, we'd have a violation of

Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information. Hipocrite (talk

) 23:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A few of us are having a dispute over the inclusion of the level of detail necessary and permitted for Lawrence Summers's grandmother. Additional voices and eyeballs would be appreciated. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

how do we deal with reliable sources (hollywoodreporter.com) in BLP artciles that require a login and password and require payment to view the article. should this type of source be treated as any other source and just assumed to be accurate even if the material in the source cannot be verified as being accurately represented? Theserialcomma (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just a summary of free internet sites. Many reliable sources require expenditures of time, money, or energy for verification. For example, most peer-reviewed scholarly papers can't be accessed for free. Editors who add material from such sites can do a courtesy to others by quoting the relevant excerpt in the footnote, but that's not required.   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

then how do we verify that the material cited is true if we cannot see it for ourselves? i thought BLP was more sensitive than that in order to prevent someone citing archive.reliablesource.com which requires a $50 fee but claims something that may or may not actually be represented in the source because no one wants to pay $50 to verify it Theserialcomma (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see it for yourself by paying $50 (or whatever the fee is). If the assertion were derogatory, or raised a

red flag, then it might be more of an issue, but calling the subject a "gonzo journalist" doesn't seem like an exceptional claim. I did a quick search in a a news archive that I have free access to, and it mentions the subject in the context of gonzo journalism. Does anyone honestly dispute that he might have been called that? As for the article and NPOV, you can attribute the claim. Instead of "Tucker is a gonzo journalist", you can say "Tucker has been called a 'gonzo journalist' by the Hollywood Reporter."   Will Beback  talk

  07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

calling someone a gonzo journalist doesn't seem like an exceptional claim to me either, except the fact that it's in the lede. the lede of a BLP is exceptional and should probably be better sourced than just an archive that is inaccessible without paying. isn't that kind of undue weight? one off-hand mention in an article that mentions the word 'gonzo' one time, and that goes in hte lede? there is another source calling him 'gonzo', though. but that is from a variety.com article that quotes tucker's co-worker as saying his style is gonzo, so it's not variety saying it, it's a quote from a friend. are these 2 sources good enough to keep it in the lede? that is what i'm questioning Theserialcomma (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article. If a topic is covered fully in the article then it might be touched on in the lede. So the body may say, "Tucker has been called 'X' by Y and Z in source V" while the lede might just say he's been called that and leave the attribution for later. Two sources seem like plenty, unless there are other sources that contradict them. As it happens, the source I mentioned calls his "gonzo" credentials into question, but in a way that just underlines how unexceptional the claim is.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In many cases (I don't know whether this is true of Hollywood Reporter) one can verify the sources by walking into a physical library that carries it or (in the case of scholarly journals and university libraries) that provides electronic access to it. The internet is not the only way to access information, even these days, and we shouldn't restrict ourselves to only the information that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Paysites on BLP - NO

Comment: Since we let anyone edit, our only safeguard against slander is that things can be verified by other users. Now, that a pretty weak safeguard, since it assumes that someone else will check the facts and remove the crap and bias. So, in BLPs with controversial or negative statements verifiability needs to mean ABLE to be VERIFIED NOT JUST IN THEORY, but realistically by wikipedians willing to do it. For that reason, disparaging information sourced only from paysites, or obscure publications is unacceptable, since it defeats any chance of quality control. My further point would be that allowig such sourcing is bad for bios anyway. If someone referred to someone as a "gonzo journalist" and the only web-reference to that is a paysite, then it is highly unlikely that the remark is notable, substantial or significant, and lacking any evidence of such it should be excluded. Paysite would be fine if it were a case of saying "x called y this, which caused a media debate"<ref>see these 10 accessible refs for the debate, and this one paysite for the original article the debate refers to"</ref>.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Scott, suppose that I put some information into a BLP, and cite a book. You don't know anyone who owns the book, and your local library doesn't have the book, although you can order the book on Amazon for $50. In that situation, you are ABLE to verify the source, you're just not WILLING to pay $50 to buy the book. Why is that any different to citing an otherwise reliable paid website that requires a $50 registration fee? - Simon Dodd {
  WP:LAW
  } 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Because a book or periodical of sufficient note to be a reliable source can be consulted at a library through interlibrary loan. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Can't you also do the same with The Hollywood Reporter? --NE2 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If the information in the book is negative, concerns a living person, and there is no mention of it anywhere on the internet, and no allusion to it in any online source (including the thousands of international newspapers available on line) then, if challenged, it would be correct to exclude it. Until and unless a second independent person collaborates the claim. Otherwise I can put any libel on any BLP and reference a big expensive book on Amazon, and unless someone order the book to call my bluff, the libel remains.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I once had to pay $10 to research an interlibrary loan and would have had to pay more if they were able to find a library that had the book, which they couldn't. If the BLP material was seriously libellous, and if the editor was active and refused to quote the relevant excerpt, then that could be handled differently. Every rule has exceptions and there's even
      WP:IAR. But I don't think we want to go down the road of saying that only free internet sites are suitable sources.   Will Beback  talk
        17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also remember one can request that a direct quote from the source be inserted in the footnote to make sure that the source is not being misused. For example: "There are a lot of gonzo journalists out there. SOme people think Mr. X is one, others don't." Obviously that would be an different interpretation than one described above. People usually don't fabricate things, but often misinterpret them, sometimes out of excess enthusiasm or sloppiness. So this is a good check. And discussed under WP:V or WP:RS or both; I forget which. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll stick with excluding all such material as practically unverifiable by our systems and, in any case, violating

• Is this in reference to any particular article?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • for me, the importance of BLP is that we get it right. if we can't verify what the source actually says, how do we know we're getting it right? some random editor might come forward and claim that they verified the source in the library, but is that really good enough for a BLP? how do we know they are telling the truth, or that they verified it accurately? it seems very risky. people make honest mistakes in synthesizing sources, or claiming sources said things they actually didn't say, even when the source is available for everyone to view. when only a single person or small group is able to verify it for themselves, we can get into dangerous territory involving the potential for plenty of errors. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • What is keeping you from verifying the source? Research takes time, money, and energy. If an editor is unwilling to devote what it required, does that give them veto over other editors who have spent their time, energy, or money to find the sources? That seems a way of lowering the quality of the encyclopedia rather than improving it.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I am strongly opposed to limiting "what we can verify" to mean only "what we can verify without charge from the comfort of our own homes". This is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the web, but a full encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no other effective method of quality control for potentially libellous material. The only other way is to trust the writer, which we cannot afford to do when the writer could be anyone. Point-an-click verification is the only thing protecting victims from libels. If you've got a better idea fine. (We are here only talking out negative material on living persons.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of "potentially libellous" "salacious quote" are we talking about here? Is this all hypothetical or are we talking about an actual case?   Will Beback  talk  05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

who are we to judge what is potentially libelous or not? either it's verifiable through third party, reliable sources, which would make it not libelous; or it's hypothetically verifiable (visit to the library, pay for access to a journal/magazine archive) but also potentially misrepresented from the source. if it's misrepresented from the source, whether we consider it libel or not, it's up to the person suing to decide if they think it's libel. anything not true that is construed as negative to someone's career/reputation can be libel, right? someone could literally sue for wikipedia claiming they were born in kansas when they were born in california. isn't it better not to take any chance and just stick to eminently verifiable sources so there is no possibility of libel whatsoever? in this litigious society, what's not libel to you might be libel to a sensitive person... if we stick to reliable sources that are verifiable and adequately represented, there is no problem there. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

in the efforts of doing no harm, i really think we shouldn't take the word of a single or an elite group of editors. at least for BLPs. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a third time. Is this in regard to an actual biography or are we just shooting the breeze?   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've received a reply elsewhere, to the effect that this is inspired by the Max Tucker discussion above, but that it's mostly hypothetical. This is not the best place to discuss policy changes, but there's obviously opposition for changing the policy to require free websites for sources. Specific, legitimate disputes over problematic material that appears to be properly sourced yet can't be verified are best handled on a case-by-case basis, on this noticeboard if need be. Uninvolved editors may have suggestions or even access to additional sources.   Will Beback  talk  10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've referring to avoiding libels on 300,000 articles, which is hardly "shooting the breeze". We have a piss-poor system for preventing libels as it is: removing all poorly sourced and practically unverifiable negative allegations is the best we've got for now. I've no intention that we weaken that policy. A negative allegation based solely on a paysite will always be removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can choose to ignore all rules if you choose, but you should be prepared to defend your individual decisions. If there is an actual libel, then we can do something. But right now there isn't any libel that you've identified that is only sourced to a pay site or, God help us, a book.   Will Beback  talk  11:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm applying the rules. When we've "got an actual libel" it is too late. We need systems that realistically minimise and prevent them. The problem with your "show me a problem and I'll fix it in that case" approach is that it simply doesn't upscale. We can't maintain any realistic quality control if we relax sourcing rules - we need to tighten them - much much tighter. Anything else is ethically and systemically irresponsible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Check

WP:BLP. I don't think you'll find anything that says books and magazines that require time or money to verify are not reliable sources. This isn't the place to propose policy changes. If I come across someone removing material with citations to what appear to be reliable sources I'll generally revert the change unless there's a good explanation. Removing sourced material is a form of vandalism, so if you're going to do it make sure that you are ready to defend you action. I don't believe your view is in sync with the rest of the community, as shown in this thread.   Will Beback  talk

  19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ. I find your interpretation of policy erroneous, unethical and harmful. But I don't expect that to dissuade you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with not online sources that anyone can verify. The fact that they cost money to obtain isn't relevant to

neutral point of view by making things unduly sympathetic and massively increases systemic bias but focusing on internet sources. When a source is not online or costs money to obtain unless we have a reason to think that the user in question is lying (such as they have made up sources in the past, or the claim is particularly unlikely given the context), there's no reason to remove them. JoshuaZ (talk

) 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A young boy allegedly made a YouTube video of himself abusing a cat. (More info available here and elsewhere on the Web.)

I preemptively create-protected

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good on both actions. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not break out the backslappings yet; this edit was just made to the

Anonymous (group) article; more are likely at 4chan, and the local area articles. Skomorokh

10:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably need to do a better job of comunicateing with the editor involved though[19].Geni 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

more reliable sources are starting to appear [20]. May need to rethink at some point.Geni 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Article is undergoing repeated attempts for release of personal information that is 1. Personal -and/or- 2. Unsubstantiated -and/or- 3. Malicious. This war began due to user Orlady bearing a grudge against myself, as I disagreed with her about a separate article. Orlady has now followed me to this particular article, and is attempting to revert edits in revenge. In addition, she has enlisted 'friends' to help her continue to alter the page. This is causing an innocent third party (Percival Davis) to suffer. As with Lawrence Summers' grandmother, "Additional voices and eyeballs would be appreciated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audreetucker (talk • contribs) 05:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Audreetucker. Since the initial post, dissenting users who are attempting to minimalize the information are being blocked or repeatedly reversed. Until the situation is resolved, there needs to be a LOCK on this posting, with minimal information published. The game-playing in here is ridiculous. Advocate4us (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This article has extensive parts of personal details that are unsourced. Seems to be a new user who has worked on this and so in the interests of

Biography of Subhash Kak has been hijacked and libelous material posted on both the biography page as well as disparaging comments about this person has been made on the Talk page of the same article.

The editor has also changed the page to protected status, preventing further edits, while refusing to engage in a discussion on the merits/demerits of his editorial hatchet job on the article itself.

I view Wikipedia as an unbiased repository of information, compiled for public good. I bring this article to the noticeboard, so that the concerned panel can review this page and decide whether some of the material on this page isn't borderline libelous.

If you cannot represent someone in a fair manner, without the editor's personal bias getting in the way, delete the page. It is better that people don't get to read the biography, instead of reading someone's politically motivated diatribe against a scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlahiri (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Chris Buttars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An editor is repeatedly calling Buttars a racist and homophobe in the intro. While this may be true, it is in violation of NPOV and BLP policies. -R. fiend (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible

This is cross-posted at

• Reposting, since still not resolved. I apparently need to bump this every three days. THF (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Bumping to avoid bot archive. Still not resolved. THF (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP but thought I'd better get some other opinions about whether I'm seeing this with clear eyes. I'm also wondering whether a particular remark ought to be removed from the Talk page. Thanks very much in advance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)}
  18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• You're quite right to remove the quotes. Unless some reliable independent source has commented on a particular controversy, it's original research to introduce such content into the article. As far as the talkpage goes, I'm in the "as long as it's aimed at improving the article and does not break any laws in Florida, it should stay" camp. I think the article could benefit from semi-protection. 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Now this is a case where semi-protection would be appropriate. However, I observe that the edit war ceased 2 days ago, when discussion on the talk page began. If discussion ceases and edit warring recommences, please let us know. You're right that any personal analyses of Wikipedia editors offered as, effectively, "Here are the raw data. Tell me that my own personal analysis of and opinion based upon those data are wrong!" are clearly in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for the feedback. For the time being, semi-protection does not appear to be necessary, since the edit war stopped. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please someone has an eye on Neal Sher article. A libelous section has been repeatedly inserted, and my removal has been labeled as vandalism. Only one source for the claim in the article is given, and apparently, according to google news this is the only source. I could not find any reports in mainstream newspaper. Furthermore, the section does not faithfully presents what the source says, if anyone would care to read the article completely instead of just the first paragraph one would clearly see this (in a nutshell, nothing is official as all parties agreed not to disclose any details, thus all claims must be treated as speculative or alleged). I am also worried that the article seems to concentrate on negative aspects of his career, completely ignoring what he is more known for, ie is job as the head of the USJD Nazi prosecution unit. I removed already some other parts, to restore at least some balance, but still this article seems to be edited mostly by peopel who are more interested in adding negative information than in writing an encyclopaedic article. So please someone has an eye on this article, thanks.

two IPs (from whom one or the other could have a conflict of interest) continue to delete passages from the neal sher article. one has already been warned, afterwards another IP assumed the job. although only one source for relevant passage is stated one can find more in the IT (which i don't consider necessary as this one source can be considered reliable).the passage was depicted almost literally from the source. the IPs problem with the edit is revealed on the end of his above comment: that something "negative" about this person is depicted. someone sholuld have an eye on the article,indeed.--Severino (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article with more extensive sourcing and detail. The previous version of the article was unbalanced; the DC bar spat was not the most significant event in Sher's life. THF (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm not very experienced with BLP, but I'm expecting that this isn't ok: A new SPA has included on the page for Douglas Murray (Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion Civitas-owned think tank) praise from the British National Party. Is this trying to force guilt by association? I tried to find a guideline with an express instruction about this, but failed. I'm a bit out of my depth, to be honest almost-instinct 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget guidelines and go with your instinct. If something smell bad on a BLP, remove it. If you meet opposition, come here. The SPA needs blocking in this case. We don't need a policy to stop hatchet-jobs - although I'm sure there is one somewhere.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it twice now today. I'll link to this conversation on the talk page. I'm not going to be on WP for the next 24 hours though, so if someone else could keep on an eye on it that would be great. The edits were made by

AdamMarchmant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bye for now almost-instinct 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted a well-referenced hatchet-job by the same editor on Centre for Social Cohesion. Please watch.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to accept helpful factual corrections (as already done today) or to address issues of perceived bias in edits. I will, however, continue to engage with wholescale revisions to previous versions which lack unsubstantiated evidence. I will also continue to work within the Wikipedia guidelines to address any application of double standards as regards what may constitute an authoritative source and address content that lacks adequate references in support of the claims made.

AdamMarchmant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well that sounds like we're all singing from the same hymnsheet now :-) so I guess this is

Resolved

now almost-instinct 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Thanks. AdamMarchmant (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

This article seems to have suffered a hatchet job last year, and needs some serious help. I don;t have time to do much at the moment, so extra hands would be welcome. Kevin (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been stubbed by someone else, and I'll put it on my watchlist. THF (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

John Dingell, D Michigan, became the longest serving member of the house on feb 11 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.135.241 (talk • contribs)

Robert Byrd is not in the House, and this isn't really a BLP issue. THF (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is FamousHookups.com a reliable source for

The Daily Telegraph is a RS. FamousHookups is not, I've sourced three of the four claims, and deleted the other. The article could use some more scrubbing, but it seems consistent with press coverage, though whether the article survives

WP:NOT#NEWS rule is another question. I'd delete it, but I'd imagine it would survive an AFD. THF (talk

) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It would survive afd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the Denis Rancourt article survived a deletion review, it has been under continuous attack by two single-purpose accounts (User:FeetsDontFailMeNow and User:Letsgoridebikes) determined to make him look like a nutcase. Here you can see Letsgoridebikes tacitly admitting that he believes Rancourt is a "nutcase" and all he's doing is making that fact clear to people. Letsgoridebikes edits just three articles, and literally the only article FeetsDontFailMeNow has edited is Denis Rancourt. Between the two of them, they have removed 90%+ of the original content of the article -- the very article which survived deletion -- and replaced it with material which they've cherry-picked to make Rancourt look mentally unstable. This is clearly unacceptable in a biography of a living person, especially their most recent hobbyhorse, which is using Rancourt's criticism of Zionism as a rationalization for implying in the first paragraph of the article that he's an anti-semite.

I have been hoping that the two of them would lose interest and move on so that I could revert everything they've done in one go, but they seem to be sticking around. In the mean time, Rancourt was just featured in a New York Times editorial, and people coming to Wikipedia to find out about him are treated to what may be libelous material about him. -- SmashTheState (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikipedia. Posting a request for assistance in removing libelous material has had the result of simply attracting one more person pushing the same bias. Suddenly I'm becoming much more sympathic to Daniel Brandt. -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Should have been predictable - this noticeboard reads like a roll-call for anti-BLP activists. Suggest you e-mail a sympathetic Arbcom member directly (JoshuaZ ffs?!! - that's wolves guarding the sheep if ever there was an instance). Try

Jimbo would be a decided improvement than this shower.220.236.235.163 (talk

) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see joshua Z's latest edit, [21] as totally appropriate. DGG (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing blogs are encouraging vandalism of this article, and the RPP request has gone unnoticed for half a day, so please look out for violations by IP editors (and experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better). THF (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected this page a while back after various IPs repeatedly added links to an inappropriate blog. I've just taken the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page as well, as the links have been added there a couple of times by different IPs. I'd be grateful for some other watchers on this page, as the links have now twice been reinserted during periods when I've been away from my computer for a few days. Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Swedish graffiti artist

I guess it's an issue of whether or not the source meets RS. While it's technically a blog, since it's attached to the Chronicle of Higher Education it might be an acceptable source, which I think would make the name ok. Also, this google search turned up a few Swedish pages that do give his real name (I don't read Swedish, though, so no guarantee they're not just translations of the Chronicle one)—you just have to be careful not to confuse him with the tennis player of the same name. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably is a (mostly) reliable source, same as most newspaper blogs. Still, all Swedish media withhold the name. That American news blog is the only exception. Are we suppose to publish name if any single reliable source does it? The Google hits are private blogs, webforums and the like. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If only one source uses the real name, I would not consider that "widely disseminated", so one could cite

Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names for removing it. However, I think the issue in this case is does the individual wish to remain anonymous? I can't read Swedish, so I don't know if that is the case here. If there are sources that make it clear that he does wish to only be known by the name "Nug", I'd support its removal, but otherwise, I think it's useful information and should be included. This is a pretty borderline case either way. -kotra (talk

) 05:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have a few reservations about the controversy section in this profile. The references to the News of the World website do not work anymore and were removed very shortly after the publication of the article. This was also the case for the previous allegations made against the Duke. On the Biographies of living persons within the "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" section it reads:

"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced."

The controversy section does not have any sources which back up what it is claiming, subsequently, it is my opinion that this section be removed.

I had already changed the section, however, other users are still reverting the edits. Could an administrator please have a look at this situation to assess the next step forward.// Londonfella (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Caption above his photo has been given a derogatory nickname, offensive to those of Indian heritage. Unable to locate phrase in document for correction to proper nickname "Bobby". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.203.1 (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – What more can be done? Reopening to prove a point is pointless!

• Dragons of Summer Flame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An administrator has placed a BLP violating slur on the author in an edit summary and I'm not sure how to get it out. Could someone with skills please remove the BLP violation. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oversight isn't used to remove BLP violations from the history of an article unless the subject has asked the content be removed (also dependent on other reasons) or Wikimedia counsel tells us to. Generally speaking, the history of an article is kept intact so the article's evolution can be retained. The edit summary in question was a bad idea and in poor taste, but it's not a particularly egregious BLP violation, and buried as it is in the edit history of a low-traffic article, I doubt more than a handful of people will ever notice it. -kotra (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)