Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive97

This page is an current main page .

Having looked at this article in response to a request for protection, I have grave doubts about whether it ought to exist. It seems to be primarily an attack piece. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Looie496 posting this discussion here:

I am not the creator of the article in question, and have no conflict of interest or stake in the article. I chose a random article from wikipedia to learn about editing and contributing to Wikipedia, citing, etc. I also read the wikipedia articles on verifiability and blp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The request for protection arose from myself and multiple users warning an editor about vandalism, and having to revert multiple changes, page blanking, and destruction of references.

A simple google search brought up the information and references for the article on Silvio Polio from major Canadian Newspapers and film festivals. I feel the article meets both those guidelines as the information posted is from legitimate news sources, and would be valuable to the community and any interested in filmmaking, festivals, crime, fundraising, etc., and of particular interest to the Hollywood and filmmaking community at large.

The article is balanced as it includes the subject's artistic creations, collaborations with other actors referenced on wikipedia, and his recent film festival appearances, the fact that the subject produced a film, etc.

The fact that the article subject has funded a movie in the past via the proceeds of crime, and his movies are related to crime and film making makes it relevant. The assault charge, and all crimes referenced in the article is verified by major media news sources, and obviously relevant to both public interest and the subject's film making.

In closing, wikipedia contains encyclopaedic information, both good and bad. Would you suggest articles about

Osama Bin Laden, or perhaps more relevant in this case Al Capone

be deleted or not exist because it contains mostly information that would read like an attack piece?? Unfortunately their contribution to the public record and history has not been a positive one. That does not mean it should be deleted.

The article is fair, referenced and cited, and meets all wikipedia Verifiability and Biographies of living persons criteria in my opinion. Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - perhaps this could be appropriately discussed on the talk page for the article in question, as other editors have stated opinions as well, and this would be helpful for others who have helped to stop vandalism to the page. Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Update @ Talk:Silvio_Pollio user:Momo san has banned/blocked some socking master sock for vandalism etc. "User:Bluebadge iza hater is a sockpuppet to User:Jose Carlton." Suggested watching User:Mrsilvio and 24.84.160.17 as that was the first account and first ip to page blank and vandalize. Might be socks too? Bluebadger1 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{

RefimproveBLP}}. Agree with the assessment, there are some issues, could use some cleanup. Could also use some discussion from engaged users, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk

) 11:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the refs could stand to be formatted properly. More refs could be added from other secondary sources, to make sure we are giving this the proper context, breadth, and scope. -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See additional talk at

Resolved

 – minor removal -

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The article about Oom Yung Doe (a martial arts school) includes the accurate fact that in 1989, a Chicago news station ran a series of reports including very serious accusations against the school. Some of the more tangible claims were that members of the school engaged in "violence, threats, and coercion against students of Oom Yung Doe, violence against students and instructors of competing schools, blatant financial fraud, and murder." No criminal charges connected to most of these claims were ever filed, and certainly no truth to any of the accusations was ever demonstrated (only charges related to the financial-fraud accusations were filed, but that case never went to trial, and years later some instructors were found guilty in a separate tax-fraud-related trial -- those events are described separately in the article, and I believe those parts should stay). I actually wrote most of the section describing this news report, but now that I've read more of the BLP policy I believe that it's effectively gossip and doesn't belong in the article (in the absence of some sort of reliably-sourced demonstration that there was anything at all behind the accusations of violence and murder).

I asked about this on BLP/N some weeks ago, but it was in a previously-resolved issue near the top of the page and I think it slipped through the cracks (no one responded). I'm affiliated with the school, and I want to be careful about creating the appearance of COI by removing reliably-sourced information, but I now believe that by BLP policy the "Chicago Area Controversies" section should be removed. Can some other editors weigh in on validity of removing this section?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Removed, it is covered in a section above anyways, apart from the extreme accusations that didn't come to anything at all. I don't think we need all those [non-primary source needed]. templates really. If the school is talking about when trainings it gives then we can accept those simple claims about itself, anything about others should not be primary cited though, as per ..
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 11:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need all those either. I objected to them some time back, but they had enough support that I didn't feel like fighting about it (and they don't really degrade the article; they just make it funny-looking in spots). I think the issue is that some editors are uncomfortable using the school's internal sources for anything, even fairly innocuous information, because the school's internal sources include some claims about the training (and the founder of the school) that are extremely hard to believe.

The other section you removed can easily be cited; all of the information there is already contained in cited statements somewhere else in the article. I also think it's fine to remove, though, for exactly that reason :-). Subverdor (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Superp (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chong Sik-yu article for four years has claimed this person is a Chinese political activist, without any ref. Removing what I consider contentious material left no content, except his name. I would appreciate some advice. Superp (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My usual response to such things is to delete them with an edit summary of "long-standing unsourced BLP, I will restore this on request if anyone is willing to source it". Either do that, or source it yourself. Leaving articles with nothing more than "X is a person" isn't so good.--Scott Mac 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I deleted it under A7. Even before your stubbing, there's no assertion of notability. Being a "contact person" for a dissonant group - and an unsourced claim of a radio interview doesn't cut it. She may be notable, but there's no evidence in the article.--Scott Mac 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am Currently hashing out sourcing at Keith Olbermann catch phrases which the editor is trying to save from deletion so far the Author has found Sourcing to Verify he uses "Catch phrases" as every anchor man/Tv Personality does. However currently all the quotes are so poorly sourced and off Color I am unsure if its BLP risk to include them.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks messy. Could someone provide more detail on the quality of the sources? Maybe list a few of the very best ones? --

talk

) 02:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! At Talk:Lester_Coleman#Inmate_Locator we are discussing whether to use Lester Coleman's Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator profile, which lists his name, age (not his date of birth), race, federal prison number, and official release date: BOP link - This is a primary source

He is the only Lester Coleman listed, and the database covers all federal inmates since 1982. The entry certainly refers to the Lester Coleman we are discussing.

• This page states: "Please note: It is possible that a record may exist for an individual who was in BOP custody but never served a sentence of incarceration (e.g., a person was detained pre-trial but criminal charges were dismissed, held as a material witness, held for civil contempt)." - So every type of person who entered the federal civilian prison system is covered.

We know he was imprisoned in the federal system based off of a New York Times article ( New York Times article), and the article gave out what his sentence is - it does not say what his prison ID is, and I haven't found his prison ID or any other release date in any secondary source

I argued for including this information since it supplements details about his incarceration already known from the New York Times article, based off of

Any comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times article says he was released in 1997. The

biography of a living person. -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 08:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The questions on why was he charged, why was he held, etc. are answered in the NYT article.

As a matter of fact, before the sentence about him being held by the BOP, there is...

"On September 11, 1997, Coleman stated to a New York Federal court that "...he lied when he claimed that a secret drug sting enabled terrorists to evade airport security in the bombing..." In a plea agreement, Coleman was sentenced to time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring."

The sentence about his BOP confinement came after that. Even if he served home confinement only and never set foot in an actual BOP prison facility, he was still under BOP supervision.

I don't see the NY Times saying he was released in 1997. What the NYT specifically says is:

"Mr. Coleman faced up to five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine on each of the five counts to which he pleaded guilty yesterday. In a plea agreement, however, the Government agreed to a sentence of time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring, according to court documents." - So he pled guilty on September 11, 1997, and was given the sentence above.

I did not consider any articles for Rumor Mill in anything that I proposed or did.

Also to my knowledge each person has the same BOP number for life; I don't think the number changes if someone receives a new conviction.

However the conviction date may not be relevant, if it has to do with a new conviction not covered in reliable sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just found a source that is about more Lester Coleman charges!

"COLEMAN SOUGHT IN PROBATION VIOLATION, TALK-SHOW HOST NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE KY." Lexington Herald-Leader. August 24, 2002. C1 City&Region.

I may have to do a resource request to get the full article

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are also other stories on the Lexington Herald on the 2000 "check fraud" conviction. It is however totally unrelated to the 1997 conviction on perjury in the

Pan Am 103 civil trial. (Coleman and his supporters naturally claim that all of this is part of a Government conspiracy to silence him.) -- Petri Krohn (talk

) 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The BOP record does not list all of his convictions - it just lists his ID# and his last release date. I think he has the same ID number for all of the instances of supervision under the Bureau of Prisons. AFAIK the BOP number is relevant to both his 1997 perjury conviction and his 2000 check fraud conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Turns out his check fraud is a state charge, so it has nothing to do with his BOP ID. It turns out the feds took in Coleman, saying that he had a parole violation... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also:

"CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home."

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

. April 30, 2000. C5.

Some text inside: "... of the theory's primary author a man by the name of Lester Knox Coleman ... Coleman has since been convicted of federal charges of perjury and state ... "

May need a resource request on that too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like you've worked through the original issue, but just to come full circle, I think that the BOP register is a reliable source for the information it contains, but in an of itself, we can't be sure that the this information 1. applies to this person and 2.relates to a particular charge. I think the gaps need to be filled w/ other reliable sourcing, and it seems that you're on track to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we can be sure that it applies to this person as it's the only Lester Knox Coleman listed, but 2. is a valid point. I'm waiting for a resource request to be completed so I can get additional info. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.
      • "EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite it being posted on the BLP noticeboard, it has not attracted a lot of attention. Anyway there is proposed content at

Off2riorob said: "Basically, its a BLP not a he said she said and they thought POV write up. Keep it simple and keep it clean and clear, less in this case is more, your content belongs on some op ed titillation article not here on wikipedia, the lowering of standards in such a way allows the lowering of standards all across the project and although you are interested in this sort of thing, it should not be allowed on this project."

Off2riorob, the only part that is (for now) a "he said she said" is where Michael Hurley said Coleman worked one job while an attorney said he worked another. Aside from this, I have found no reliable sources or primary sources from Coleman which contradict anything that other people say. The outcome of the court case, the statements of the alias, the Lebanese wife, etc. have not been challenged by other sources.

As for the one thing that is a "he said she said." While WP:BLP prohibits "gossip," I don't see anywhere that states that BLP prohibits describing unclear legal conflicts and personality conflicts. Removing the conflict between Hurley and Coleman removes an essential element of Coleman's subject. We have to go in a he said she said routine and neutrally discuss the court case and its outcomes. See

Wikipedia:BLP#Public_figures

which says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I notified the only other participant in the previous noticeboard thread that there is an RFC now here WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the material is usable, although I would beef it up with some of the other sources dug up lately. One thing puzzles me: If "Coleman was never called as a witness in the Pan Am trial, and he never submitted any affidavits, declarations, or dispositions," how could he be charged with perjury? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'll have to do some more digging and see how the perjury case came up. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found the answer. According to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/09/12/1997-09-12_con_man_admits_flight_103_pe.html , his sworn statements were repeated on international news programs. It also says "His affidavit was used by Pan Am in its defense against a civil suit brought by the families of the bombing victims. " - So it seems like Pan Am ended up using it after all. The article that said he wasn't called was from 1992. The one from 1997 said he was called. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other viewpoints about this matter? If the RFC closes without further discussion, I'll presume that the content is ready to be added. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I still object to the additions you wanted to make, for the same reasons.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want you can try to make a new argument, further clarifying your existing arguments and directly addressing the content that is currently in my subpage, and/or responding to Petri Krohn and others. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW especially since another user has stated his belief that the material is usable, if you want to make your opposition clear, you will have to pick at least one of the three options above. Otherwise it's not further discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• There have been no edits to the page itself since 28 September 2010. However, users are encourage to engage in discussion at the article's talk page, instead of engaging in disruptive editing, and if needed, seek out WP:Dispute resolution processes, instead of back-and-forth edit-warring. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the newest version of the text I find it well sourced and high quality. It should be integrated into the article.

There is still one important BLP violation that must be addressed. The article as well as the proposed text now says that Coleman was sentenced for perjury in 1997. Reliable sources however state that the conviction was overturned by a court of appeal in 1999. Here are the two references:

• Marcello Mega (June 13 1999). "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 8.7.1999. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |archivedate= (help)
• "Lockerbieattentatet avslöjat av agent".
  NEXUS Nya Tider
  (in Swedish). 2 (6). 1999.

The first one is printed in the Scotland section of The Sunday Times. The second one is a reprint of the Times story in the Swedish language edition of Nexus magazine. The issue is complicated by the fact that according to the Times story the court placed reporting restrictions that prevented the US media from covering the story. Although one could question the poor quality archive of the Times article and the reliability of Nexus I think there is every reason to believe that the reporting is correct. In these circumstances we cannot have the conviction claim without the acquittal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the information acquittal reporting as soon as I confirmed that the article was there. I said that it was reported as such, because with no other newspaper articles saying that it was overturned, I'm not certain whether Mega's statements are correct. I also started Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction to get some more detail about how to find more information about this.

At that thread the response was "A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story." - I asked for further help on how to check the validity of Mega's statements.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The validity of Mega's statements is irrelevant. The information was published in The Sunday Times – on of the most reliable of sources – and we do not have other sources to contradict it. The only problem here is that The Times is updating their web site and the archive for the years 1985–2010 has gone off-line. (The scanned archive for 1785–1985 is working.) I would very much like to confirm the existence of the article from the on-line archive, but the fact that it is not usable does not allow us to make a more incriminating claim. (Its only a Javascript glitch, you need to refresh the search page before making a new search. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

As for Mega, we know that he has written for the The Sunday Times, there is even an sundaytimes.co.uk email address published on the web. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I could contact him

While newspapers can be "reliable sources" they are not infallible. If a piece of information is not widely reported, one has to be careful about how it is presented. Without any further research all we can say is that the newspaper reported that this was the case. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction - The user who responded said "It would be totally unacceptable to leave such information out of the article, but on the other hand if it was not widely reported that's suspicious. Without further research we can't do more than alert readers to the problem."

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As the ruling that overturned the perjury conviction was sealed, nobody is supposed to know if it was still in effect. This list posting from May14, 2000 gives some light on the situation: FBI VS KEY LOCKERBIE WITNESS -- NEW DAY IN COURT. The issue facing Coleman was not perjury, but that by talking about Lockerbie while pleading the fraudulent check case in Kentucky earlier in 2000, he had broken a gag order placed by the District Court. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another posting that makes reference to the overruling ANOTHER TURN FOR LES COLEMAN. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Coleman entered a guilty plea. In the USA usually people who plea bargain don't appeal their convictions later. If a conviction gets overturned, one has to have appealed first.

Based on what I have encountered so far, the idea that there was ever an overturning and that there was a sealing of the verdict is in question.

The Lexington Herald article states in the title that his perjury conviction was the issue

"Rumor Mill News" by itself isn't an RS, but I decided to look at it anyway to see if it reveals anything that I could find in reliable sources. It talks about Coleman making some statements in defense of his Pan Am testimony after he was indicted on state charges in Kentucky. Where did he directly make those statements?

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source that repeats the claim of a sealed ruling overturning the conviction:

• Carlton Meyer (February 19, 2007). "The Lockerbie Cover-up (Part II - The Lie Unravels)". Sanders Research Associates. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)

It is not self published by Meyer on his web site, so I would argue that it is reliable per

WP:RS

.

A quote:

This case demonstrates how the major media is easily silenced in the western world. The truth is can be found in fragments of articles from reputable news organizations.

The same seems to apply to anything related to Lester Coleman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

When I clicked the link from Carlton Meyer, it states "No input file specified." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.html says "SRA publications and reports are available only to clients." does this mean that content is not publicly visible? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess accessing the content requires a subscription – if it is still available. In 2007 the subscription seems to have been free. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction has an inquiry from a user about the supposed overturning. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, with no further commentary from new users, I would like to add the information in my draft to the Lester Coleman article. I am confident that it satisfies BLP, that it is not rumor, and that it is not weakly sourced "conspiracy" content. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore Lex Coleman

As this issue is now on the notice board this is the perfect time to make a formal request. The article on Coleman's university and journalism career was located at Lex Coleman and was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman. It has later turned out that the deletion discussion was a sock circus worthy of Sesame Street or the Muppet Awards – with at least three socket masters directing the show. (As for the number of intelligence services, I have no idea.) The content is now at User:Off2riorob/Lex Coleman. It should be moved to Lex Coleman in preparation for a merge and redirected. In fact I already merged the sourced content in March 2009 and it is available in the Lester Coleman version history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman get a DRV? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  No. The sockpuppet is still editing under a new name and I do not think there is any need to make more fuzz about this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just some advice, please. Anonymous IP editor User:131.251.236.218 recently added a large swath of defamatory material to the Steve Rider article (diff). Although they then rapidly removed the material I am concerned that it still remains in the article's history. What would be the best way to handle this? Leave it be? Just a warning? Sysop to delete from the history? Just looking for some input from those with more experience. Thanks! Pyrope 18:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the revisions. Semi-protected the page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Pyrope 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding/re-adding pictures of

Likely not a BLP violation if the the individuals were not actually identified as specific people. Individuals appear to be named (serves me right for not looking at the direct page instead of a diff). Assuredly the names ought be removed unless there is specific sourcing for the ascription of "Maghrebi" to each person. OTOH, I find such use of pictures in infoboxes to be generally useless at best. Collect (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you've noted, the people are all actually identified by name, with links to their Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree and IMHO this is the same as lists and categories (which are mentioned in BLP) and stuff. We should use care in identifying people as X ethnic group and really in a case like this where this isn't any possibility of explaination of the applicability of the term to the specific person we should rely on self identification. At the very least without a source in the Maghrebi Jews article nor any discussion in the article on the person, they can be removed on sight. BTW even without a name in the article, particularly if the person is either fairly famous or easily identifiable from the image page (which they surely would be if they are notable) it would seem a BLP violation even if not as severe. To use an example, putting a picture of a living person in the

paedophile article even without naming the person would be a very serious issue. Nil Einne (talk

) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW I hope my comment isn't taken the wrong way, the only reason I mentioned paedophile is it occured to me as something which should be obvious would be a serious problem. Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't taken the wrong way. However, he continues to re-add them. He has been warned multiple times; should I just block him, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's being overly cautious, but I suggest another admin should do that. I will watch and revert any similar addition if you want to leave it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

David Wu is a U.S. politician. According to this news report, in 1976 Wu's then girlfriend broke up with him; later, Wu was questioned by Stanford campus police after the ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex with him. No action was taken; no formal complaint was laid. Now, the article has a level-3 heading Allegations of Sexual Abuse, followed by text making it sound as if something happened in 2004 (what happened was that a newspaper wrote about the 1976 incident, although that is not apparent in the current article). Am I being overly sensitive, or is this a BLP UNDUE problem? Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the article makes "it sound as if something happened in 2004". The article reads "Three weeks prior to the 2004 elections, The Oregonian published an article reporting that Wu had been accused of sexually assaulting an ex-girlfriend while attending Stanford." In the paragraph prior to this sentence, the article makes it clear that Wu attended "Stanford University in 1977", not 2004. Furthermore, how is the newspaper writing about the incident "not apparent"? The fact that "The Oregonian published an article reporting" the incident is stated very explicitly. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Its

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.The Resident Anthropologist (talk

) 17:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Premakeerthi de Alwis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - See the talk page. The subject was killed in 1989 but one editor wishes to add a possible explanation for the murder, accusing a living person. Please comment on the sourcing and whether this should be included. Also, if inappropriate, should the intended text be kept on the talk page? // Bigger digger (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This was previously listed, but didn't quite make sense (moved by Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) ):

Dear friend, this issue is actual and few of persons who want to avoid this issue. The user User:Ramya20 only contribute to Wikipedia delete this issue . I have a doubt on this user sock puppet of Hudson samarasinhe . This issue is promoting by Wife of premakeerthi who Nirmala De alwis on her book ‘’Premakeethini’’ which publish on 2010. Author is User:Bigger digger is mention that this book cannot find out in Google searching . It is correct because it takes few more month on appear ISBN web sites . But no one can refuse this issue. There is already published on a blog translation [1] Wikipedia we have a possibility to translate context of articles. I request to assist solve this problem to administrator in Wikipedia .--Wipeouting (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what? You want to accuse a living person of involvement in murder from a blog? Okay looking more closely the source is some book? I think we can accept the book exists, the blog is unneeded. This is somewhat irrelevant though since if no info from a

reliable secondary source (whether in Sinhala, Tamil, English or whatever) can be found which even mentions the book, it's questionable if it's an acceptable source particularly to accuse a living person of murder, even if the info is coming from the wife of the person killed. Even worse if it's self published. Nil Einne (talk

) 11:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of different editors are making the exact same edits to Kevin J. Tracey, removing sourced edits, removing formatting, and replacing it with unsourced claims. I've reverted several times now and issued a couple of BLP warnings, so the original editor stopped editing and another editor, not a new account, came in to make the same edits. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Recurrent political candidate in Hamilton, Ontario, and has faced campaign charges. One fellow that I just talked to feels that the paragraph reading "On July 10, 2006 Di Ianni, along with two other unsuccessful candidates..." is too weak and weasel-worded. He suggested Di Ianni's team may have whitewashed it. If someone uninvolved can take a look, and see if the wording seems purposely weak. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the head of security at the du Pont estate, whoever that was at the time of Schultz's murder, gets pov treatment in the current Wikipedia version. I don't know if he is still living. Thanks for yoour attention. Rich (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have had a bit of a look and he only gets a couple of mentions and is not named. Could you be a bit more specific .. do you mean the comment that the security agent did nothing and could have saved him? that is from here .. http://www.mainlinetoday.com/Main-Line-Today/February-2007/In-Memory-of-a-Murder/

• • Right, that's what I was mainly worried about(see below). I should have checked and seen it was verified. But the language seems kind of partisan, even so.-Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the mainlinetoday article Then there’s the involvement of Patrick Goodale, an ex-Marine, du Pont security consultant and prosecution eyewitness, who stood armed beside du Pont as he fired three shots. The defense said he fueled du Pont’s paranoia. (Now living in Virginia, Goodale declined comment.) Former estate employee Charles King Sr. still blames Goodale.

The article was mostly expanded by a single purpose account with some claim of contact to the subject as his first edit summary was Dr. John duPont requested that I change his place of birth and the accounts name was behalfJohndupont.. the article could use a copy edit and a look at the quality and formatting the references but I didn't see any major issue, if you could provide a little more detail of your issues with the content, thanks.

Newtown Township supervisor John S. Custer Jr. said, “at the time of the murder, John didn’t know what he was doing.”[6] Charles King, Sr., a duPont stable hand and manager for 30 years, claimed he knew duPont well throughout his life. King's son Charles “Chuckie” King Jr. said he considered duPont his friend during his childhood. Charles King Sr. still blames the duPont security consultant, for influencing what happened. He even had a chance to save Dave's life as he sat in the passenger seat of duPont's car while duPont fired 3 bullets into Dave's arm, chest, and back using hollow point bullets. King said “I don’t think John could shoot someone unless he was pushed to or was on drugs”. “After that guy starting hanging around him, my son always said Johnny changed.” Thanks, Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit the opinions of involved people and accusatory, although at least it is well attributed, if you have a little knowledge about the issue, why not trim the accusatory stuff out of it.

No, I don't know much at all about it.24.7.28.186 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We have several articles on individuals named Russell Williams; the Russell Williams who was a Colonel in the Canadian Air Force has today pleaded guilty to all charges (murders, kidnappings, sexual assaults, etc). The court hearing isn't finished yet - they're going through a... "finding of fact", I guess it might be called? And then there'll be the victim-impact statements and the sentencing... anyway, it'll be safer to leave the category tags for "Canadian sex offenders" and "Canadian serial killers" off until he's actually sentenced.

But what I'm also concerned about is the article name. At the time he was arrested, and at the time he committed these crimes, he was a Colonel in the RCAF, and thus the article was named

But should we have Russell Williams (murderer)? Russell Williams (killer)? DS (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Former Col RFAF, Convicted of....) ??? Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation is to help the reader tell apart. Thus it should be the most pertinent label that people might use. If I speak of Russell Williams and you say "which one?", and I say "Oh, the one that ...xyz", then the xyz is what we should use (unless it breaches BLP). Having said that, we should err on the side of not using negative differentials unless it indisputable that the negative is the pertinent fact. We should also keep them as short as possible - so no, not "former colonel"

In this case, there's nothing wrong with using "colonel", even if he isn't technically. If that designation is going to help the reader use it - we don't have to respect USAF technicalities in a title (the article will inform the reader as to that). However, I can see the argument for moving the title on the grounds that he's better know for his crimes than his rank.--Scott Mac 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

USAF? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was moved at 15:23 earlier today, to

David Russell Williams. –xeno^talk

20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And although the page now no longer needs disambiguation, here is some links for review: articles (not including redirects) with (criminal), (murderer), (serial killer), as disambiguation [only

one has (killer)] –xeno^talk

20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the thing is, no one calls him that. We should go with the most commonly used name, yes? "Al Capone" instead of "Alfonse", for instance? DS (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that a title without a (disambiguation) is preferred when possible, but there doesn't appear to be much relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding an article title. –xeno^talk 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From

Wikipedia:NCP#Disambiguating: "If disambiguation can be achieved more naturally by using different name forms (as described previously on this page), then this is done. See, for example, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. However, if no other disambiguation technique comes naturally, then tags in parentheses are the usual technique.". Seems to support the David Russell Williams, no? –xeno^talk

20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that with Xeno's move is the best option overall. IMHO much better to use his accurate full name, even if not the most common way he's adressed, then to trip all overselves trying to agree on a flawed paranthetical. (And I say flawed because every choice I've heard has a pro-con. So whichever we chose is flawed in it's own way.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: Is "convicted criminal" or similar tag an appropriate category to add (once proven and convicted of course, verifiable etc. ? I noted for example Al Capone has some similar category tags. Bluebadger1 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Al Capone isn't a BLP AFAIK :-P But more to the point, the categories are fine if properly sourced particularly when a big part of the notability comes from the criminal acts although care should be taken to use the right cats (was an issue at Roman Polanski). (The bigger problems are how to handle people who are widely believe to have committed a crime, but never convicted perhaps because they die beforehand, clearly we can't call them convicted but can we call them other things?)Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. 1) The current title isn't appropriate, as it is not in wide use & would not identify him to an inquiring reader. None of the three largest Canadian media outlets (CBC, the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star) have ever referred to him as "David Russell Williams." A searcher would not know who that is. It doesn't effectively disambiguate anything. This isn't a case like Mark David Chapman; he is never referred to in the press by his full name. When the press refers to him, it is usually as "Col. Russell Williams," but since he is no longer a Colonel (as of his conviction), that isn't an appropriate article title. 2) "(Murderer)" is the appropriate tag. Williams's notoriety stems entirely from his crimes, and that is how the article should distinguish him from others with his name. He has confessed, pleaded guilty, and been convicted. The current proceedings are a sentencing; his guilt has been stipulated by the defence, and all the facts being read into the record have been agreed to by both sides. I don't see any flaws in "Russell Williams (murderer)." I'd like to rename the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.199.205 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Star did use the full name [2].

WP:RM at the talk page of the article. –xeno^talk

13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a case could probably also be made to consider the subject the primary topic. –xeno^talk 13:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Xeno. Searching for "David Russell Williams" in the Globe archive gets one hit, out of 28,900 uses of "Russell Williams". On the CBC, the full name also gets one hit out of 590 uses. In the Star, it's 4 out of 33. Importantly, none of the hits for the full name (in any of the 3 sources) are from headlines, where usage coalesces around one name by which all sources refer to him. Looking at the Google Trends for his name in the last month, there are virtually no hits for "David Russell Williams" and oodles for "Russell Williams". (Since Trends tells me these are overwhelmingly Canadian searches, I don't think the "Russell Williams" searchers in the last month were looking for someone else with the same name.) I'd also note that nearly all the uses of his full name are in biographies, listing his full birth name & place of birth-- rather than in natural reference in a piece about the crimes. I'm a new user and I'm not sure how to request a move, but I'll try!193.157.199.205 (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just took a look at the pageview stats and the subject is far-and-away the primary topic by several orders of magnitude, so I've turned it into the

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –xeno^talk

13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've pruned a lot of stuff sourced primarily to comments on this guys blog. [3] It's not so bad no but perhaps another eye or two would help. The subject of the article has previously tagged it for notability reasons but it looks like the person or the blog at least is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder whether he is notable at all. His blog is notable as the recipient of various awards, but how does that make him notable? Wouldn't there be a better article about the blog, with a paragraph about him. Most of the information about him is sourced to his own blog anyway and the reliable sources take note of the blog, not him. Bigger digger (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, I original thought he's probably notable because of the blog but then reconsidered actually it may just be the blog that is notable hence the clarification above. However this would suggest an AFD isn't necessary but a move discussion followed by an appropriate re-focusing of the article after the move if it's carried out. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This is being hashed out on the article talk page, no need to fork it here now.--Scott Mac 10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have gone over 3RR in removing the claim that the Leader of the UK Opposition is Jewish, based on two Jewish news sources. I believe that my action is justified in terms of enforcing BLP as I believe a sensitive claim like this needs mainstream sources (which don't seem to exist). I won't continue to revert this for today, but thought I'd bring it here for other opinions instead. --John (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear -- once again we see the idea that "Jewish news sources" are not sufficiently mainstream... One of them is Haaretz. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish chronicle and Harrez, say he is jewish, well they would wouldn't they. That is their game so to speak. Actually Ed Miliband is so far away from Jewish as your obsessive desire to label his as the Jewish prime minister is clearly with BLP issues. He was brought up in a secular house by Marxist non believing parents and Ed Miliband has also said he does not believe in god and he was born in Britain , is British, he speaks only English . to claim simply, he is a Jew is totally undue, even if the Jewish chronicle says it. The only thing jewish about him is some of the blood in history in his veins, if that is Jewish then you can kiss jewish goodbye.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, if he was brought up in a secular house by Marxist father and his mother is a member of a pro-Palestinian organization then many highly accomplished journalists at Haaretz are probably loving him. Jokes aside, Bus stop adding religion = Jewish in the infobox without a source is totally unacceptable and blockable if he keeps it up especially given that it is explicitly contradicted by sources. Haaretz, is certainly a reliable source in general but I guess self declarations/quotes work best in BLPs. I added a cite next to the infobox entry for religion = none from the existing Telegraph interview. Is he Jewish ? Of course. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense." Sean.hoyland - talk 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the religion entry was removed altogether from the infobox. I guess that works too. He is an atheist, that much is crystal clear but I guess it is also clear from his statements that it isn't relevant to his public life. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland -- thank you for that source -- it would seem to me that we have the self-identification issue sorted out (and with a "non-Jewish source", no less -- ugh...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

All that asserts is exactly hat I have been saying, he is not Jewish as regards religion, upbringing or life, all that is Jewish about him is some of the blood that historically flows in his veins. It does not support the blind labeling that you desire to add. That he's the Jewish prime minister' .

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to lay off the "blood" nonsense. You simply have no idea how offensive and disreputable this is. I'll add that I must have misread recent newspaper articles, where to my great regret David Cameron was elected as prime minister... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He is clearly Jewish in some senses, but not in every sense as the term would be understood by most readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait what someone added religion=Jewish to the infobox? Weren't we just discussing whether or not we should put it atheist or leave it blank? Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

John, I provided two UK news sources that verified both his Jewish ethnicity and atheism in the talk page. Could you please review them and then comment there. The reason I haven't added them to the article yet was because of this ongoing discussion, but I did expect them to be at least read.--Topperfalkon (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Topper, you are an atheist and you announce that you are that is fine but please allow the subjects of our articles the same pleasure as you had, self identification is important in BLP articles, Ed Milliband has never ever said he is an Atheist or that he affiliates with that group at all or that he is even interested in Atheism.. If Ed Milliband had said, I am an Atheist and proud of it - You wouldn't need to add it as I would have added it before you.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the links Rob. Reliable sources refer to him as an atheist, with his own self-identification backing that up. Bearing in mind that he is British, which is a Christian country, so therefore like many Britons proclaiming the non-belief in 'God' is equivalent to proclaiming atheism, unless clarified by proclaiming support for an alternative deity (or in his case simply proclaiming he is Jewish and omitting the 'I don't believe in God' statement). This seems to be the analysis performed by aforementioned reliable sources, so we should probably take their word for it!--Topperfalkon (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I said on the other discussion, we have already his quoted comments in the body of the article, and suggested, do you want to add that because he has said that he doesn't believe in God that the press have called him an atheist. Seems a bit un-encyclopedic thing to report if you ask me. You know the media, they all rush to publish and especially all print a single story, the press don't care, they want headlines and sales and titillation, at wikipedia we have the chance and policy in BLP to not have to do that. In BLP articles we like the strongest claims, and self declaration is the best, I don't believe in a God is a long way from affiliating yourself with any group, please I tire of this worthless POV discussion. You are an Atheist and you think that you want to add that other people are also atheists even when they don't actually say so, I personally do not believe in a God either but I would object to being called an Atheist and do not consider myself one either, please take a step back from your personal held beliefs and allow the living subject the same respect.

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if we are to work on the very strict basis that "I don't believe in God" not equal "I am atheist" (a distinction that I, like Topper and the press disagree with) then we can't put "religion = none" in the infobox either because not believing in "God" isn't the same as "religion = none". So, if that is the case, it's probably better for the religion attribute to be absent. Not sure how you provide

WP:V compliance for the absence of an attribute but it probably doesn't matter. I'm an atheist but I'm not affiliating myself with any group. It just means I'm not a member of a set of theists hence the 'a'. Sean.hoyland - talk

19:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its putting words in his mouth that he simply hasn't said. He may well have a set of spiritual beliefs that has no God but some degree of some kind of faith, it is for that exact reason that the religion = none in the infobox is undue. Your self declaration is one of Atheism that is totally clear, but my comment about God is not, it is that opportunity we should give to Miliband. Thanks. It is this point that is unclear that is the problem and I think it is right to be unclear, as article discussions seem a better solution, it is only on these high profile cases where it becomes an issue. I would like to see the label atheist only added with a self declaration as in I am an Atheist there is no way you are going to get wikipedia consensus that says, if someone says they don't believe in God it is correct to add him to all the atheist category and to add atheist to the infobox and refer to him as a atheist.

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that being an atheist is not such a big deal in the UK. It certainly doesn't have a Capital Letter at the front. Over here it just means you don't believe in god. As was pointed out above - it's a-theist. It's not a group in itself. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That really is the simple question, in a BLP is the community consensus to allow people that have said, I don't believe in God to be labeled in the infobox and added to the atheist categories? Our cat atheists says there ..

This category contains Atheists, who have expressed being an atheist, and of whom it is known how they define their atheism.

It doesn't say, anyone who doesn't believe in god can be added here. I don't think there is community consensus for this, it seems split to me, perhaps slightly more editors have commented in opposition than support.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a complicated issue because one can be both Jewish and an atheist. However, there doesn't seem to be any question that Haaretz is in general a reliable source. I'm a bit confused as to why one would think it wouldn't be. It is a major newspaper. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is debating whether it's possible to be Jewish and atheist. People are suggesting someone shouldn't be labelled as religion=Jewish when they say they don't believein god and that they are not Jewish in a religious sense but one user does not agree. Nil Einne (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I may be the editor who supposedly raised the issue of the "reliability" of Haaretz. But I didn't do that. I made the point that the newspaper uses the word "Jewish" in a way which would have a clear meaning to most of its own readership, but which would not necessarily convey the same meaning to a wider non-Jewish audience. That is, its use of the word "Jewish" may convey, to many WP readers, implications as to a person's own religious beliefs, which the newspaper itself did not mean to convey - and, on that basis, WP should strive to clarify the meaning of the word in context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this article? The Criticism section takes up over half the article, and even though there are sources for the allegations, the entire article seems unduly "slanted." Another editor attached

stop with the police shoot outs language. it never happened. this from flea's mother. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.144.192 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This is a front-page story in the New York Times and a lead story in US broadcast news media. It's hardly unreasonable to see it as noteworthy. We should be careful, however, to exclude references to the police/FBI response, since that can be read as carrying connotations beyond its very limited purpose of authenticating the caller's identity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP added back more

WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, see [6]. An entire subsection for one phone call? That is too much. -- Cirt (talk

) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous that you bring this here before you even questioned it on the talk page. I believe it should be included. I started a thread on the talk page yesterday about it because I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed, but I think the section is appropriate as it is. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a

WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issue, and is most certainly appropriate to be reported here. The info should not have its own independent subsection, I moved it into a subsection, Personal life - where it still takes up way too much space on the page [7]. I then trimmed out the blockquotes and excessive quoting [8] - the same can be done by paraphrasing and explaining what occurred. -- Cirt (talk

) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Such issues can happily be reported here. The addition is pure titilation and coatracking, and is actually still undue, it is not even the type of NPOV thing we should be reporting in our Biographies of living people, its trashy partisan twaddle. So she called a woman that appears to have accused her husband (without conviction), fair play to her but it is not biographically noteworthy in her life, even if the New york times and the Washington post has both released it. I think its coatracking and should all be removed. The first few words are about her and then off it goes on its coatracking, tedious democratic partisan addition, with nothing more in mind that repeating the quite worthless allegations against her husband.

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See this diff. User:NoteMyVote claims to be the subject of the article and has blanked the page and replaced it with his own comments about the accuracy of the content, including a possible legal threat (claiming that the content is 'potentially libelous'). Would appreciate some help resolving this, as I am unsure of the best course of action. Thanks. --Korruski^Talk 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it. Whatever is going on here, well done for not immediately reverting! You are not a

WP:DOLT.--Scott Mac

10:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article minus the material that the user seems to dispute, and left a note asking him to alert us to issues on the talk page. I suggest we need some sensitive people to review and improve this article. Please watchlist. Am copying this thread to the

WP:BLPNB--Scott Mac

10:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

She is not a notable figure neither does she have source and link available to verify of her being notable figure to be published on Wikipedia. Her page states that she is a fashion designer. There is no link or verifiable source available to establish the fact. Her page states that she worked for 2 Tv shows mentioned in Filmography, Television serials section. Both the links do not show any details even the pages have not been completed, hence no creditability can not be established, moreover working/acting in 2 shows do not make one notable for Wikipedia.

As per my information she is a very small scale model privately operated and her works to date do not qualify her of being notable enough to be on the Wikipedia profile. I believe there has to be a proven track record in any field to establish some one regarded for his or her work for such public profiling. Please take a look and I suggest this page should be removed.

--Paluploader (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Article has been
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Poorly sourced and written article. No dates, reliable source/links or proofs of her works and accomplishments provided establish credibility and notability.

In the personal life section statements like "she is really pretty" gives an impression that the article has been written by a fan only to praise the individual which should be avoided.

Association with very big brands like Dior and Gucci are mentioned in her profile career to which there is no verifiable source is provided. Any one can have claims unless verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paluploader (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look as I think this person does not qualify for Wikipedia profile, unless a credibility and notability can be established.

--Paluploader (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - After reverting an addition of a name of a living person to this article based on doubtful reasoning and subsequently the name being re-added, I am concerned about the basis of the whole article. There is an assumption that someone who is alleged to have had sex with a "novice" or "student" or "disciple" (without unambiguous definitions of these terms) is fair game to be listed in this article as a "sex abuse case". Some of the names listed have had no legal proceedings taken against them, others have been reported as having reached out of court settlements without the case being proven. There are obvious issues with the name of the article, the selection criteria for names being added and confusion about how well such cases need to be sourced. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

G10'ed; thanks for bringing this here. Problems with this article are not limited to the inclusion of names--it is inherently POV to presume that Wikipedia editors can decide what is or is not an abusive relationship. In the case of analogues (e.g., Roman Catholic priest abuse) there have been clear criminal and civil cases. Skimming through the article, I saw nothing of the sort. If there's going to be an article on this topic, let us start again carefully. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello both of you, I was also involved there, and if you could restore the talk page, you'd see that I had suggested to changed the POV of the page entirely. (I did not create the page). The POV should be neutral, for example, limit itself to relaying information that these are budhdist masters who think that it is ok to sleep with their students. The reader can then decide if that is ok or not. ALL INFORMATION CITED should be referable to published books on major pushishing houses (which my info was). What do you think, would it be ok then, to simply report that these teachers have sexual conduct with their students, and admit to it, not calling it abuse or anything of the sort? 82.143.250.221 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If some reliable secondary source has written about the topic then WP could have an article on it. Just collecting information about people who are Buddhist, religious teachers, involved in a sexual relationship, and the other person in the relationship is one of their students would be considered original research. Wolfview (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The Nydahl, Eido Roshi, Brad Warner and Dainin Kataghiri cases were all sourced with major newspaper colums or published books. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said I did not start the Page, but I think the information is worthwhile. I propose an article called: Buddhist Teacher/Student Romances or something along those lines. Then go into these sections:

- What did Buddha say? - What is the tradition within the particular orders (Zen/Tibetan/Etc.) - Document what different teachers say about it. - (For example, Ole Nydahl acknowledged that he sleeps with students but adds that its ok.) - This way the article will be purely neutral and documentary. It should aim to document the controversies and let readers decide for themselves. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you might have the makings of a sourced article on Buddhist teachers who violate the religion's own teachings on sex. That's hardly sex abuse, and the funny thing about religions is that people are essentially allowed to make up the rules as they go--if they differ too much from another sect, no big deal, they'll just be catalogued as a different sub-sect. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Is there any possibility of you emailing me the content of the now deleted page at coreheim |a| gmail.com and creating such an article for me? I'll re-write it in the manner stated, and you can see if approve of it or not. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

as I said, I was not the original author of the article, that was user:ripoche. I would not use the word abuse in an article such as this. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP (

original research to the Brad Warner article in spite of continued warnings not to do so. The editor has failed to provide any reliable secondary sources to indicate the notability of specific content in the author's book. Uncle Dick (talk

) 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk page (and the article until I protected it) have been being used to discuss a property owner and his actions towards his property. RL means I can't keep as close an eye on this as I'd like for a few days, so if anyone could add this to their watch list temporarily I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Added. -

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm off and on this week.

talk

) 18:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Florencia Daud

Resolved

 – semi protected

Florencia Daud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - two ip addressess have added this [9] statement to the article three times. The source given is a forum that I do not feel is a reliable source, especially not for the statement being added. I've already reverted the edit twice and left an explanation on the talk page so I left the statement alone and came here for a third opinion. (I haven't had any experience dealing with BLP issues before.) I would appreciate it if some one could check out the source and my comment on the talk page and see if they also feel that this violates the BLP policy. --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 23:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was added again, the forum cite is not

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Semi protected by Administrator:Courcelles

I was going to ask Courcelles about this but I saw that he had a note on his talk page saying he was busy so I thought I'd ask here. I saw he went through and deleted the edits from the history, but I copied the information the talk page when I was explaining why I removed it. Should that be deleted as well or is it ok since it's on a talk page? --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 02:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sent to AfD -- I find no sources that support any claim to notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

George Smitherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate any review of the actions I've taken with this article and 129.100.104.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 129.100.104.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Smitherman is one of the main candidates in the election for mayor of Toronto taking place this month, and some users appear to be intent on adding a separate section about a "scandal" which is already covered, reasonably and per WP:NPOV policy in my view, in the section on "Provincial politics". Thanks in advance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say your correct to remove it, when I read the cites it is all claims and that while he was in charge someone else did this. Its not really about Silverman and was added in a POV way to attack him during the election. If the same user comes back I would semi protect until after the election. Wikipedia is not a political tool for partisan additions, special care is needed during elections to protect living people from partisan political additions and attacks.

Off2riorob (talk

) 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I had already semi-protected it, to last until after the election, as there had already been repeated re-insertions of the material. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

An IP seems to have launched a campaign against this author, and I'm particularly concerned about potentially libellous material sourced to blogs that he's added twice to this article, eg [10]. I see the IP is justifying this at

I wanted to give the IP a warning, but the only template is for "Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons" - what about badly sourced?

talk

) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

IP is at 3RR now. I note that in November 2009 there were obvious meat or sock puppets editing the article's talk page pushing the petition that this IP is using as a source. The IP is pretty clearly not a new editor.

talk

) 10:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that you have received and edit warring warning yourself on the topic... 75.82.13.51 (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what is happening, Doug, and I don't appreciate you making false accusations. I made appropriate justification on Lendering's discussion page. Those undoing my edits, on the other hand, have not. There is no "campaign" and there are enough sources that support the idea that Lendering has had accusations of racism made against him (which he himself admits and is used as a source!!!!) More than one source has been utilized. Please read the discussion board and edits more carefully before you move further. 75.82.13.51 (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

this is just anonymous trolling. Semiprotect the article if necessary. --

I am seeing increasing numbers of OTRS requests regarding maintenance tags on articles (most recent: Quin Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but many more examples).

I think we need to have a debate about maintenance tags, BLPs, timeliness of fixes, and perhaps consider some kind of workflow or process to identify long-standing maintenance tags, review them and potentially remove or stubify articles with issues rather than leaving them there forever with warnings of "peacock terms" and the like. It's undoubtedly true that such articles violate our policies, but there is a tension betwene the aim of identifying and fixing bad articles with the aim of respect to article subjects as enshrined in

I'm a fan of the method of starting from scratch BLPs with poor sourcing. In the case of Snyder, where most of the facts are uncontroversial, rather than slash-and-burn, we should move the content to a non-indexed sandbox, and re-introducing policy-conforming content gradually. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I assume the issue here is related to tags for issues like POV and sourcing, not other maintenance tags such as Template:Orphan or Template:Copy edit. Since there are a number of maintenance categories and they can rack up a lot of articles, I think we would need to be clear on what tags/categories are the problem, and not accidentally set unnecessary standards for fixing problems that aren't related to the BLP policy. On the other hand, if subjects are writing OTRS to complain about poor grammar in the articles about them, I'd want to hear about that. --RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(The problem isn't stated clearly: Are editors concerned about long-standing tags on BLPs, BLP-related tags, something else?)

talk

) 14:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Although these tags are good if they inspire someone to improve an article, I can see how a reader might think they were an attack on the subject of the article. As if saying the article is bad is saying the person is also bad. Maybe they should be left on for a month and then taken off. That should give people a chance to improve the article if they are so inclined. Wolfview (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts. At least one tag does sound very much like an attack on the subject of the article: COI. I think this tag should almost never be placed directly on an article, although it can be quite useful on the talk page. Also, maintenance tags on BLPs should always include a dated category so that interested BLP editors can look for the oldest ones. And my final quick thought is that there is an empirical question here which could, in theory, be tested with a randomized trial: do these tags actually cause improvement to articles? I personally doubt it and would rather us pursue other methods which might be more effective. One of the best might be to increase the visibility for all editors (through a number of methods) of older dated maintenance tags. There are plenty of good people who enjoy (as I do) working on random BLPs that have problems - let's make it easier for people to be invited to do that, and to sort their work effectively. I'm very interested in the public policy article rating experiment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

COI tags are definitely problematic, as discussed on

WP:COIN

discussion that includes concerns of problematic editing to the article, and where there's a need for article cleanup after it's been established that coi-violating editing was done to such an article.

BLP tags (like {{

blpdispute

}}) shouldn't remain on an article for any length of time.

What are other tags that tend to be problems? {{

talk

) 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to turn up a link right now, but I recall reading recently an article that pointed out that Wikipedia may be more trustworthy than traditional encyclopedias precisely because of our maintenance tags. We're relatively honest about the flaws in our articles. If we begin second-guessing ourselves about putting the maintenance tags on an article—not because the article doesn't merit being noted for a given flaw, but out of concern that someone, somewhere will misinterpret the tag as being a personal attack upon the subject of the article—I think we would damage our own collective credibility. We would no longer be assessing articles on their own merits, but based on our own guess as to the perceptions of some mythical reader who cannot assume good faith. I agree that COI should be used with caution, but where an article clearly has broad swaths written by someone with an obvious COI and the text has yet to be vetted, COI is an important warning to the reader: "This content may be self-serving bullshit. Read with a grain of salt." It would be bad if the population at large thought that we were self-censoring maintenance tags because we were afraid the tags make Wikipedia look bad; wouldn't that be a worse unintended consequence? Tag the articles! Fix the problem so the tag can be removed, as soon as possible, absolutely! But please, let's not make policy that we should instead sweep things under the rug. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The COI tag should not be used unless there's actual evidence that the subject has edited the article in ways that violate our content policies. However, such edits should always reverted anyway, regardless of who the editor is. So, I don't really see a reason why we need the tag on the article itself but as Jimbo says it might be useful on the talk page if there's actual evidence of any wrongdoing. I don't see how that sweeps anything under the rug.

Vyvyan Basterd (talk

) 05:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A query -- might it be reasonable to establish two major categories of tags for BLPs - one being "not visible to the outside reader" tags which refer primarily to mechanics of WP (lacking references, COI, peacock etc.) and one being decidedly visible to outside readers, and more emphasized in appearance than currently, for "debateably politically or religiously biassed in nature", "containing excessive negative (or positive) opinions on a subject" , "containing rumors which should be taken with caution" etc. Collect (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I found Guy's note about Quin Snyder at the basketball project talk page. Unfortunately, there are some additional issues in the article, namely, copyvio. Chunks of the article appear to be copied from here. Eg: "Following a year with the Duke University Management Company, Snyder entered the Duke Law School, which he attended for a year before enrolling in Duke's Fuqua School of Business as well. It was during this year in which he played for the Raleigh Bullfrogs of the Global Basketball Association."

Copyvio is a much more serious issue than, say, peacock terms. How should we move forward with the Snyder page without upsetting the family members even more? Zagalejo^^^ 19:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's got to be removed, it's not even just one sentence (I used Earwig). Although no one wants to upset anyone unnecessarily I hope, unless someone is going to volunteer to remove the copyvio and replace the text, then we just remove the copyvio.

talk

) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What is Earwig? I tried to get rid of some of the problematic content, but I'm not sure if I got it all. Zagalejo^^^ 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can suggest a slightly odd way of dealing with this problem (which might be extensible to maintenance tags more generally). rather than relying on fully random volunteers, set up a page where people can sign up to be what I will call 'bot-driven' volunteers, and then have a bot randomly assign them four cleanup problems every week - the bot can just leave a note with links on each editor's talk page. This way everyone gets a clear and manageable todo list, no one feels overwhelmed, and the list gets worked through slowly and efficiently. plus it scales up well - bot overhead should be low, regardless of the size of the volunteer pool.

The idea needs development (e.g., the bot should check to see if an editor is getting backlogged and stop giving them assignments until they catch up, editors should have a way to opt-out temporarily due to real life issues, probably want to prioritize issues, etc.) but it's all certainly doable. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We used to have the WolterBot cleanup listings that generated a very extensive list of tags by wikiproject. It died in March this year when Mr Wolter went away, but I'm very dismayed that no one has been able to revive it. It at least gave those who wanted to cleanup their project a good list. We now have User:DASHBot generating lists each day of unreferenced BLPs... I'd assume that it could fairly easily create lists of other maintenance tags too. Pick a tag or two, ask Tim and see what you get. But as the UBLP removal has been slow going... I doubt you'd get much traction on any cleanup task. Most people just don't seem to care. The-Pope (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

well, that was my point about talk-page assignments. I know from my own experience that I find cleanup categories overwhelming - I look at one of them and the last thing I want to do is start trying to tackle it. the effort seems unrewarding. but if someone posted me a handful a week, I'd do them and feel good about it. let me go over and look at the bots you linked; maybe I can adapt them. --Ludwigs2 20:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the use of a dead link to reliable source constitute libel? The edit in question is at

I don't see how it's libel. If the reference isn't being disputed itself, if the only problem is the that the article is moved or no longer online, then the link should simply be removed from the inline citation. --

talk

) 20:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we are left with an uncited statement that compares an individual to

Osama Bin Laden LiteralKa (talk

) 21:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is cited — the citation in question was from The Nation newspaper (or something like that) — however the link to that source is dead. Supertouch (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It is cited, and the reference itself isn't being disputed for any reason I'm aware, other than the article is now either moved or no longer online. --

talk

) 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"if the only problem is the that the article is moved or no longer online, then the link should simply be removed from the inline citation." LiteralKa (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if a copy is found online then the citation should include that link.

Am I missing something? The citation links to a copy of the article, correct? All that happened is that the outdated link was replaced.

Where's the comparison to Osama Bin Laden? --

talk

) 21:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This was not the case when I reverted it. LiteralKa (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"

WP:BLP, "he has been described as the "bin Laden of the internet." LiteralKa (talk

) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note the article was originally accessed the day it appeared. After a while these types of articles are moved to the archive section of online papers. Thankfully this is one of those that has a free search engine which produces the archive url which it looks like somebody already did.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. So is this resolved then? I don't see anything in dispute. --

talk

) 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I simply had an issue with someone being compared to the most wanted man in America, if this was an accurate comparison, it surely could be found elsewhere. LiteralKa (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up to discuss to discuss the issue of citing a dead link in general, as a guideline, even if if the example I mentioned had already been resolved. Supertouch (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing requires an online source, not even a BLP. We simply have to provide enough information that an interested editor with an unlimited budget of money and time could obtain and verify that it says what it says. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

True but if USAToday is any example the electronic and paper may not have the same title so every other piece of information (author, date, news paper) known should be recorded so if the electronic version does go bye bye the hard copy can be found (if possible I included the hard page references in USAToday references I come across).--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Full reference information very important to BLPs. --

talk

) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The following quote from the article on Nova Scotian politician Diana Whalen is unfair and from an illegitimate source. It is a blogger's personal opinion and should not be included in the politician's biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillemader (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Blog referenced material removed.--Scott Mac 17:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Juan Williams article is experiencing two different issues that require the guidance of this noticeboard. The first is the recentism associated with the firing of Williams from NPR and his employment with Fox News. The second is a bit more problematic, namely, the allegations of verbal misconduct from two decades ago. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors are cautioned not to poke the editors involved here, lest they find themselves subject to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sanctions. Let's have a calm civil discussion of this as an ordinary BLP matter. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Murder of Aristotelis Goumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Death of Aristotelis Goumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Killing of Aristotelis Goumas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• You have not notified Athenean about this request, as you are required to do (see this page's edit notice). Please do so at once.  Sandstein  18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I notified him [13] --Kushtrim123 (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard exists for this, you know. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm not convinced this is an issue of misconduct that immediately calls for admin intervention/sanctions. There is a BLP-related content issue, which should be hacked out in the relevant venues. That said, I'm far from happy about seeing the usual ethnic factions lining up to instrumentalize this case for their on-wiki agendas (this goes for both the authors of the article and its detractors), but now the article is here we'll probably have to live with it. Small content suggestion: would "killing of" be acceptable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I've IAR deleted the article; any other admin is welcome to restore it. Looks sufficiently problematic to me. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I agree with the deletion, since it had the problem of the title(Death vs. Murder and all the assumptions and conclusions that derive from those) Kushtrim123 noted and mainly the fact that it fails
  WP:INDEPTH, traffic collissions happen every day and those which have many victims are definitely reported more by the media than this one, but we can't write articles on every such event. It's just an event like all other events that the media cover and then it is completely forgotten. Regarding reverse situations there are many more confirmed even reported by the Helsinki Com.[14], but I think Albanian editors don't write similar articles mainly because they understand that such articles Death/Murder/Killing of X (of Y ethnicity) serve only the aggravation of ethnic tensions and aren't encyclopedic but just create new ethnic battlegrounds.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk
  19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't wholesale deletion rather drastic? I am perfectly willing to make any edits necessary to alleviate the BLP problems. I don't have too much experience with BLP issues, but I am all ears. I should note though, that every statement in there is sourced verbatim from reliable sources. It's not like I made anything up or changed the wording. The event itself is notable: It was covered by all major news outlets in Greece when it happened. If it supposedly fails WP:EFFECT and WP:INDEPTH, that should be addressed via an AfD, not like this.
  talk
  ) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• @Zjarri: isn't this a violation of your interaction ban with Athenean? could you be kind enough and remove your comments? Agree with Fut. in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No poking, please. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Thanks Uncle G and no my comment isn't a violation of any kind. Interactions bans are about reverts, comments on talkpages and userpages and comments about users not comments about articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Before discussion proceeds further, I'd just like to remind both of the above editors to tread very lightly here. AN/I discussions are prone to becoming either heated or trailing off into two-parties. BLP/N really was the better place for this, not least because it has a lengthier period before automatic archival, allowing for more measured discussion. (It also has, of course, the attention of people who focus upon BLP issues.) Don't let the nature of discussion here set off the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia alarms. In fact, if everyone agrees, I'm happy to move this over to BLP/N, where everyone can talk about "death of X" versus "killing of X" versus "murder of X" — a subject that BLP regulars have dealt with on occasion before — as well as the finer points of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy with respect to such events. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Uncle G's proposal is fine by me.
  talk
  ) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. We're now here at BLP/N. For those unable to see the deleted edits, the initial dispute here, that occurred both with the content of the article and the title of the article, was the appropriate terminology and title to use for such an article. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote the article, I just followed what the sources said. It did not occur to me that there might be BLP issues, as I do not have a whole lot of experience with BLP and current events-related articles. I am however, perfectly willing to follow all and any advice and concerns from the community. The way I see it, this event is notable, as it received coverage by all the major media in Greece, and even some outside (e.g. Balkan Chronicle). If there are notability concerns, those can be discussed at an AfD, but wholesale deletion seems a bit drastic at this point.

• The issue is one of the connotations of the word "murder". This is a regular, and to some extent quite ordinary (inasmuch as it can be ordinary at all), BLP issue. To call something murder is to imply murderers, which of course living people are not until they have been convicted of that crime. But, in tension opposing this, is of course the fact that something can be declared a murder and investigated as such — i.e. it's definitely a murder by someone but no-one has been convicted of it, yet. We have the much same issue with "X crime family" articles and "Y Z (criminal)" disambiguators. It's not in the spirit of the BLP policy to portray people as guilty of a crime when they haven't (yet) been convicted. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I see. Now that the situation has been properly explained to me (i.e. not brusquely moving the article without explanation), I have no objections to "Death of Aristotelis Goumas".
    talk
    ) 20:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Just because there is coverage in the news does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia
  WP:NOTNEWS. Active Banana (^bananaphone
  20:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm skeptical about the notability too, NOTNEWS-wise. It's a very recent case and may remain just sad news of the day. I also agree with Uncle G that "murder" is too specific in the absence of an actual conviction of that specific crime. If we need to have the article, "killing of" would work for me (apparently all sources agree it was a violent act rather than, say, an accident.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)Regarding notability, wouldn't the appropriate venue be an AfD? I think Black Kite's deletion was a bit hasty, particularly considering his rationale ("probably a sock of a banned user"). Personally, I think it will have a lasting impact and will continue to be mentioned in relation to the Greek minority in Albania, particularly if a guilty verdict comes in.
    talk
    ) 21:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • My initial thinking on this is that once we have agreement on the title, we can, with Black Kite's agreement, undelete the article, move it to the agreed-upon title without a redirect, and then have a regular AFD discussion, looking at the degree and type of sourcing. But let's nail down the title, first. You're now happy with "death of". Future Perfect at Sunrise likes "killing of". Presumably ZjarriRrethues likes "death of", too, since it's the title that xe chose. ☺ I suggest that the two of you work on convincing Future Perfect at Sunrise (or xe work on convincing the two of you ☺). Uncle G (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No objection against "death of" from me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's see what Black Kite and Timotheus Canens have to say about undeleting this and sending it through AFD. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • There's also Aigest, who was probably the first one to start a discussion about the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • As long as it is calm and civil, I think an AfD would be a good idea to sort out the NOTNEWS issue. It is my view that ZjarriRrethues' interaction ban, however, prevents him from participating in any AfD on this article. T. Canens (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
          • If there is an AfD I think that no Balkans users should take part because numerous similar AfDs became voting matches, where users who hadn't edited in a long time showed up to support their co-ethnics or people who never even participate in such discussions joined the discussions just to oppose users of ethnicities they dislike and honestly this is exactly what this AfD will be if it is ever started. Although I don't think that my interaction is related to the AfD I won't take part in it since TC thinks it is related.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• (unindent)Uncle G. thanks for notifying me about the move of the discussion and you'll have my full input by tomorrow. Btw although in Greek sources he is mentioned as Aristotelis Goumas, his citizenship was Albanian so his name was Aristotel Guma. Of course that is correct if he was an Albanian citizen, but if he had Greek citizenship his Greek name should be used and technically that means he wasn't member of the minority, but that's not the most important issue. Unfortunately the vast majority of the few sources available are articles published in those 2-4 days after the event and mainly repeat each other like all media, so if this gets restored we only have those to use(which is a NOTNEWS case). However, if we set a precedent by restoring this one then we'll have to allow all other similar articles that more or less fail the event notability criteria--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At least one of the sources used is non-Greek, treats him as a member of the minority, uses his Greek name, and was published a month after the event.
    talk
    ) 21:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The specific incident has affected the diplomatic relations between the two countries, also we have some 7k hits in google and articles in us media [[15]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)7k hits on google mean nothing because on wikipedia we don't use google hits to decide whether a subject is notable or not and even if we did so that would be an argument against notability since most events covered by the media can get much more than 7k hits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you don't disagree that it affected, it still affects, diplomatic relations, which is more than enough. Not to mention that it was reported by reliable international media.Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I understand that you want the article to be restored but please don't make or deductions about its inexistent effect on diplomatic relations(diplomatic relations are affected by economic and political interests not such issues).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Well? Can we undelete the article and start the AfD, so we can properly hash out all the notability issues? This discussion appears to have stalled.

I just did an inventory of tagged "Unrefenced BLPs", that use one of a small number of words (relating to sexuality, drugs, criminal acts, infidelity and so forth). I hope this can help to minimise at least the legal risk from unreffed BLPs. The results are below: if this is useful it can be extended,, run reglarly/automatically , whatever. Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

I see about 10-20% which are clearly false positives (e.g. criminal defense attorney), which is not at all bad for a first run at something like this. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a few - seems no one ever looks at the NYT for the names. I would put the false positive rate a bit higher - but this is clearly a good way to handle possible problems. I would have looked for "rumored" and "alleged" as problematic words as well. Collect (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(Using bullets since the points/questions are so disparate.)

• Ok I made a longer "risk words" list and ran it last night to generate an article list - when I've done the report form that I'll add rumour/allege.
• I hoped that the concordance would mean that there is no need to open the false positives.
• I mentioned prison governors in a VP note abut the list...
• The application keeps track of people it has already reported, I would guess not worth reporting them twice?
• Would it be useful to make the word list available to the community to add to?
• How often would a new list be useful?

Rich Farmbrough, 10:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Dylan Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is currently the target of an IP editor who wants it to include the claim that Evans was found guilty of sexual harassment by his employer (University College Cork). One source [16] indicates that he was exonerated; others (see talk page) say that one charge was upheld. Perhaps the latter is true -- if so, what to do in light of the source indicating "exoneration"?

In this connection, a couple of paragraphs from a Times story might be instructive:

"While an investigation cleared Dr Evans of sexual harassment prior to his showing her the bat fellatio paper, it found that this incident amounted to a joke with sexual innuendo, though it accepted he had not intended to offend. Professor Michael Murphy, the UCC president, declared that the complaint of sexual harassment had been upheld, and punished Dr Evans by imposing a two-year period of “monitoring and appraisal” and requiring him to complete special training."

What I read here is that the external panel did not "uphold" one charge -- it uses precise language about its findings, and then the story says that Murphy (VC of UCC) "declared" that one charge had been upheld. In typical journalistic fashion, then, subsequent news articles lose the subtlety and state simply that one charge was upheld. We could get into all the details, but then if we write a lot about it perhaps the whole thing crosses into "undue". At this stage it is only the IP and me -- so, more input, please. Article currently semi-protected while something is worked out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The precise language used by the external investigators in upholding one complaint is quoted at http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/sex-harassment-row-sparks-global-debate-2191288.html (and other sources): "The question for us is whether Dr Evans's action can reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive, humiliating or intimidating to Dr Salerno Kennedy. // We find that the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for Dr Salerno Kennedy to be offended by being presented with it in her office alone. // We therefore find that this action is upheld though it was not Dr Evans's intention to cause offence." Thus it is not President Murphy's interpretation, nor media mis-reporting, but the precise language of the investigating panel. ip 109.78.xx.xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.238.105 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article rewritten from reliable sources--

talk

) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been reverting the listing of a certain

Given that I am now being

personally attacked on both my talk page and on the article talk page, could someone kindly step in to help? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the unsourced, blog and facebook sourced, and likely copyvio material has all been restored by another editor. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the editor causing the problems is controlling himself better.

Still, the article needs to be rewritten per BLP. --

talk

) 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Auburn (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - year of birth is doubtful. On first paragraph it shows 1990 while in other paragraph it shows 1989/

Born 1989/1990 - add them both if they are cited and add the cite.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dan Benishek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Haven't quite figured out what's going on here, drawn from an Igloo refs removed alert. Seems there is edit warring over a claim in a newspaper, absolutely no discussion on the talk page. Claims might be BLP violations. Can I ask a more knowledgeable editor to turn their attention to it. I will warn the editors involved about

Protected until after the election next week. Someone was trying to insert details about his divorce and kids. It was referenced, but hardly relevant. I suspect that if he loses the article can be deleted as not notable (or redirected to the election article for the constituency). I'm sort tempted to IAR delete it now, as if anyone takes it to DRV it will be after the election before it is restored.--Scott Mac 15:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Scott.

talk

) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrecked (film) is not written by Christopher John "Chris" Dodd (born May 27, 1944) an American lawyer and Democratic Party politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Connecticut.

Wrecked (film) is written by: Christopher Dodd - a Canadian screenwriter who lives in Toronto. Wrecked is his first produced feature film.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.61.105 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed

Christopher Dodd to Christopher Dodd (writer) on this article to avoid confusion. I don't know if the writer is notable enough for his own article. -- Scjessey (talk

) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at this edit? Wikipedia is not a

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

This is a useful list, thanks for putting it together. What do the section breakdowns represent? J04n(talk page) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It might have been better if the articles had been read rather than just picking on words. See my annotations of the first four listed in section 9. No libellous statements there, merely mentions of a hurling match, a Swenator who made prison visits, an actor portraying a character having an affair and a criminologist who has written a book on corruption! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And the first six in section one, really this list just picks up words and makes no attempt to check their usage. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This isn't a list that's checked, it is an auto-generated list to be checked. I looked at a dozen of the articles, deleted one on sight, and removed BLP violations from two or three others. That's a fairly high success rate for an auto-generated list.--Scott Mac 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The section breaks are simply for convenience, other projects that have clean-up lists will often mark them off with a Y or N, strike-through, comment etc, and itse much easier to open a msll section than the whole list. Rich Farmbrough, 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

note: moved to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Risk_lists/List_1 (but still transcluded here) List 2 imminent. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Risk_lists - main page
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Risk_lists/List_2 - second list
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Risk_lists/risk words - the "risk words" list - semi=protected, feel free to add words (or phrases).

• Feedback welcome here or at my talk page.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

If any of you have the time and the inclination would you please take a quick look at this article. It has been tagged as having POV issues and, for the life of me, I can find no POV on the entire page. To me it looks like most acting page stubs. I think a fresh set of eyes might clear things up. My thanks ahead of time to any editor who can assist in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. No POV issues, tag removed. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check into this Jclemens. The POV tag was replaced with an Advert tag but another editor has removed that also. Again I appreciate your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Over the last few days

The specifically applicable language on the application of BLP to talk pages (and outside article space generally) reads "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." The italicized (by me) policy language gives editors, quite appropriately, more leeway in discussing problematic content in good faith in the process of working out disputed content issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and reason alone for me to be even less aggressive in enforcing BLP in such circumstances. Still, citing these specific detractors (refactor per 19:41, 22 Oct below) goes over the line with BLP, not to mention the irony when done at RSN. --

talk

) 17:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We haven't had one of these in some time. As a change, it's not really about the

Weston Price

and a reference written by Barrett that is being used in the Price article. Basically, editors have been disparaging Barrett as part of their arguments against the use of the reference.

First, I noticed this pair of comments/edits from

discussion discussion. These problems continued, but not in such a problematic way [17]

.

On 21 Oct, BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) attacked Barrett directly, referencing attacks by Barrett's detractors at RSN, which was duplicated in part four hours later at FSN.

I removed both [18] [19], and warned BruceGrubb. When Griswaldo restored them, I removed them and discussed the matter with him. Now we're here. --

talk

) 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)The removals in question are - here, same removed again, and again, and I restored it a final time here. This is part of a discussion of Barrett's qualifications as a source on a talk page, not the introduction of questionable material into article space. BLP is designed to protect living persons from defamation; it is decidedly not designed to prevent inquiries into a source's credentials so that editors can use a source without proper

verification. --Ludwigs2

16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And Ludwig thinks this is something to edit-war over [20] [21]. --

talk

) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

...Ronz says after his fifth revert on the page... --Ludwigs2 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Related BLP dispute

• - Looks like an long term dispute that hasn't been solved yet. As I see it after a fair look, Ronz, you seem overly sensetive about this person, I see you are a major contributor to his article
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that others have noted this same "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett. I think this issue ought to air out a bit here so that we don't have repeated issues due to "sensitivity". Ronz, I'm asking this in good faith and will accept your answer as true, but do you have a COI of any kind when it comes to Barrett? I ask because it is not usual that someone is this sensitive regarding one individual. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Griswaldo - Sorry, I don't see that line of questioning as being in good faith.
• "As I see it after a fair look, Ronz, you seem overly sensetive about this person," Only sensitive to the repeated attacks made against him in violation of BLP, as I do with BLP problems against anyone else. When editors cite detractors, they've gone over the line. When they repeat information from detractors without citing those detractors, the editor should be notified that it is a potential BLP problem, but the information doesn't need immediate removal if part of a discussion related to making content choices. --
  talk
  ) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, we have a policy on conflicts of interest which strongly recommends that editors be open about them -- see

WP:COI. I wont push this, but I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for clarification on this given that others have noted this specific sensitivity in the past. I personally find your activity in this area, regarding Barrett and criticism of him as a source, to be disruptive and I'd like to understand why you're so pushy about it.Griswaldo (talk

) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't find your line of comments to be in good faith.

If you're not going to push it, don't bring it up. --

talk

) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Three threads on three noticeboards about this one issue should indicate to the Administrators that the real problem can likely be identified by looking at a common denominator. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Is this addition (from BruceGrubb) which includes some external links a BLP violation on a takpage discussion worthy of BLP removal (revert exempt) ?
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Off2riorob: I posted diffs of the contested passage in my 16:02, 22 October 2010 post, above. I'd post a diff about my having posted the diffs, but I'm worried about the philosophical (not to mention the quantum dynamical) ramifications of that.

@ Founders intent: the context here is that Barrett and QuackWatch are commonly used as 'opposition' voices on fringe and pseudoscience articles, and skepticism-oriented editors are worried that any lessening of the authoritative status of the two will have repercussions across a wide range of pages. That's a non-issue from my perspective - if Barrett actually has been over-represented on a number of pages then all those pages ought to be revised (per NPOV) to place him in proper balance - but I can see how that might encourage some editors to go to fairly extensive ends to maintain that status. --Ludwigs2 18:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, and of course none of us need reminding that WP doesn't play favorites. My point is a bit different than yours but somewhat related. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"if Barrett actually has been over-represented on a number of pages" Actually, the reverse has happened. The ArbCom above has been used as an excuse to remove the vast majority of citations to Quackwatch. It got so bad that the ArbCom was amended to help resolve the problem

talk

) 18:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The "When editors cite detractors, they've gone over the line." claim floored me. By this logic we can't say anything bad about

WP:BLP had in mind but that would be the logical end of such an argument--we can't say anything bad no matter how well sourced about a living person because if they are saying something bad they are a detractor.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. This is not my meaning, nor intent. There's consensus that these specific detractors fail both WP:RS and BLP. I shouldn't be generalizing. --

talk

) 19:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh so you are saying the word of

WP:RS.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. How about we stick to what editors are actually claiming? --

talk

) 21:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully we are sticking to the topic at hand. Okay how about if you kindly produce the evidence of this that "these specific detractors fail both WP:RS and BLP"? Let's see why these sources are not worthy? I think we all need to see why these source fail BLP. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 21:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See the Arbcomm as a start, already linked twice. --

talk

) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The first link is to a user thought to be in legal conflict with Barrett coupled with him making implied legal threats against editors of wikipedia--a major no-no. It looks like the activity stopped before anything actually was done (of if there was something done the link isn't there)

The second link says Motion 1) "The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation."--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is off topic. --

talk

) 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 01:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That says "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist and is part of

WP:SPS

is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources as Barrett: In some circumstances, self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"(sic). (next paragraph) The biggest problem is the lack of reference to all of Barrett's nutritional claims regarding Price's research. If there is one thing I still remember from my research days is that is better to overcite claim then to undercite but in this section there is nothing. So where are these claims coming from?

User:The Founders Intent has already asked for proof that the references meet the "widely acknowledged as extremist" criteria and so far we have seen nothing.

Also Barrett's logic process at times make you go "huh?" when you do further research. For example, take his otherwise good Take his Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine" which says under "Questionable Standards" that "Today some states restrict the practice of acupuncture to physicians or others operating under their direct supervision. In about 20 states, people who lack medical training can perform acupuncture without medical supervision. The FDA now classifies acupuncture needles as Class II medical devices and requires labeling for one-time use by practitioners who are legally authorized to use them [17]. Acupuncture is not covered under Medicare." Ok, but "Some of the items and services that Medicare doesn’t cover include the following: Long-term care See pages 110–112., Routine dental care, Dentures, Cosmetic surgery, Acupuncture, Hearing aids, exams for fitting hearing aids. To find out if Medicare covers a service you need, visit www.medicare.gov/coverage. Call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) for general coverage information. TTY users should call 1-877-486-2048." Medicare and you. This statement in the context of the paragraph is a

Non sequitur (logic)

because last time I checked Routine dental care, Dentures, Hearing aids, and exams for fitting hearing aids were about as mainstream medicine as you could get and yet Medicare doesn't cover those either. Why is that sentence even there in a section on Questionable Standards?!?

Finally the Barrett_v._Rosenthal ruling linked to above was handed down March 27, 2007 while

WP:BLP--BruceGrubb (talk

) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mostly off topic. I guess that's an improvement. Once again, this is the BLP Noticeboard. Please keep your comments concise and on topic. --

talk

) 15:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That was not a helpful comment. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A simple search of the

talk

) 14:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You got to love the implication that an archive of this noticeboard (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett) is not on topic...for this noticeboard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sources can be discussed. The sources were found to fail RS and BLP.

So, why are these sources that fail RS and BLP being used to make ad-hominem attacks on Barrett? This violates BLP in multiple ways, multiple times. The sources are improper, and used for multiple attacks. Why do editors think it's proper to keep such violations in a discussion? The discussions on the Quackwatch reference are huge, so the claim that discussion is being prevented is absolutely absurd. --

talk

) 01:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

While we are at it let's talk about Ronz's

WP:BATTLE claim when I asked "If Weston Price's theories regarding nutrition and tooth decay where wrong then where are the papers refuting those theories?" then. What sources outside focal infection does Barrett use to show his claims regarding Price's research are not just his personal opinion? Also why is Ronz also going after User talk:The Founders Intent, User_talk:Griswaldo, and User_talk:Hans_Adler when they disagree with him regarding Barrett? I am starting to see a pattern here and it is not one I should be seeing.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 21:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the BLP Noticeboard. Please stick to the topic at hand. --

talk

) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the intent, to show that anything goes. The intent is to be able to have an uncensored discussion about a source for an article. That this source happens to be living should be of little concern, as long as we don't become inflammatory. But we must be allowed to have open discussions just like for any other source. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't have uncensored discussions about living people, BLP applies, please keep the comments a bit cleaner and so as not to appear derogatory or demeaning the living subject. Basically if you can't

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that was a bit strong. I didn't mean a discussion that lacked all control, and I think that was clear. I think we should be able to have a fair discussion about a source to make sure it meets reliability criteria. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem here, Ronz, is that you have decided that anything which doesn't present Barrett as a model of scientific good sense and propriety must by definition be a personal attack. That's hardly the case. nothing being said about Barrett in these discussion constitues an unwarrented personal attack (no one is calling him names, no one is implying he's broken the law or violated the conventions of normal human decency). All we are discussing is whether Barrett lives up to the expectations of objectivity and scientific rigor that we would that we need to consider to determine whether or not he is a reliable source. What is it precisely that you consider so offensive about the passage you keep trying to delete? --Ludwigs2 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Please follow

talk

) 03:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you have not specified what in particular in this passage constitutes a BLP violation, so I don't see why this should be removed. let's take it point by point:

1. "If the online reports regarding the (...) cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a WP:RS." - reasonable discussion to evaluate a source, yes?
2. "The Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial." - a sourced claim about Barrett; if the source is good there is no BLP issue, if it isn't, then there's a sourcing issue but not a BLP issue.
3. "Furthermore how on earth do you lose a case regarding saying homeopathy is quackery? That should have been a slam dunk for an actual expert." - snide, yes; BLP violation, doubtful. the very issue under debate is whether Barrett is an expert, so an editor calling Barrett's expertise into question is hardly unexpected.

So, where is the BLP issue here? Am I misunderstanding something? because I don't see one. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice it amidst everything else [22]

Of course, I did write (16:07, 22 Oct), where it's extremely hard to miss, "On 21 Oct, BruceGrubb (talk · contribs) attacked Barrett directly, referencing attacks by Barrett's detractors at RSN, which was duplicated in part four hours later at FSN." And (17:02, 22 Oct), "Still, citing these specific detractors ... goes over the line with BLP, not to mention the irony when done at RSN." And (14:19, 23 Oct) "they were attacking Barrett." --

I actually did miss the first comment, and I think I saw at least some of the others, but dismissed them as bombast. Sorry. However, I will point out that you've got a bit of a

wp:NOTBUREAUCRACY

. Or do you believe that this court case didn't occur?

I mean, frankly, if a judge saw fit to dismiss Barrett's libel case, I can't see that we are in any moral or legal danger by discussing the same issue. You might have cause to throw these sources out as unreliable (if this were mainspace), but I still don't see how you have a BLP issue here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 October 2010

Ronz, Ludwigs2 like The Founders Intent, is asking for proof. As I have pointed out before

User:Off2riorob thinks you are being oversensitive; Hans Adler implied Barrett didn't reevaluate Price's studies by modern standards with no sources what so ever and you are not even touching his comments (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F), Ludwigs2 doesn't see BLP issues, The Founder Intent doesn't see any, Griswaldo doesn't see any; nobody seems to see this but you.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 07:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing the primary case, taking up cudgels against Barrett on behalf of a person or theory that Barrett has criticised. Don't do that. Barrett is widely cited outside of Wikipedia as a prominent sceptic, every view presented by sceptics will have one or more usually entuirely non-notable critics in the True Believer camp. It's not our job to "balance" a sceptical presentation of the scientific mainstream with quote-mining from supporters of oddball views. We don't need to, the reader knows who Barrett is and can easily interpret things in context. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How does that address the

User:Ronz, as he apparently always does when Barrett is criticized in any way, claimed that Bruce's post was a BLP violation and has been trying to delete it ever since. But let's be clear here. Neither Bruce, nor anyone else, is making a primary argument to defend contemporary detractors of Barrett. Either way, this line of discussion appears to be more applicable to the reliability issue than the BLP issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk

) 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"How does that address the

talk

) 15:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"User:Ronz, as he apparently always does when Barrett is criticized in any way" Except for the majority of the time, when I simply notify involved editors that I think that BLP is being violated, and take no other action other than to explain further. Like the majority of the situatio we're discussing here. --

talk

) 15:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz the only thing I said that you apparently always do is to claim that there is a BLP violation. If you reread my post you'll see that grammatically it can't mean what you think it meant.Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I commented on your assumptions. I should have ignored them outright.

How about addressing the BLP issues? --

talk

) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I just did that - did you miss my post? --Ludwigs2 18:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was made to Griswaldo. I hope that's clear by the context and indentation.

It would be very helpful for involved editors to address BLP directly, and the comments my uninvolved editors at (12:37, 24 Oct) and (14:50, 23 Oct). --

talk

) 19:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be helpful. and yet, when I do address the BLP claim directly (as I did above) you don't see fit to respond to it, even to the point of telling me that you were responding to a sub-point by a different editor rather than to the main point that I made. So what's up with that?

I'll take it that you found my argument convincing, and consequently choose not to respond to it because you might have to admit that I'm right. do you think that's a fair assessment of the situation? --Ludwigs2 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the uninvolved editors. --

talk

) 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And who would that be, exactly, since almost everyone here agrees with me? You're still trying to evade the reasoned argument, Ronz. --Ludwigs2 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean Off2rioRob and guy. O2rr is not really on point for what you're trying to claim, but yes, Guy agrees with your perspective. however, none of the three of you have actually responded to the argument I made 07:17, 24 Oct, and until you do I have to assume that my analysis there is correct. do you have a response to that?

and with respect to the whole have done my best to work with him approach... interesting. I'm curious to see how this tactic works out for you. you realize, of course, that your (now) numerous protestations that you're trying to work with me obligate you to accept if I offer a reasonable compromise, right? --Ludwigs2 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK

Then we can mark this resolved because uninvolved editors have all pointed out to you that there is no BLP concern here. They have pointed out that discussions of sources on talk pages and noticeboards require much more leeway than content edits to entries about living subjects. Besides this no uninvolved editors have identified a single BLP concern here. So as you say, this is resolved and there is no BLP concern. Please restore all deleted talk page text per

WP:TALK. If you do not do so you are simply continuing the disruption you started when you deleted them.Griswaldo (talk

) 12:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This does not summarize the statements of the three uninvolved editors at all. See

WP:TALK

Only two editors total have commented on what leeway we give to discussions in talk pages. They indicate that the comments copied above fail BLP.--

talk

) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No they don't "indicate that they fail BLP". Please explain yourself here and preferably by quoting the outside opinions, and do not turn this back on me because I'm the one saying there is an absence of such statements and I can't prove a negative. Let's see it Ronz. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I find this approach to be the most logical when considering WP policy. While articles themselves are the ultimate expression on a subject matter at WP, talk pages, noticeboards and other such spaces are working areas where content is hashed out. These should be more liberal to working out policy and content differences. Therefore it is logical to apply WP:BLP differently in articles than in "working" spaces/pages in order to achieve the highest quality NPOV article content. An over application of rules and policies in workspaces will likely lead to WP:IARM in order to restore a reasonable balance. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE GOOD WORKS 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course more leeway doesn't mean we can disparage sources in these venues. It simply means that if people are discussing the credibility and reliability of the sources in good faith and that discussion makes the source look bad then we should not be applying BLP to stifle the discussion. Editors should always be sensitive to living subjects and the language they choose to describe those subjects and the activities of those subjects.Griswaldo (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that we have said THIS ALL ALONG that no argument to support the disparaging of a LP has EVER been put forth; none whatsoever. We never made such an argument and never will. Let us not overemphasize this point because it has always been self-evident per

WP:AGF. The point is we MUST have the leeway to properly discuss all subject matter in the intended "work spaces" in order to achieve WP's intended purpose. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS}

13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug, the key here is "...and not related to making content choices". It doesn't say "or" but "and". I might be reading this more liberally than you are but if editors are discussing content changes in good faith and not going out of their way to slander or defame someone I'm taking this to mean there is more leeway on the talk page. Something that is questionable should be removed from article space, but if it hasn't been clearly deemed a violation it's status as such can (and is all the time) be discussed on talk and on relevant noticeboards. That's more leeway if you ask me, whether or not the exact language on the policy page uses the term "leeway". However, the more important question here is whether or not Bruce's text is a BLP violation, in which case we can keep it removed from talk pages or ask him to refactor it to remove the violations. Can you please weigh in on that issue. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean but that has to be read in the context of "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." Which is why I wrote you shouldn't just copy the whole material to the talk page. I'll come back to the text itself if I have a chance.

talk

) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd emphasize the purpose of BLP, to ensure material is not defamatory or libelous, regardless of where it is within Wikipedia. --

talk

) 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The basic comments that you deleted (way up at the top) seem acceptable, as we have to be able to discuss the reliability of sources and that will mean making restrained, considered negative comments. Any links need to be clearly reliable sources - calm considered comments with links that are the opposite might well be a BLP violation.

talk

) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "restrained, considered" comments. I see

talk

) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you are the only person who has warned anyone about BLP here. You warned him and then you deleted the comments. No one seems to agree with your assessment. You can't just repeat yourself ad nasuem and expect that this will turn into a BLP violation. In the future I suggest you ask someone else to look into supposed BLP violations when it comes to Stephen Barrett because you have a track record of over reacting, according to those who apparently have encountered this before. A BLP warning from someone else might convince others that its not just a product of this sensitivity.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep comments on topic, follow WP:CON and WP:TALK.

I've stated why I believe BLP was violated. I'm happy to clarify (hint). I'm happy to respond to different interpretations of BLP (hint). --

talk

) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And I and other have refuted your statement as nauseum, yet you continue to state it. why is that? --Ludwigs2 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite all this discussion, it's unclear that whether or not the involved editors, other than myself, think the copied material above (below 18:01, 22 Oct) would be considered a BLP violation under any circumstances, such as on the Barrett talk page.

Also, I'm still not sure if editors are claiming Noticeboards are somehow different that talk pages. --

talk

) 15:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, it's fairly clear that no one in this discussion (aside from you) thinks of this as a BLP issue. poor sourcing? almost certainly, but not BLP. You really have given no credible reason why this should be considered BLP (you've argued that the sources are bad, but you haven't claimed that the information itself is untrue and explicitly used for the purpose of defamation). make a credible BLP argument, or let it go. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that it's poorly sourced. We then agree that it would be a BLP violation if added to the article on Barrett. Maybe even when added to Barrett's talk page? After all, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. The sources are defamatory. They are being used for defamation. They are being used to support further defamation. --

talk

) 20:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misunderstood. in what sense are the defamatory, and being used to defame? can you explain this in more detail? --Ludwigs2 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So we agree BLP would be violated if the same information were added to Barrett's article or talk page? --

talk

) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that I asked you to clarify the sense in which the sources are defamatory and/or used for defamation. I currently believe they are not (though as noted I doubt they are normally usable in article space), but I'm willing to listen to reason on the matter. once you've explained to me why you think they are defamatory, then I'll tell you what I think about using them on Barrett's page. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL talk

The comments and sources fail

talk

) 22:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you'll need to be more specific: how do they fail wp:Libel? Libel generally implies that the statements made are explicitly false statements specifically intended to damage a person's reputation, yet none of these sources seem to be making false statements, and their aim does not appear to be to damage Barrett's reputation explicitly (though they are not, perhaps, the friendliest statements that have come down the block). can you explain what I'm not seeing? --Ludwigs2 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the definitions linked from WP:Libel rather than yours. --

talk

) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just paraphrasing what they said, so I don't understand your objection. let me try to make my question clearer. what specifically about these sources do you consider to be a violation of wp:Libel? I expect specific quotes or clear arguments to make your case. vaguely pointing at wp:Libel is not a sufficient argument; you are actually being requested to show due cause. If you choose not to respond to this question, or if you respond with another vague policy link, or any other non-responsive answer, then I will close and archive this entire discussion, marked 'resolved as an unfounded claim'. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow WP:CON and WP:TALK if you want your comments to be considered. --

talk

) 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer the questions rather than continually throwing up WP:OR, WP:TALK, and now WP:CON claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, given the serious nature of libel, we must be precise in identifying the sources of concern, and the exact nature of their violation of

WP:LIBEL. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS}

00:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources are identified. They fail WP:BLP. --

talk

) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But you said they fail

WP:LIBEL, that's what we're asking about specifically now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS}

01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If they fail BLP, there's no need to go further that I'm aware. I believe WP:LIBEL is clear enough with its linked definitions. Further response on your talk. --

talk

) 01:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is the threshold for closing this discussion? If you're seeking permission from the other side, I don't think you'll get it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've alredy set a threshold for closing this discussion, at the end of the last section. I'm giving Ronz just a little more time to show specific due cause for having opened this discussion in the first place, and if he can't or doesn't, I'm closing it. the Baffle them with Bullshit approach he's using now only goes so far. --Ludwigs2 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If

And I've put it back. see my note above. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No justification, again. --

talk

) 03:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuck

I've marked this discussion as stuck. Editors are unable to follow the noticeboard guidelines, WP:CON, and WP:TALK. If anyone wants to discuss my part in any of this, I'm happy to do so on my talk page where any disruption will simply be removed. I'd like to work out the implications of "and not related to making content choices" before proposing changes to WP:BLP to clarify it. --

It doesn't matter because you have 0 support for the idea that there is a BLP violation of any kind here. Stop the wikilawyering and let it go. And please do not add the tags back.Griswaldo (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus, very little work to create consensus, and a huge effort to disrupt consensus-making. I commend Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Off2riorob, Guy, and Dougweller for their contributions here. In an attempt to move on, I'm willing to discuss my part and relevant policies/guidelines on my talk page. --

talk

) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please undo the deletions of other people's talk page comments per

WP:TALK since you see no consensus for your claims of BLP violations. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk

) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm closing this debate as resolved. there is no evidence whatsoever presented of any BLP violation. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no BLP violation all material will be restored.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Three editors disagree. WP:BLP is unclear on the extent we should give you leeway.

If you don't mind some suggestions: Regarding your comment at the heart of this dispute [24], I think it would help if you commented on why you referred to the sources that you did, why you made the comments you made, and how you feel they meet

talk

) 23:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I think enough has been said here. This BLP horse is dead. Bruce, I think you ought to go ahead and button this thing up. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discouraging editors from consensus-building and dispute resolution is of no help. --

talk

) 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Spare me, Ronz. No doubt we can measure this thread by the foot now. The rest of us are satisfied there is no issue; you are not. Well nothing is perfect. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. Please don't discourage others from giving theirs. --

talk

) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

These points were explained by in my 11:14, 23 October 2010 post which got the "Once again, this is the BLP Noticeboard. Please keep your comments concise and on topic" song and dance dismissal. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz already has pointed to the and not related to making content choices part of

WP:BLP not really being a issue.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. --

talk

) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP itself is unclear on what is and is not appropriate in such matters. In that case I'll defer to the consensus that BruceGrubb's comments to FTN and RSN shouldn't have been removed.

I'm withdrawing from further participation here. --

talk

) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I would say, Bruce, that there is no issue here and you can button up this thread. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion."

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages:

• "Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others."

Note: Adding BLP violations is serious matter. Continuing to add the LIBELS comments must stop. The unreliable references are not appropriate for discussion. Since there is BLP violations all material must be deleted. Editors who insist on keeping the BLP violations can be blocked to protect the project from the BLP violations. The unreliable references can't be used for any article so there is no point to LIBEL someone with unreliable references. Editors should be more carful in the future to respect Wikipedia's BLP or they can be kindly asked to leave the project. "Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion." So there is indeed BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of libel. Others don't see any. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz could not answer the question of libel (which he himself brought up). I hope QG has a better response. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz did answer the question of libel. I hope you will repond to my comments directly. I think there is evidence that the sources or text met the definition of libel. Editors who are doing the libel often deny it is not libel is not a new phenomenon. Let me ask a question to see if we understand each other. I think BLP is clear enough for this particular situation. We could request clarification to help resolve future BLP issues like this. But let's start with this question first. If an editor posted an unreliable source with "questionable claims" or added poorly sourced "contentious material" that is not (currently) being used to improve an article

libel in any sense of the word? QuackGuru (talk

) 06:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)