Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:31, 9 May 2007 editObiterDicta (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,874 edits →[] {{blpwatch-links|James_Dobson}}: +comment← Previous edit Revision as of 23:46, 9 May 2007 edit undoAndries (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,090 edits Bad faith or overzealous BLP enforcement by user:JossiNext edit →
Line 500: Line 500:
* {{userlinks|Damotclese }} * {{userlinks|Damotclese }}
* {{userlinks|Hkhenson}} - This article has a disclosure of personal information , and is being used for blatant advocacy on behalf of the subject in a criminal case. Additionally, it looks like meat puppets may be involved. I am betweek the subject, ] and another editor, so I don't want to revert any of these edits myself. Cleanup, page protection, and blocks may be required. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC) * {{userlinks|Hkhenson}} - This article has a disclosure of personal information , and is being used for blatant advocacy on behalf of the subject in a criminal case. Additionally, it looks like meat puppets may be involved. I am betweek the subject, ] and another editor, so I don't want to revert any of these edits myself. Cleanup, page protection, and blocks may be required. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== Bad faith or overzealous BLP enforcement by user:Jossi ==

Jossi knows very well that the statement that Maharaji aka Prem Rawat is a "cult" leader is stated in a reputable source, yet he defends removing it from user talk page with the justification that the contributor does not mention its source. ] knows the source very well, because we discussed it extensively and he agreed it to be a reputable source. His removal of this statement with the stated reason of ] strikes me as either overzealous or made in bad faith. Jossi removes complaints by me about this from his talk page.

An analogy. If I write without sources on my user talk page that George W. Bush made a mistake when attacking Iraq on my user talk page then removal of this statement by a contributor who knows very well that this has also been voiced in reputable sources strikes me as censorship.

Reputable source: Saul Levine chapter 9, discusses "Psychological Perspectives on Cult Leadership." in the book "Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association " by Marc Galanter

] 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:46, 9 May 2007

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Ghazi Shahzad (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 26 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion




    Ongoing WP:BLP-related matters

    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons. — Athaenara 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    WP:BLPC

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

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

    BLP recentchanges

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

    Unreferenced BLPs

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

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

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

    Is the NNDB a WP:RS?

    Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
    From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    Is the Jewish Virtual Library a WP:RS?

    There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: , , , . As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    David Miscavige

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

    • The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Isn't it the case that anyone can basically allege anything in an affidavit? I'm not sure we can regard such a document as a reliable source given the lack of any editorial controls or verification. A court judgment might be a different case, but an affidavit doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory source. -- ChrisO 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In a sworn affidavit, the person is under oath. Theoretically, they'd face the same penalties as lying to the court from the witness stand. AndroidCat 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    That still does not give us the right to repeat the charges as if they were a fact. For all we know the person giving the testimony could be mentally unstable. Steve Dufour 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    In that case, why not remove otherwise citable references for everyone? They might be be mentally unstable too! AndroidCat 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Most of them are not making charges against living people. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

    I'm afraid I have to take that last comment back. The statement has been returned to the article. Steve Dufour 10:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    Are you referring to these two edits? This information is properly attributed to the source, so your original report (unattributed statement of fact) does not apply.
    I see no problem with these edits other than the fact-checking/editorial oversight/reliable source caveat by ChrisO above. This is in fact a WP:BLP concern that can only be resolved if a reliable secondary source for the statement is provided. From there we can turn to the primary source (the court document) to augment the information. Comments anyone? AvB ÷ talk 10:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    If someone swore in a affidavit that George Bush was an alien from outer space should that be mentioned in his article? Steve Dufour 02:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Once again, when it's attributed, it's a fact. In view of the lack of weight/relevance as apparent from reliable secondary sources, no, such a fact fact shouldn't go into the GB article. AvB ÷ talk 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    Ted Nugent Template:Blpwatch-links

    This bio is terrible. It needs a full re-write with some fact checking. The subject's (purported) just came through and deleted some extensive info, possibly justifiably. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    FYI to anyone who cares, I have deleted that revision as the edit summary contained a phone number. --BigDT 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, we were graced by a visit from the Motor City Madman himself? I am not worthy!!! ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    I've removed some BLP offending material from this, but the 'controversies section' needs a good cleanup. Sources need checked and probably a re-write to ensure this isn't just a trawl for everything that makes the guy look bad.--Doc 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    Not everyone thinks the material in the controversies section "makes the guy look bad." Nugent has had a reputation for three decades for sometimes outrageous plain speaking and the section itself is consistent with that aspect of this entertainer's persona.
    As Snopes says, "He is not one to be shy about sharing his take on things with the media, and interviews with him make for highly entertaining reading." That said, not every individual item in the controversies section is accurate. I corrected one of them a few minutes ago, and I will look for more.
    Like all Misplaced Pages biographies of famous subjects, this article is often plagued by simple vandalism. That is unlikely to change as long as editing by unregistered anonymous users is allowed. — Athaenara 09:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Pascal Duquenne Template:Blpwatch-links

    The information that Pascal Duquenne actually suffers from Down syndrome is repeatedly added to his biography page and my corrections are reverted, my question on the discussion page remains unanswered.

    I explored the sources and found no trustworthy information that would prove this statement: from two sources one does not mention him at all and the second one, where he listed as a person with Down Syndrome, is just a compilation of the "readers' opinions", rather than any official page. Since it is not clearly proved by sources, I would avoid putting this information into the bio article. Alaudo 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

    I'll readd it with some good sources (though perhaps not in English, I'll have to look further for that), as it is well-known and correct. See e.g. this from the first page of Google resultsFram 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    I can confirm that that link is a well known Belgium newspaper. In the second sentence of the leader it claims that: " An another happy meeting with with Pascal Duquenne, the boy with Down-syndrome who became well-known with the movie 'Le Huitième Jour'." Sander123 07:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    There has been some edit warring over this. There is no good reason not to seek English language citations and to work toward consensus in a reasonable way, here and on Talk:Pascal Duquenne, rather than repeatedly adding questioned material with edit summaries such as "RV VANDALISM" and "I'm afraid it's only you who did not want to have reference in more language". — Athaenara 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Postscript: Compare Chris Burke (actor). — Athaenara 08:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Fram added the same material again, "discussing" via revert edit summaries rather than engaging in discussion on this noticeboard and on the article talk page. I'm really tired of reverting these guys when they won't even talk about it normally.
    My only involvement in this is as a neutral noticeboard volunteer who strives to implement policies and guidelines. Can some additional NPOV editors help out here? — Athaenara 10:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the personal attack assuming that everyone who doesn't agree with you (which is, as of now, everyone apparently) is not a "NPOV" editor. This edit has been discussed on your talk page and via edit summaries (you haven't edited the talk page of the article either). There is no need to seek further consensus on a thing where one editor reverts against different other editors (2 named and 2 IP) and against policy (removal of well-sourced material). The consensus is clear from the page history. Anyway, I have now added to the talk page two English language sources whioch you could just as well have found with a simple Google search. IF you want to improve the page by replacing a good foreign language source with a good English language source, be my guest. I can't be bothered to do so when one person blindly reverts my addition anyway because he misinterprets policy and tries to dictate where discussion should take place. We are all volunteers here and none of us involved in this edit war have shown signs of having some POV in this. Discuss it on the article talk page or leave it alone please. Fram 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Two messages about Pascal Duquenne were left on my talk page yesterday, one from Sander123 (talk · contribs) and one from Fram (talk · contribs). I removed them today, asking both users to post them where the WP:BLP discussion is: on this noticeboard. — Athaenara 11:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Sheikh Adelabu Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    I saw wait a couple of days and then put a speedy deletion non-notable tag on it. --Gbleem 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    I added a speedy delete tag to it. --Gbleem 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    The {{db-bio}} tag (added by Mhking) was removed a half day later. — Æ. ✉ 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

    The {{wikify}} and {{cleanup}} tags which were added in April have had little or no effect. The last three edits to the article were by user Johnjofe (userlinks above) on April 23. I added Category:BLP Check. — Athaenara 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Kevin Potvin Template:Blpwatch-links

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

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

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

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

    I have removed the libel material more than 12 times or so. I would like the page removed, I am the one who put it up in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.131.134 (talk • contribs). 04:58, April 18 2007 (UTC)

    I have updated the article based on your complaint above as well as the sources given in the article. I just saw you've also added a large critique on the article's talk page; I'll read it now and see how far we can accommodate you within the limitations of our principles, policies and guidelines. You can find full information on our rules using the links posted on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    After reading your talk page contribution I did not find additional material in the article that could be adapted to your comments. I hope you can accept the current version of the article. If there are any specific items left in the article which you feel do not conform to our rules, especially WP:BLP, or are factually incorrect in your opinion, please post them here so that other editors can check them out. The most important aspect I'm asking you to consider is that everything in the article is (or should be) supported by what Misplaced Pages calls reliable sources (see WP:RS). AvB ÷ talk 12:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    An anon (probably Mr. Potvin) made this edit. I think it's OK but would like someone else to double check. Anon, could you please confirm or deny you're Kevin Potvin? Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    It should be irrelevant whether Potvin made that edit or not (it's properly cited and verifiable). He's revealed his identity voluntarily in various places, but in the ocean of anonymous editors that is Misplaced Pages, there's absolutely no requirement to do so. It seems to me that a) Potvin is easily a notable person and therefore the article should not be deleted and b) extra care should be taken by other editors to ensure slanted views stay out of the article. Precedents in Vancouver show that once the initial controversy dies down, articles on central figures become boringly stable (see Erik Bornmann and Rachel Marsden, both of which elicited fierce opposition from the subject). I've only just looked at this article, and have watchlisted it, and will put a notice on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Vancouver. The general principle at work seems to be that the more people watching an article, the less likely it is that POV edits will get through, and are generally reverted within minutes.
    As an aside, before so quickly concluding that Misplaced Pages is as unreliable as the critics say Kevin, compare the utter fabrication in that rag you write for dissing Misplaced Pages. According to the edit history for the Vancouver Courier article, it has never said what the Courier reported it said. Unlike Misplaced Pages, there's no easy way to check the veracity of the claims made by anonymous editors in the Courier, now is there? bobanny 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. Whether or not Mr. Potvin made that edit is by and large irrelevant in terms of our rules, but it is quite relevant in terms of the correspondence we've had with him regarding this article (see its talk page and above). I hope Mr Potvin recognizes that we're trying to resolve such problems amicably without compromising our rules. I trust it's already clear to him that we've done all we can here and that deletion is out of the question. AvB ÷ talk 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    So what is the process here? It looks to me like any potentially libelous material has been purged, although some minor typos and formatting errors remain. I'd suggest unprotecting it, with the option of semi-protecting it if POV-warriors start at it again. Or are we waiting for clearance from lawyers or something? Expansion of the article would also be a step forward and make it less POV prone, since he's been a notable fixture in East Vancouver for years; the way it reads now makes it seem like the recent controversy is the sum of his notability. bobanny 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    User:Doc_glasgow semiprotected the article after renewed edit-warring apparently between anti/pro-Potvin anons. Although this may not be linked with this report (regarding edits by Potvin) and technically the report could be closed, the situation is not stable so I think we'd better keep it here on the noticeboard for now. Hopefully more users will put the article on their watchlist. Expanding the article also sounds good - not really required per WP:BLP, but certainly an improvement and it may indeed make Mr. Potvin a (slightly) happier customer. You clearly know more about Potvin than most of us so please go ahead and improve away... Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    PS (1) lawyer: We're not waiting for legal green lights; as far as I know this is just between Mr. Potvin and Misplaced Pages editors. (2) sprotect: I think we'd better keep the semiprotection a bit longer in view of the many edit-warring IP addresses. AvB ÷ talk 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable, except that it's fully protected, not semi-protected, so us plebians can't edit it. bobanny 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also, just an FYI that I posted that there were WP:BLP issues with this article on WikiProject Vancouver, WikiProject Canada, and the Vancouver Courier talk page. That should get more of the grown-ups to watchlist it and minimize nastiness. bobanny 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    The full protection which was added April 25 UTC was changed to semi-protection on April 28 UTC. — Athaenara 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Jodie Foster Template:Blpwatch-links

    • Jodie Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The question of Ms Foster's sexual orientation is a subject of great interest and, in the absence of reliable sourcing for any statement, has been kept from the article. No problem so far, the subject gets raised every now and again, most offered sources are pretty lame and any added information gets edited out. A US magazine recently "outed" Ms Foster but not in an clear unambiguous way that would meet the RS requirements. It has engendered a lot of discussion and I feel that a further eyes are required to offer guidence on the point. In particular the following citation would undoubtedly be acceptable for a non-BLP issue. Canada.com article This article has a named byline, the website is part of a reputable mass market publishing corportation and the site reeks of proper journalism. The statement that Foster is in a relationship with Cydney Bernard is unambiguous and I believe that it may meet the threshold for inclusion. Given the long standing consensus for excluding this information, I'd be obliged if some of the regulars here who are more knowledgeable on BLP than me could pass their eye over the discussion on the talk page and offer some opinion on this question. Thank you // Spartaz 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    If it's worded carefully to emphasize that it's unconfirmed, I don't see a problem with including it, as long as it's not over-emphasized in proportion to the rest of the article. If it's not speculation originating from Misplaced Pages editors, and if there haven't been any unequivocal denials from Foster's people, I don't see a BLP problem. bobanny 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sometimes rumors become so prevalent that they become noteworthy in their own right. At that point if we didn't mention them their absence would be conspicuous and well-intentioned editors would simply add something. What we usually end up with something like, "There is speculation about the subject's orientation, including ..., but the subject has said it is a private matter". For examples, see Anderson Cooper and Clay Aiken. -Will Beback · † · 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    On the talk page I point out that there are two facts which can be included that are definately not violations of BLP. 1. She has been living with the same woman for many years. 2. Out magazine called her a powerful lezbian, but she has not publicly stated that she is a lesbian. --Gbleem 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gilad Atzmon Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    The article is in the antisemitism category becuase it is relevant: The subject has written extensively about antisemitism, has unusual ideas about antisemitism, and has been accused of antisemitism by groups fighting antisemitism. Inclusion in the category does not imply he's an antisemite, and false invocation of WP:BLPis not a license to edit war. Isarig 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, he's only written about antisemitism as in reply to accusations of antisemitism about him, he writes about anti-zionism. His inclusion in the category implies precisely that he's antisemitic, as there's no other reason to include him. WP:BLP specifically states that 3Rs does not apply when removing defamatory material. I and others (FYCTravis, Nishkid for example) disagree with you about the BLP issue-perhaps that should give you pause for thought.FelixFelix 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, that's false. He's written about AS w/o any reference to accusations against him, see for example this. You have been blocked for a 3RR violation by an administrator who reviewed Nishkid 's analysis , and found it faulty. Perhaps that should give you pause for thought. Isarig 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why is Atzmon in the antisemitism category? Is it the accusations of antisemitism? Or an essay he wrote? If it's the latter then it fails notability. Come on.I'm not terribly impressed by Jayjg's record of impartiality, and Nishkid and FYCTravis are admins too. What's the point of the 3R exemption for BLP if it's ignored? What are we to learn from this/ To keep BLP vios unless we get blocked? I think not.FelixFelix 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    He's in the antisemitism category because he is relevant - he has written extensively about antisemitism, he's been accused of antisemitism by notable people and organizations, and one can argue that his personal notability is due, at least in part, to this. What we are to learn from your block is not to raise bogus BLP claims, as a way to win edit wars. Nishkid is an admin, but you will note that he agreed with Jayjg after the latter overruled him, so you can stop invoking his name. (and as a side note, accusing admins of editing in an impartial way , as you have done above, is a sure way to earn yourself an even longer block. You might want to rethink that one). Isarig 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    He hasn't 'written extensively about antisemitism' unless you count writing about the accusations of it, He certainly has been accused of antisemitism by many people and organisations, however his inclusion in the antisemitism category for that is defamatory. And as he contests it, and is alive-that's a BLP vio.FelixFelix 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    It gets tiresome when you ignore responses and just repeat your mantras. He has written extensively about AS, w/o any reference to accusations against him. I have given you one such example above - read it. That article predates accustations of AS against him, and is one (of many) reasons why he's been accused of AS. There is nothign defamatory in the inclusion in the category which clearly and explictly does not imply that those included are antisemites. This has been explained to you at length on the Talk page, repeated in the ratioanle for blocking you, and explaine dhere once again. Give it up. Isarig 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    "It gets tiresome when you ignore responses and just repeat your mantras." Praise indeed, coming from the master of the form! I've read the essay, which was written in response to accusations of antisemitism; but even if it wasn't,it would fail notability-but of course, the reason that the article is included is because Atzmon has been accused of being an antisemite. Including the accusations, per se, is fine, as they are sourced accusations. The inclusion in the category is not, as it carries the value judgement that the accusations are correct.FelixFelix 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Once again: There is nothing defamatory in the inclusion in the category which clearly and explictly does not imply that those included are antisemites. This has been explained to you at length on the Talk page, repeated in the rationale for blocking you, and explained here again and again. If including the accusations, per se, is fine, as they are sourced accusations then the inclusion in the category is fine, by definition. Isarig 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    How can that be? The to and fro quotations in the article are accusations and denials of Atzmon's suppossed antisemitism. They're not about anti-semitism generally. And Atzmon's supposed antisemitism is contested, and (as I've said before) defamatory. It's not settled, and he is alive. So it falls under the aegis of WP:BLP. And should go.FelixFelix 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    Your assertions are contradictory. The article discusses accusations of antisemitism; if it's not a violation of WP:BLP to have those discussions in the article, then it's certainly not a violation of WP:BLP to include it in the category of articles that discuss antisemitism. Very few articles discuss antisemitism generally; one or two at most. All others discuss some aspect of antisemitism, sometimes broad, sometimes narrow. This article is no different than others, it discusses some aspect of antisemitism, and therefore belongs in the category of articles that do so. Jayjg 16:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's the problem, isn't it? The article details accusations of Atzmon being an antisemite. The category is for articles which discuss antisemitism. Atzmon's article doesn't-it doesn't even discuss Atzmon's antisemitism-because that is not established, in fact it is contested. So the article shouldn't be included on content grounds, but on top of that the fact that his article is in the category implies that the accusations have substance, as the inclusion in the category is one which requires a deliberate decision by an editor and is not the reporting of a source. Thus it's defamatory, unsourced and contested, Atzmon is alive and therefore it's a BLP vio, the removal of which I was rewarded with a block by you.FelixFelix 20:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    But the article does discuss antisemitism, through Atzmon's somewhat unique take on it, including his claim that no one can be an antisemite, becuase according to him, that term does not signify anything, and his claim that the notorious antisemitic forgery of The Protocols is actauuly an accurate description of the exisitng reality. Isarig 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Interesting. Category:Anti-Semitic_people was deleted over a month ago as a violation of WP:OCAT and WP:NPOV, so adding specific people to this category (Category:Antisemitism) is just doing an end-around of the aforementioned CfD. Despite Isarig's protests to the contrary, being put into this category certainly would reflect negatively upon the person. Tarc 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    You are welcome to this personal opinion of the category, but it is explictly denied by the category's definition that being added to this category means you are an antisemite. Isarig 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Deny all you like, but it is undeniable that the term "antisemite" is a slur. As such, all people should be removed from this category. Tarc 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    This category is not "antisemite", but rather "antisemitism" - and is for articles that discuss antisemitism. The inclusion of people like Abe Foxman should have tipped you off. Please have a read at the category's description before posting misleading arguments. Isarig 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Don't be an ass, please. I did read the category, and the fact that it has a "disclaimer" does not alter the fact that the term is a slur, and including people in it has the capacity for abuse as has been done with Gilad Atzmon, to label him an antisemite. Tarc 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    You are strongly urged to review WP:CIVIL. Another comment like that and I will report you. The category does not label people as antisemites. It is for articles discussing antisemitism, which this article does. Isarig 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    You accusing others of being intentionally misleading isn't exactly proper conduct either, so beware of glass houses. Anyways, used in the manner that it is on this particular article, it is a slur, it is defamatory, and it should be removed per BLP violations. Period. Tarc 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    There is no special "mannner" in which it is used on this article. This article discusses antisemitism, so it belongs in the category. Period. Isarig 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    I believe that you're quite mistaken. Let's see how the category renaming proposal goes; if it passes then all is well, as some form of "Discussions of Antisemitism" name would remove this point of contention. If not, then this will be taken further along the proper BLP channels. Tarc 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    And I believe I am 100% correct. I think we're done here. Isarig 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    It has become rather tiresome to see people continue to pretend that the category is "Antisemites", rather than Antisemitism. Anyone who actually looks at Category:Antisemitism would see that it's not. Jayjg 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Equally tiresome are those that do not recognize a distinction without a difference. Tarc 11:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    There's no distinction between "Antisemitism" - a category for articles that discuss some aspect of antisemitism and which includes such people as Abe Foxman and Eli Weisel, and "antisemites" - a category which includes people who are antismeites? If you do not understand the difference, you probably should not be editing wikipedia. 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

    Justin Berry Template:Blpwatch-links

      • I've communicated with the subject-editor a couple of times on-WP, but he hasn't responded. I'm now working with Ssbohio and others on this article. Some editors have professed POVs regarding the subject. The subject's actions are the center of a number of legal proceedings and a few journalism ethics issues. These matters make it more difficult to properly balance the article. Due to those factore I think it's best to err on the side of brevity. -Will Beback · † · 10:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Richard Rathwell Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    I don't understand why this is even an entry on wikipedia. The original article reads as though it is a vanity entry and appears in exactly the same words on several other websites including the subject's own. The subject has published many books - but all through his own on demand print company, The much revised entry is less contentious but I am still not of the opinion that this person warrants an entry. There is no independent confirmation in the entry of any of the awards that he claims to have been awarded etc. My own opinion is that this entry should be considered for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.92.249 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

    Scott Bloch Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    Scott Bloch is currently at the center of a minor political event with regard to charges the President acted illegally. Google his name and you will see what I mean. Now read our article on him. Now note that a contributor named "Queerudite" has filled our article on him with queer issues. WAS 4.250 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

    • The pseudonym chosen by the editor is no more relevant than your chosen pseudonym is. What is relevant is whether the editor is providing verifiable content supported by reliable sources. Checking a selection of the sources cited, it appears that xe is. Xe is providing content, sourced from articles in The Washington Post (where this person is the primary focus of the articles) amongst others, relating to the actions in public office taken by a public official, that includes such publicly recorded activities as testifying before the U.S. Senate and issuing statements of departmental policy. Indeed, he hasn't provided any content that deals with the subject's private life at all. Uncle G 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I am concerned firstly with WP:COI issues in that Queerudite might be introducing bias or unbalanced coverage with regard to an issue he might have strong feeling about and secondly with possible future media coverage of Misplaced Pages's coverage of Scott Bloch given the increasing media profile of both wikipedia and the current Scott Bloch investigation into Bush's last presidential campaign. Balanced coverage is a BLP issue, but maybe this is more of a COI issue afterall. In any case, it is a concern. WAS 4.250 16:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Nina Bracewell-Smith Template:Blpwatch-links

    A slow-motion edit war has been in progress on this article over the subject's date of birth since September 2006, and not a single editor has cited a reliable source that gives this information in all of that time. I've removed the controversial information and placed a warning on the talk page (q.v.). Uncle G 13:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

    James Dobson Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    • I question whether the citations support saying he is an advocate of dominionism. What critics have written about him should certainly be mentioned, subject to due weight and neutrality. I think more, and more neutral, sources are needed before we can say Dobson advocates dominionism. Tom Harrison 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sources provided are acceptable, Salon, etc, as was noted by a number of admins when they where previously discussed at Template_talk:Dominionism. Odd nature 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think people expect WP to have a higher standard than Salon, etc. Steve Dufour 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    I seem to recall that the arbcom in a RfArb on Satya Sai Baba assumed salon.com was reliable. I certainly think it meets WP:RS, as there is significant editorial oversight. 160.39.52.232 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am not saying that Salon should not be used as a source. Steve Dufour 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    This particular Salon article is an interview with someone who is promoting his book. It would be a good source for things that Chris Hodges said or thinks. He indirectly calls Dobson a dominionist. After looking over the talk page I'm not sure what the issue is. --Gbleem 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    This seems to be part of a larger controversy focusing on the Dominionism-related articles. It appears that some sources say that Dobson is an advocate of Dominionism and some say that he is not, or that Dominionism doesn't actually exist as a broad movement within the Christian Right and is instead limited to a small fringe group not including Dobson. Is that right?
    Although I did not do independent research on this beyond checking some of the online sources that WP cites, I cannot find anything glaringly wrong in the paragraph in Dobson's article. I believe that the main dispute revolves around including Dobson as an "advocate" in the template. If the reliable sources don't agree on something, WP cannot take a position either way. Accordingly, labelling Dobson as an "advocate" of Dominionism in the template seems inappropriate. However, including Dobson in the template under "Other" or a similar label would be appropriate, because a reader interested in Dominionism may be interested in his article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tom Monaghan Template:Blpwatch-links

    There's a discussion on this topic here and I must say, I tend to agree with Tom harrison here. The main source seems to be this article in the Rolling Stone. I cannot see how someone can take the information in Rolling Stone and conclude that it is providing a citation that Monaghan is a Dominionist. This seems to be a leap. However, I am not familiar with Dominionism or with Tom Monaghan and am only leaving my comment here because I reviewed a block. --Yamla 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Bruce Hyman Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    I have been watching the talk page for this person (a contentious subject due to an alleged misdemeanour of his, which he is in court for at the moment), and today some eight or nine entries were briefly on the talk page before being wiped. Now there is no trace of them in the history section even, so I cannot check up on what was written. Why has this happened? Is it usual to delete material even from the history section? Who authorises it? Why? Surely Misplaced Pages is not censored? Podder8 14:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    I should add that there have been large-scale removals of material, both in the article and on the talk page, before today, but their traces are still in the history section. The entries made today have gone completely, with no trace. What is going on? Podder8 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

    Stormfront (website) Template:Blpwatch-links

    I've removed a small bit of unsourced BLP stuff twice and have been reverted. Article also has some slight POV problems, but my main concern is the list of members which is not sourced. --- RockMFR 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with your approach. These forums have long-term members and stable identities. In the case of notable people who frequent a website their identities are widely agreed-upon and can be sourced from user pages, etc. But we do need to keep a close watch because even sourced material may not be reliable or suitable. I've left a BLP0 template on the editor's page and will watch the article more closely. -Will Beback · † · 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Huseyincan Celil Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    KazakhPol (talk · contribs) has been adding been adding inappropriate and possibly libelous information to the lead. His source is a third-hand reference, a partisan paper which quotes a partisan group claiming he was on Interpol's "Red List." I was thinking of blocking as per this, but I think it would be better to bring this up here first. Khoikhoi 03:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, contrary to Khoikhoi's statement here, the information was already present on the page. Khoikhoi on the article talkpage initially states that the info doesnt need to be mentioned in the introduction because it is already mentioned below. He then changes tactics, claiming it violates BLP when mentioned in the introduction but not when it is mentioned in the body of the article. I have now posted multiple sources from Human Rights Watch and the Uzbek government. KazakhPol 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    Gary Bauer Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    GearedBull (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting misleading, inappropriate, unsourced and potentially libelous allegations of homosexuality to this article. (UTC)

    I left a note on User talk:GearedBull. The material was unsourced and dodgy even if it had a source. I think GearedBull probably just reflexively reverted because the deletions were made by anons with no edit summaries. -Will Beback · † · 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is an incredibly poor article, especially for a public figure of this level of prominence. *** Crotalus *** 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Rich DeVos Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    I have removed Rich DeVos from the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism' on Template:Dominionism. The only source I can find is one article in Rolling Stone. That is not adequate to support listing him on the template. Tom Harrison 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

    • I again removed DeVos (and Monaghan, see above) and blocked User:151.151.73.167 to keep him from adding them again. Guettarda regards my block as grossly inappropriate and urges me in strong terms not to do such a thing again. I am not persuaded by his reasoning, but I appreciate his review and welcome further input. Tom Harrison 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That template has been a source of trouble for a while. Like categories and article names, templates are hard to make NPOV. Guettarda is a level-headed guy, and I'm sure he's working towards consensus.
      • Regarding DeVos, this edit to Amway removed several sources presumably about his connections to Dominionism. The unregistered editor described the material as: "original research" sourced from blogs. However I think some non-blog sources were also deleted. I've had it on my list to check through the deleted material to see if anything is salvageable but haven't gotten to it yet. Will Beback · † · 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, I would certainly welcome wider participation. Tom Harrison 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm missing something? Why isn't the Rolling Stone citation enough? JoshuaZ 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe because if it was true that DeVos, one of the wealthiest people in the USA, was one of the main funders of a off-the-wall extremist politicial movement the fact would be reported in other media as well. Nothing against the Rolling Stone. Steve Dufour 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    Paul Shanklin Template:Blpwatch-links

    • Paul Shanklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Conservative satirist, long time Rush Limbaugh show performer. Brand new blurb added that appears to be trying to stir up a Don Imus style controversy. Only sourcing appears to be a blog-site, so this appears to be a violation, at the least for sourcing. Looking for an independant eye or two on this. I'm a little close to this, being a long time Shanklin fan so I may be biased against negative information. OTOH, this does sound like the kind of thing Shanklin would do, as his satire has always been fairly biting. // TexasAndroid 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    Richard Hell Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    Can someone BLP check this please and sort any issues out. Thanks in advance. – Steel 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    Dirk Nowitzki Template:Blpwatch-links

    Serial vandalism by unregistered users was reverted and the page was semi-protected. — Athaenara 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    He's added it twice more since the block expired. If he continues, he's courting a second and probably longer block for 3RR violations. — Athaenara 09:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Al Gore III Template:Blpwatch-links

    • Al Gore III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Getaway is a blatant POV pusher who has been inserting irrelevant tabloid-type information into the Al Gore III article for months on end in a long term edit war. Since there is extremely little information available about Al Gore III (as he is not a public figure) this gives the article a very negative bias in violation of the BLP and NPOV policies. I have been extremely lenient with this editor, allowing him to include Gore III's entire adult criminal record in the article. I have drawn the line, however, at including information about Gore III being suspending from high school when he was 13 for smoking marajuana. Although this fact can be sourced, it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy for a non-public figure and it is certainly not encyclopedic. Every time I remove this information, Getaway attempts to initiate a voluminous debate with me extemporizing his unique interpretations of our policies and whining about how other editors do the same thing in other articles. Getaway also commonly trolls Al Gore III's talk page where he is not shy about expressing his POV concerning "Gorebot Junior" (as he refers to the article's subject). As you can see from Getaway's talk page, he has been blocked a few times already for 3RR and POV pushing. I would really appreciate it if another admin would back me up on my warnings about the Al Gore III article, as I'm sick of trying to debate the nuances of BLP policy with someone who is basically acting as a troll. // Kaldari 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    I guess calling someone a "troll" is ok? I do not believe that language conforms with the rules of WP:CIVIL. Please do not call me a "troll" and I have been making reasonable arguments for the inclusion. Also, several other editors have agreed that the Gore III is a public figure. There have been five or six votes on that issue and the votes every time come out positive for Gore III being included as a topic of Misplaced Pages. Have a good day.--Getaway 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    the Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Misplaced Pages encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. My comment is: Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Misplaced Pages users.--Getaway 20:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've gone farther than that. We don't have article sections called "Infractions of the law." That's unbiographical, nonsensical and completely lacking in context. How in God's name is a citation for reckless driving encyclopedic? Misplaced Pages is not a scandal sheet. FCYTravis 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    Notice Getaway's hoary, flimsy device of using a red herring argument to avoid addressing the argument. Kaldari is right. Getaway (formerly banned user "Keetoowah") is a blatant POV pusher, who has never made a "reasonable argument" for the unduly-weighted POV he wishes spread on the Al Gore III page. Getaway/Keetoowah seems to enjoy libelling the children of Democratic politicians, while removing any remotely negative information from the children of Republican politicians. (Contrast his edits on the Bush twins' pages with those he made on the Al Gore III page.) What a hypocrite. And, yes, Getaway/Keetoowah's actions are those of a troll. Eleemosynary 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Please notice dear admins of all stripes that Eleemosynary personally attacked me with the word "hypocrite" (among other personal attacks) and not one admin on this page has attempted to tell Eleemosynary that his behavior violates the Wikipedian rules of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Once again, I would ask Eleemosynary to stop engaging in personal attacks.--Getaway 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Dear Getaway/Keetowah. I'd be happy to post diffs for over 500 instances of personal attacks and disruptive edits coming from you, your various identities, and your sockpuppet/meatpuppets. I urge you, as Fred Bauder has, to take this to a dispute resolution so all information can come to light. : ) Eleemosynary 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    The easy solution is to just delete the whole article. The only interest in it is in how it might discredit his dad. If you want to delete the Bush twins' article too I would not complain. Steve Dufour 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    While I applaud your even-handedness, the problem with this is that the twins, for whatever reason, are in fact far more notable than Al Gore III. A Google search for "jenna bush" turns up about 277,000 hits, while one for "al gore iii" turns up only about 2,820 hits. That's a difference of two orders of magnitude. (I didn't search for Barbara Bush because those results could also refer to the former First Lady.) For what it's worth, the 2nd Google hit for Al Gore III (after his Misplaced Pages bio, of course) is from CNN: Al Gore's son charged with pot possession. So, in fairness, we're not really overemphasizing criminality any worse than the mainstream press has done. Still, I think this "biography" should really be merged into the main Al Gore page. Al Gore III is clearly only notable because his father is a high-powered politician. *** Crotalus *** 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    The marajuana incident I am referring to is from when Al Gore III was 13, not the adult incident commonly mentioned in the press. Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss the children of famous people being suspended from school. No matter how you slice it, that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Regarding the "personal attacks", I can only refer to WP:SPADE. Although Getaway does make positive edits to non-political articles, I've only seen him edit political bios in a way that expresses a rather obvious bias. His attempts to twist policies into his defense and attack any criticisms rather than acknowledging the problems with his edits can only be seen as troll-like behavior. As much as I generally encourage gently nudging problematic editors, I'm not convinced that Getaway has any intention of wanting to be a legitimate contributor to Misplaced Pages, rather than simply a political POV-pusher. Kaldari 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tucker Max Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    Recently, edits have been made to the Tucker Max entry which violate the Misplaced Pages standards against slander and libel and are entirely unsourced, unverifiable information. These have mainly been made by the user Antiscian and anonymous editors.

    Generally speaking, the whole article has devolved into a slander-fest with little or no NPOV content. Most NPOV immediately information is removed and the focus remains on making unsourced, or marginally verifiable negative comments about the subject. At one time, the article had a fairly decent mix of neutral, balanced information, but over the past few months, that has been shaved away. It's best summed up on the talk page.

    In the interest of full disclosure: I am the IT Director for Rudius Media, Tucker Max's company. However, I think that it can be objectively said that the article as it is written (especially with the recent edits) is decidedly non-NPOV and definitely violates the BLP policies. It's certainly not encyclopedic. If this article is ever to resemble a quality entry, it's going to require some monitoring and perhaps even some protection. --ljheidel 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

    John Travolta Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    A lot of the article is devoted to rumors that he is gay. I just removed a tabloid photo of him kissing a friend and it was put right back. Steve Dufour 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Criticism of Bill O'Reilly Template:Blpwatch-links

    This page is very poorly sourced, the majority of the cited sources are from the unabashedly agenda pushing Media Matters for America. Can I get some help bringing it to meet the sourcing requirements of BLP? The editors there simply do not understand that "multiple" sources are needed for negative material in a BLP article. Kyaa the Catlord 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see this as a BLP issue, but as a standard editing dispute. Per WP:BLP#Criticism: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." O'Reilly has directly attacked Media Matters on-air, so in that context, their responses (as well as whatever statements prompted O'Reilly's initial criticisms) are notable and should be included. Obviously, care should be taken that this is done in a neutral manner. I do think that the "Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home" section has some original research that should be removed, though. Ideally, this whole article should be merged back into the main O'Reilly article, but size considerations probably preclude that. *** Crotalus *** 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I agree that it is an editting dispute for the most part. I agree that Media Matters should be covered, but it should not be used as a source per the following wording in BLP: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." I've asked for multiple sources to back up the MMfA sourcing, but these have not been presented in the article. The related problem to having these sources not being presented is that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." If the criticisms of BOR were more than that of a tiny minority, we'd be able to find more reliable sources than simply the partisan MMfA. (And I'm prepared for people to say that I'm wrong, I'm ok with that.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Also of note, it is somewhat questionable that the "criticism of BOR" article is larger than the BOR article. Kyaa the Catlord 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    I would like to add that a highly critical study of BOR has been inserted as factual evidence that BOR insults people on a regular basis which appears to go beyond criticism involving BOR to direct criticism of BOR. Arzel 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    To me it seems like the article is not really about "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly." It is more like an outlet to repeat the criticisms. It seems more like a political website than an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree, and it appears to be quite common on BLP articles. Arzel 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    If politics was excluded from WP about 90% of the problems posted on this noticeboard would go away. Steve Dufour 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Dan Burton Template:Blpwatch-links

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

    I haven't had a chance to read through everything carefully, but some recently added content here seems a little biased (and I say that as someone who is no fan of Burton). Also many of the references cited are bare URL links expired articles on a newspaper site. I dunno if these can be recovered from archives at the newspaper site, but the article doesn't provide much in the way of context to help locate them. older ≠ wiser 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Date, source, and article title are insufficient for you? Quatloo 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Many of the references are just fine -- there are some that are problematic though as in undated and dead link and a search of the site for the given title revealing no hits. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    If there is a date, source and title, there is no "problem" with a dead link, since you can consult the source at a library or archive. There is no restriction that a source be live on the Internet. That would be absurd. Undated links, that is a different issue altogether. Quatloo 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    User:Fredwerner added to the intro, "The 5th District is one of the most gerrymandered districts for Republicans, essentially guaranteeing his re-election despite his frequent golf trips, mis-statements, and other embarrassing scandals." To help me refine my blp-detector, does anyone see a problem with that? Tom Harrison
    I don't think it needs more refinement. There is a clear problem with that statement. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    Juan Carlos I of Spain Template:Blpwatch-links

    Unfortunately it seems that this article and now this noticeboard are being attacked by the former User:Gibraltarian. He has an appalling record of sustained abuse, edit-warring, sockpuppeting and vandalism (he even repeatedly vandalised his own request for arbitration, which I've never seen happen before or since). He was banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2006 - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian - and has now been permanently banned from editing Misplaced Pages. However, he's continuing to use 212.120.*.* IP addresses to edit/vandalise articles and talk pages. He is essentially an obsessive xenophobic crank whose M.O. is to delete anything (even if sourced) that doesn't fit his POV and add anything (which he never sources) that supports his POV. He's now taken his campaign to Juan Carlos I of Spain where he's repeatedly deleting Juan Carlos' title of King of Gibraltar, which is verifiably part of the Spanish royal titles. He's also deleting this message from the noticeboard.

    I would be grateful if BLP watchers could add this article to their watchlist and revert any edits coming from 212.120.*.*. Please don't block an individual IP for more than a few hours - he's using Gibraltar's largest ISP and indiscriminate blocks cause too much collateral damage for our saner Gibraltarian editors. -- ChrisO 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    In this edit (which was rightly reverted within minutes) he also (as 212.120.239.37) removed quite a lot of material from other sections of this noticeboard. — Athaenara 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    He's doing this repeatedly now. I just reverted his latest attack. He's simply rolling back to the rant that he posted at 14:43, 5 May 2007, and wiping out everything that everyone's posted since then. It's completely typical of the egocentric vandalism which he's inflicted on Gibraltar and Spain-related articles for nearly two years now, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Matt Sanchez Template:Blpwatch-links

    A USMC Reservist who has a past career as an actor in gay porn videos, is now being victimized by many in the blogosphere who feel that they have proof that he was also a gay prostitute. There are no secondary sources confirming this, just some "connect the dots" primary sources, and some conflicting statements by Sanchez himself. We've been trying to keep the article neutral and referenced, but various accounts (mostly {{spa}}) are generating some heat on the talkpage, and the article is currently protected. Some help from other experienced Misplaced Pages editors would be appreciated. Thanks, Elonka 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    To me he looks like a 15 minutes of fame guy. He is only notable for being involved in one incident. Steve Dufour 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    Users Aatombomb (talk · contribs) and Bluemarine (talk · contribs) were doing most of the edit warring before WJBscribe protected the article. In general, there is far more speculative gossip-oriented content in this article than there should be in any Misplaced Pages biography. All of it should be removed. Misplaced Pages is distinct from the blogosphere and should remain so. — Athaenara 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Note that Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is Sanchez himself. WjBscribe 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tracie Spencer Template:Blpwatch-links

    A user who says she is the subject of this article has changed the birthdate repeatedly, to make her two years younger. I have no issue with this ~ i've never heard of her other than as the subject of the article ~ but there are two fairly good references showing the prior date. Several users have attempted to persuade her not to do this, but she appears not to look at (or at least pay attention to) her talk page, or the talk page of the article, or even the edit summaries. Do we just keep watching this, or is there more to do? I defer, as a beginner, to the more experience users here. Cheers, Lindsay 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    How about not mentioning a birthdate at all? Steve Dufour 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gail Omvedt Template:Blpwatch-links

    Anon IP, probably a sock of the banned user Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), repeatedly re-inserting contentious material, much of which sounds like classic well-poisoning to me, and is unsourced in terms of direct relevance. Hornplease 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    Rebecca Curci Template:Blpwatch-links

    zerorules677 (talk · contribs) has been continuing to change Rebecca Curci's year of birth, despite not having a reliable source. For proof of this, go to talk page. Once I correct the year of birth on the article, zerorules677 (talk · contribs) will change it back to the wrong year of birth, and this happens nearly every day. If you could try and make her/him see some sense that would be great, as I'm getting annoyed with having to correct the year of birth every day. Thanks. Xchickenx 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    This is not a BLP issue, but a content dispute. From what I read in the talk page, it seems nobody has a good, reliable source for what her birthday is. Thus no date should be inserted, and certainly not a "correction" to a date which is not reliably sourced. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 07:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    List of bisexual people Template:Blpwatch-links

    After extensive overhaul and watchlisting by the LGBT studies WikiProject, this list had finally reached a high status of attribution and reliability. Then someone added Jackie Clune, a British journalist who identified as a lesbian in the past and currently identifies as straight, based on this source, which clearly states that she does not wish to be identified as bisexual. I tried to remove the entry () and was reverted, and then brought the issue up on the talk page. Yet, after weeks of absence, the issue has yet to be resolved. Please advise. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    I read the article you linked to and it is far from obvious to me that Clune "currently identifies as straight". In fact, it seems to me the whole point of her article is that she refuses to be categorized by labels such as "straight" or "bisexual", etc., but considers herself (and others) as on a "continuum, the polarities being absolutely straight and absolutely gay." But I would agree she does not wish to be called "bisexual", although that seems a rather minor point to her overall message. I'm not sure if this is really a BLP issue; Clune clearly revels in her ambiguous status and publicizes it heavily (she wrote an article, makes it part of her comedy act, etc), so it's highly unlikely her inclusion on this list could somehow affect her life negatively. ---Chan-Ho (Talk) 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    WP:BLP#Use of categories
    Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
    • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
    • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
    This doesn't explicitly say it applies to lists too, but common sense would suggest it does.
    Moreover, the BLP policy says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles." It doesn't have to be negative; positive and just questionable material should be removed too. Ken Arromdee 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I was unclear above, although I would suggest reading the article linked and then my response. Clune's sexual preferences are definitely relevant to her notable activities and public life. She also makes a habit of publicly self-identifying as on a continuum between straight and gay; she basically coyly suggests she would be what many people call "bisexual" while stating "hey, don't call me bisexual!" to make her philosophical point. So I don't believe this is the kind of "questionable" material that the BLP policy is meant to be applied to. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you want to get into questionable content, perhaps you should take a look at the Jackie Clune article itself, where "she currently identifies herself as straight" is supported by the linked Guardian article I discussed above. My reading of that article is that she doesn't actually do so and I would say that is truly questionable. By the way, I think applying these category criteria would essentially smoke the list; this kind of list is always problematic, and it doesn't appear to have been set up to follow these criteria. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Besides that, how can we know for sure that a person is bisexual? Ask them? Steve Dufour 05:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    In lists about people, Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people applies. We cannot and should not make assertions about a person's ideology, sexual orientation or other such personal issues, unless that assertion is made by the person himself and such assertion is publoihsed in a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    For instance, Ian McKellen is legitimately categorised in Category:LGBT people from England because he self-identifies as such and is a prominent LGBT campaigner. -- ChrisO 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. The point I was trying to make is that if bisexual means having feelings towards both genders we really have no way to know for sure because we can not measure a person's feelings. However, I would support a list of bisexual people if that was defined by them saying that they were. Steve Dufour 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Frank Colacurcio, Sr. Template:Blpwatch-links

    Frank Colacurcio runs a number of strip-clubs in the Seattle area and is the alleged head (or former head) of the Seattle Mafia. Considering that claim is well-referenced in the article via the external links, I thought much of the article was be fine, so I left most of it alone. But I'm not 100% sure, and there was a claim in there that Colacurcio was associated with former Washington State governor Albero Rosellini, and one sentence that went as far as to say Rosellini was suspected of running the mob that Colacurcio once headed. I went ahead and removed that line, but given the article's anemic sourcing, I'm wondering if more drastic actions is necessary. The article has details on the rise of Colacurcio from associate to boss, and without footnotes, I am unsure if any of that is permissable under WP:BLP. hateless 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    Well, for one thing, none of the linked articles suggest that he is in fact Mafia, although one Seattle PI article imply he has been accused of that or at least of being an organized crime boss. That article is basically about him defending himself and denying these allegations. This biography seems rather shady to me. The Seattle Weekly article seems more like an opinionated attack piece, and I certainly would not put it as a reliable source. Currently, his WP bio has nothing really about his life apart from his past criminal activities and allegations. And yes, not knowing where certain fact(?)s are sourced from is a major problem. Some books are listed, but they mainly seem to be about other people. One book is "Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King", which doesn't inspire much confidence as a reliable source. So this article seems riddled with problems. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for examining the article Chan-Ho. The Seattle Times published this article on their homepage today that Colacurcio is being investigated for five murders in the 70's and 80's, and that he was once considered Seattle's connection to the mafia, but "more likely, investigators have concluded" that he was the head of a organized crime outfit. Given this material, and whatever sources left on the page that can be relied upon, how far back do you think the article be scaled back? hateless 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) Template:Blpwatch-links

    Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been listed as "weasel words" and neutrality disputed. Can this be removed? Philsome 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

    complaint from subject of BLP article

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

    "I am the person who the John Paulus Misplaced Pages page is the subject of. The sources sited and referenced are a series of gossip sites and blogs. Your information about me is replete with inaccurate information and information that it skewed in a calculated effort to promote propaganda and paint me in a negatively light. It's objectivity is in question when the authors are fans of one Clay Aiken who have massaged the facts to suit their malicious and nefarious agenda. I asked that the page about me be removed or that certain elements that are not sourced through legitimate media be removed. At issue is this alleged recant. This recant is false and was a sarcastic response taken literally and immediately fed to blog sites which are now being sourced as legitimate. I can be contacted through email at JohnPaulus@gmail.com You immediate attention is greatly appreciated. --JohnPaulus 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"

    (from Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests#John_Paulus_page) — Demong talk 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Paulus (2nd nomination). So far the consensus favors deleting the artice. -Will Beback · † · 09:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Henry Pollack Template:Blpwatch-links

    → See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Henry Pollack

    There is a related thread posted at ANI. I have blocked the user for making legal threats.

    The article itself is up for deletion, but it may yet be kept. Given charges of fraud against the subject, the article certainly needs to be cleaned up. There are also accusations of stalking, libel, and the works. Needs help. — Rebelguys2 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Teesta Setalvad Template:Blpwatch-links

    The user in question persists in adding commentary and strongly contentious claims about this individual's views by what looks to me like misrepresentation of sources. I'd like some other editors to come in and have a look, if possible. Hornplease 08:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not marking this as resolved yet, but the user in question seems to have finally read WP:BLP and is being a little constructive on the talkpage. Hornplease 10:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Template:Blpwatch

    It has been remarked by the above user and some others the inclusion of the name Bob Dylan on this list, as well as reference to his prior seemingly well documented conversion to a form of Christianity on his own page, might potentially be grounds for a libel suit. The article has even been proposed for deletion on the basis of including that particular name. Please advise whether you believe there are possible grounds for legal action here, and/or whether the evidence cited would seemingly be enough to include the name on the list and/or information relevant to the topic in the Bob Dylan article itself. John Carter 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Grounds for a libel suit? Why? Could you please link to the part of the talkpage that discusses that? Hornplease 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    Found it. It's on the List page, not the Dylan page, in case anyone is looking. "To label a practicing Jew as a "convert to Christianity" is potentially libellous." OK, whatever. Hornplease 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    "Documentation" for conversion is virtually nonexistent. Dylan was born and raised a Jew. Dylan spent two years (1979/1980) performing in a "Christian" mode. Very arguably his "sermonettes" delivered from the stage were a prop to support his professional performance. He has since been seen re-involving himself in many Jewish-oriented pursuits and activities. Most importantly -- Dylan has had no involvement with Christianity since he stepped down from the stage of his last "Gospel" concert in 1980. Without the active negation of his Jewish identity there is virtually no argument to be made in support of the labeling of Dylan either as a "Christian" or a "convert to Christianity." Bus stop 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    The standard here is "verifiability, not truth". Since this is verifiable , (15 additional sources cited in the article/list) as per wikipedia policy, there are no libel issues here. JJay 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've always had the feeling the Dylan was influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Steve Dufour 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    This issue would not even exist if not for a contrivance in the parameters of the list in question. See here. Bus stop 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    All you have to do is compare the two sets of parameters if you have any doubts which is more natural, logical, or commonsensical. I think you will see one is clearly a contrivance. This list (List of converts to Christianity) stands in contrast to those Christians who are not converts to Christianity. There are, in actuality, only two means of arriving at Christianity: by birth, and by conversion. The natural parameters of this list are those parameters that distinguish those on this list from those who arrive at their Christian identity by means of being born Christian. It is an added criteria contrived by editors to define this list as including "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." And that contrivance is quite simply to get superstar Dylan onto the list. It is just a contrivance. Bus stop 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Hey, why not take a little dose of WP:AGF and stop accusing other editors of contrivances? Often these sorts of problems with lists can be solved with better definitions of the criteria for inclusion. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thinking about this some more, although I think this isn't really a WP:BLP issue and that Bus Stop is a bit over the top, I'm not sure that we are doing the best job of informing our readers by characterizing Dylan a "convert" to Christianity based on a three-year flirtation with it nearly thirty years ago. Mere lists with no other information about the topic are pretty uninformative in general. Perhaps Dylan's entry on this list could say that he converted to Christianity but abandoned it three years later? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Keith Henson Template:Blpwatch-links

    Bad faith or overzealous BLP enforcement by user:Jossi

    Jossi knows very well that the statement that Maharaji aka Prem Rawat is a "cult" leader is stated in a reputable source, yet he defends removing it from user talk page with the justification that the contributor does not mention its source. User:Jossi knows the source very well, because we discussed it extensively and he agreed it to be a reputable source. His removal of this statement with the stated reason of WP:BLP strikes me as either overzealous or made in bad faith. Jossi removes complaints by me about this from his talk page.

    An analogy. If I write without sources on my user talk page that George W. Bush made a mistake when attacking Iraq on my user talk page then removal of this statement by a contributor who knows very well that this has also been voiced in reputable sources strikes me as censorship.

    Reputable source: Saul Levine chapter 9, discusses "Psychological Perspectives on Cult Leadership." in the book "Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association " by Marc Galanter

    Andries 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    Categories: