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 21:15, 7 June 2007 editRandom user 39849958 (talk | contribs)19,517 edits →Starting fresh← Previous edit Revision as of 23:13, 7 June 2007 edit undoValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,271 edits →Starting fresh: clarifications (beware of libelous BLP agendas at work here)Next edit →
Line 477: Line 477:


I think Levine is on solid ground. SB came out of retirement to appear at WP and backed it all up. He is OK with clarifying the whole thing, so why isn't everyone else? What's the fear? Levine has offered a very NPOV statement. So let's accept it and close this chapter. ] 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I think Levine is on solid ground. SB came out of retirement to appear at WP and backed it all up. He is OK with clarifying the whole thing, so why isn't everyone else? What's the fear? Levine has offered a very NPOV statement. So let's accept it and close this chapter. ] 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Barrett came here, not to openly back up the fact of his lack of board certification (which he has never misrepresented), but to counter potentially libelous claims being made here regarding the fact. There is a world of difference! It has never been an issue in the real world or during his entire career, including testifying as a psychiatrist while he was in practice. It's an unnotable fact. Its only "notability" is the fact that his main detractor (Tim Bolen, whom his is now suing for libel) has attempted to make it notable by misleadingly using the fact against him to imply wrongdoing, misrepresentation, or lack of qualifications to do what he does, which is to expose quackery. Board certification is totally unnecessary in that endeavor, so it is still unnotable. Again, there is a world of difference! Steth's statement is quite misleading and further's Bolen's libelous agenda here at Misplaced Pages. (Steth's history here at Misplaced Pages speaks loads about his contempt and hatred of Barrett, including commonly pushing the limits of BLP, if not in fact, in spirit, which is very unwikipedian. He should take his agenda elsewhere.) This agenda has BLP implications and should be handled carefully. When impartial third-party sources start reporting it we can cite them. So far only those with a heavy agenda against him mention it. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


:I have to agree with ] here. The lack of board certification in his speciality would be a significant factor in his testifying as an expert witness in the field. If he has never achieved any board certifications (which I assume is the case, since his practice was focused on psychiatry), I would suggest a sentence that simply states that. (Example: Barrett has not been granted board certification in any medical speciality.)--] 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC) :I have to agree with ] here. The lack of board certification in his speciality would be a significant factor in his testifying as an expert witness in the field. If he has never achieved any board certifications (which I assume is the case, since his practice was focused on psychiatry), I would suggest a sentence that simply states that. (Example: Barrett has not been granted board certification in any medical speciality.)--] 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::: As I state above it was never necessary or an issue during his career. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


::Could be something to do with a policy of Misplaced Pages called Biographies of Living Persons? '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC) ::Could be something to do with a policy of Misplaced Pages called Biographies of Living Persons? '''<font face="Kristen ITC">]</font>''' 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 491: Line 495:
:Perhaps someone can review my two deletions of material per WP:BLP from ]? Since I removed the same attack a couple of months ago, I've become involved in the discussion. Thanks, ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC) :Perhaps someone can review my two deletions of material per WP:BLP from ]? Since I removed the same attack a couple of months ago, I've become involved in the discussion. Thanks, ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:::To make a correct BLP assessment I think external editors/reviewers should take into account that Barrett does not have an WP-article because he is a doctor but because he is a controversial ] and opinion leader. He uses his MD credentials to make his attacks on all forms of alternative medicine more credible. He is also very keen on attacking educational credentials of proponents of alt med. ] 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC) :::To make a correct BLP assessment I think external editors/reviewers should take into account that Barrett does not have an WP-article because he is a doctor but because he is a controversial ] and opinion leader. He uses his MD credentials to make his attacks on all forms of alternative medicine more credible. He is also very keen on attacking educational credentials of proponents of alt med. ] 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: It is quite logical to attack the often fake credentials when they are wielded by alternative medicine quacks, which is a common problem. Diploma mills sell them to many such practitioners, so Barrett is perfectly correct in criticizing their credentials. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


An involved editor is displeased with the one third-party response we've had here thus far and has gone to that third-party's talk page demanding secondary sources to support the statement: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified." Mind you, nobody is contesting this statement as a fact. Barrett himself has even come to Misplaced Pages and affirmed that he is not Board Certified. (He is bothered when his detractors say that he was reluctant to admit this information, but he says that he is quite public with not being Board Certified.) Anyhow, we know this statement is accurate and we know that BLP concerns itself with getting the article right. But for further verification, here is just a partial list of secondary sources which mention that Barrett is not Board Certified: An involved editor is displeased with the one third-party response we've had here thus far and has gone to that third-party's talk page demanding secondary sources to support the statement: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified." Mind you, nobody is contesting this statement as a fact. Barrett himself has even come to Misplaced Pages and affirmed that he is not Board Certified. (He is bothered when his detractors say that he was reluctant to admit this information, but he says that he is quite public with not being Board Certified.) Anyhow, we know this statement is accurate and we know that BLP concerns itself with getting the article right. But for further verification, here is just a partial list of secondary sources which mention that Barrett is not Board Certified:

Revision as of 23:13, 7 June 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
    Chuck Cissel (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 24 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

    |- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

    Centralized discussion



    Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

    Category:BLP Check

    → In re {{BLPC}} template and 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)

    Recent changes to BLPs

    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)

    Unreliable BLP sources

    NNDB Notable Names Database

    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)
    I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Misplaced Pages. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Misplaced Pages: not a valid source for anything in Misplaced Pages. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Jewish Virtual Library

    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)

    I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Misplaced Pages"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tucker Max Template:Blpwatch-links

    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)

    Added userlinks. I don't know whether or not this issue has been resolved. — Athaenara ✉ 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    The content regarding Max's appearance on the Opie and Anthony show and his engagement at South by Southwest that editors keep entering into the article is also severely POV and non-encyclopedic. In both cases, editors have taken statements out of context, combined them with opinion and personal slant, then stated the amalgam as fact. (i.e. Opie and Anthony did not throw a book at Max, Max did not admit at SXSW to "spamming" anything, etc.) Thus the issue hasn't been resolved. --ljheidel 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with you completely and will remove it. This is totally defamatory and has no place in the article.--Samiharris 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Add GeorgeMichael69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. --ljheidel 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    Juan Carlos I of Spain Template:Blpwatch-links

    → See also: {{Gibraltarian}} and Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse#Blocked User:Gibraltarian

    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)
    You know, what makes this all the more insane is that the material Gibraltarian is complaining about isn't even in this article. It was split out into a separate article weeks ago. -- ChrisO 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    He is equalled by other editors adding silly 'Gibraltar Espanol' comments and Spanish flags etc to pages about Gibraltar, like this one --Gibnews 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hardly - that's just hit-and-run vandalism. Gibraltarian is unusual, in that he's a remarkably persistent vandal - he's been at it for nearly two years now. -- ChrisO 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    John Sweeney (journalist) Template:Blpwatch-links

    I assume the objectionable information is the section removed in this edit. However, that information is both well-sourced and neutral, meaning that it is an editorial issue about whether to include it, and not one relating to WP:BLP. Trebor 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Being sued for libel strikes me a highly relevant to a person who is notable as a journalist. What was the nature of the information removed from Richard Gere? It's difficult to see what point you are making about without at least a diff link, and I can't be arsed to go fishing around the archives to try to understand something you haven't bothered to explain yourself. -- Really Spooky 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    Agree with Spooky here. The libel trial got major press coverage and he is a journalist. JoshuaZ 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    What they said. I presume the Gere information is related to this RfC (which appears fairly widely debated anyway). In which case, I'd say there's a difference between including an allegation about someone's personal life, and an actual event which relates to someone's career (as libel relates to journalism). Trebor 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    The whole "Controversy" section could be removed as it just talks about this libel suit and a tiff he had with a Scientologist the other day. As it is these two minor incidents take up about half of the article. He seems to be well respected and accomplished as a journalist. Steve Dufour 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree, I'd say his notability has stemmed primarily from the recent controversy. But either way, I still feel this is an editorial issue - the information is neutral and sourced. Trebor 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've never heard of him, but I don't live in the UK. The article says he has had a 20 year career as a journalist and has won several awards for his work. Steve Dufour 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    FYI, the Church of Scientology is using the libel case as a way of indicting Sweeney's credibility, per its long-standing policy of "dead agenting" its critics. This isn't to say that the libel case shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but editors should be aware of undue weight considerations. -- ChrisO 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    I suggested removing the material on both minor incidents. Steve Dufour 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    The libel verdict is still there and in my view is far overweighted. Shouldn't this be reduced to one line? --Samiharris 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Shane Ruttle Martinez Template:Blpwatch-links

    I received a complaint from the subject of this article, which indicates that libelous info is being added by IP address 72.143.225.236. This is information I won't repeat here, but this is the link.

    The subject's complaint to me continues as follows:

    "This is serious slander, completely untrue, and I demand that this claim be deleted from the history of the article, and that the user who posted it be disciplined. Additionally, he and Dogmatic and Swatjester have violated my privacy by adding a reference to my having been arrested. This is very misleading, since while I was arrested, all charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of anything. Moreover, there are legal proceedings underway in which I am suing the police.

    My understanding of accepted norms and practices within the media is that old arrests which never resulted in convictions, are not usually mentioned, because they are prejudicial. Furthermore it is a violation of my privacy, as I was found innocent of all charges, and the grounds of arrest were called into serious question before the court (hence the lawsuit against the police). Also, the source of information is a tabloid newspaper which is not considered credible by any reputable researchers.

    Lastly, these editors keep adding references and a link to a libelous DVD about me, produced by a neo-Nazi group which has sent me repeated death threats, and has attempted to engage in witness intimidation during my participation in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Adding references to this DVD in the article is a form of personal harassment, and since the DVD is also libelous and will soon be the subject of a libel lawsuit, it is unacceptable for Misplaced Pages to include a reference to it, let alone make it easier for people to find it and order it from this neo-Nazi group."

    Frank Pais 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    A BLP violation warning was placed on that anon user's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    BLP template added to talk. I will add this page to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • An addition: The article in question, along with Canadian Marxist Candidate Page and the Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi) were edited/created by the same people, lack properly sourced information, contain lots of POV and other descriptives that are unsourced/unncessary, and don't seem to follow notability requirements of "the person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (the independent aspects). SanchiTachi 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    Carl Hewitt Template:Blpwatch-links

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt

    Ruud Koot has placed an unflattering photograph of of Professor Hewitt on the article about him. Did Professor Hewitt give permission for this photograph to be taken?--TheHoover 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    The photo was taken at a conference and then loaded to Flickr. He's wearing a Misplaced Pages T-shirt, and this is the only appropriately licensed image of the Professor I can find in a Google image search. Take a look at the full size image. Jehochman / ✔ 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter that it's free, it's entirely inappropriate for this purpose and I've removed it. If we can't find a good photograph of Mr. Hewitt, no photograph at all is preferable to that one. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, FCYTravis. Could you please leave valued project member User:Ruud Koot a friendly message explaining what you've done. Perhaps he could email Prof Hewitt to ask for a more appropriate image. Jehochman / ✔ 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Note that there is no requirement for Carl Hewitt to have authorized the photo. However, as a poor representation, it's arguably no better than no image. I see no evidence to back up TheHoover's implicit assertion that this was done maliciously rather than in an attempt to improve the article.
    Also note that this is TheHoover's sole topic of contribution in his four Misplaced Pages edits; I suspect that he is either Carl Hewitt himself (yet again) or an associate - in which case he should make himself aware of our policies on conflict of interest. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    A point which is worthy of consideration: "Unflattering" is a subjective assessment, one which I (and perhaps many others) do not share. — Athaenara ✉ 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, the picture is not particularly unflattering - it's not a glamour shot, but neither is he puking into the rosebushes - it's a fairly normal looking shot of him laughing. Makes him look like a fun guy, if anything. WilyD 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    I agree the image looks quite bad when thumbnailed (he seems to be yawning, while it is quite clear that he is laughing on the full size image.) It certainly isn't the best picture we could wish for, but I personally don't find it "unflattering". However, if Carl himself objects to this image that wish should probably be respected. —Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Inaccuracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt

    Repeated reverts by Arthur Rubin and Ruud Koot have introduced inacurracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt by depriving researchers of proper credit for their work. -- 64.75.137.250 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    The above IP address resolves to Honolulu, HI. Prof. Hewitt coincidentally was scheduled to be at a workshop in Honolulu on May 14. How odd is that? If I went to a conference in Hawaii after the end of scheduled classes, I certainly would extend my trip for a week or two. There's an ArbCom decisions (see link above) banning Prof. Hewitt from autobiographic editing. He's used a bunch of sock puppets in the past to circumvent this ruling. User:TheHoover appeared on May 10, and has only edited the Carl Hewitt article, and shows uncanny knowledge for a new Misplaced Pages user. I think blocks are in order. Jehochman / ✔ 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't understand the objection Hewitt has here. My best interpretation would be that by only listing selected papers in his bibliography, instead of each paper and conference presentation he has ever written or given, we are not giving enough credit to the co-authors of the papers not listed. —Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    Edit war at article on Prof. Hewitt

    Supporters and detractors of Prof. Hewitt are having an edit war. Each side says that the other is acting unethically. The detractors claim that the supporters are acting unethically because of conflict of interest. The advocates claim that the detractors are acting unethically because academic standards should prevail.--72.235.115.241 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    The above post is likely a sock puppet of a user banned from editing this topic. See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/CarlHewitt. Jehochman / ✔ 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    Jeffrey Gold Template:Blpwatch-links

    The Misplaced Pages bio of this guy is dubious. It is not clear whether it is libelous or just sophomoric. It needs attention. Greg Kuperberg 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    I added {{BLPC}} to this article and restored the version which existed prior to complex serial vandalism by three userIPs (userlinks above) in early April. — Athaenara ✉ 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    There's another issue here: the content is in many ways identical to the IMDB bio which gives as its source indivisiblePR.com which in turn links to JeffreyGold.com where much of the same content is on subpages. It is a {{primarysources}} problem. — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    Richard Huggett Template:Blpwatch-links

    A ghastly mess. I have stubbified and would appreciate help in rebuilding with sources. Sam Blacketer 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    Having just read the un-stubbified version, I believe it was largely accurate - Huggett was a notorious "byelection troll" and I recall reading about him at the time. I might have an opportunity to trawl Lexis-Nexis in a few days' time to verify the old version's statements. -- ChrisO 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Accuracy may be helpful but what we really need is sourcing. He seems to have had it in for Liberal Democrats in particular (I have heard rumours as to why which are broadly what was in the article) but we really need some good sources for them. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tony Zappone‎ Template:Blpwatch-links

    I agree and I also question whether this person is significant enough to warrant an article.--Samiharris 18:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    David Cornsilk Template:Blpwatch-links

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    Bad faith nomination of sourced article. Subject is notable and mentioned in several articles including Cherokee and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    This one has been fixed by a rewrite by Uncle G that left everyone happy! SqueakBox 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    While sourced, this is a very long article on an unimportant individual. Quatloo 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    I suggest keeping an eye on this article. I just deleted 2 over-the-top political cartoons drawn by the subject of this article (Cornsilk) depicting Cherokee Chief Chad "Corntassel" Smith in KKK regalia. I'm not sure the cartoons are needed in an article on Cornsilk, even if he did draw them. Here is the earlier version of the article with the cartoons.

    This article is apparently controversial and wrapped up in much older disputes going beyond Cherokees to involve Linux, etc.; see:

    I don't know who's right and who's wrong in these disputes, but BLP concerns must be monitored in the meantime. --A. B. 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'll tag the images for deletion. In afterthought, they may not be appropriate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    Adam Kline Template:Blpwatch-links

    I just made major revisions to Adam Kline (mostly removals). It was a lengthy, more or less plagiarized (unless the contributor was columnist David Postman) diatribe about Kline's opposition to off-road vehicles. I have reduced that part of the article enormously, and cited to Postman for what remains. I suggest that people concerned with BLP keep an eye on the article, because in my experience it is likely that whoever added the diatribe in the first place will be back to restore it, plagiarism issues (and non-encyclopedic character) notwithstanding. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    I trimmed it more. The still rather large blockquote, in a section of its own, was in my opinion giving too much weight to that aspect of his politics, so I took an axe to it. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

    Paul Magriel Template:Blpwatch-links

    Hello, there is somebody adding a comment on the biography of Paul Magriel, a living person, declaring that a "Susan Silver" is the author of his work, "Backgammon". With this notice I assert, as the co-author of the book, and the book's editor, that this is not the case, and I would really appreciate it if you could stop whoever is adding this specious information from doing so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roserose1 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    (Added userlinks above.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    User talk:165.155.192.7 is tagged as registered to New York City Public Schools. Something similar seems likely for the 12.75.16*.* range as well. — Athaenara ✉ 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    Michael DelGiorno Template:Blpwatch-links

    Edits such as this one are extremely problematic, and for that reason I agree that 65.102.179.133 needs administrative attention. — Athaenara ✉ 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Nicholas Gruner Template:Blpwatch-links

    There are many problems on the Nicholas Gruner page. Information is being added without being cited, original research may exists, and an entire section is written by someone who appears to be a Sedevacantist (an ultra-traditional Catholic who sees the current Catholic Church as heretical). It needs major revision.--Msl5046 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Steve Javie Template:Blpwatch-links

    Sprotected for a week. If cleanup is needed as per WP:BLP, please do not hesitate to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    John W. Morgan Template:Blpwatch-links

    Hello there,

    I keep removing unsourced references to John Morgan's IQ as per policy of the Biographies of living persons. The various agruments have included that it is public knowledge (I am from the public and have asked many in the public, all of whom have answered negative to that statement) and that most people, including a significate amount of untracable non-users, disagree with me so I am wrong.

    I have just been accused of Edit Warring for what I consider to be vandalism because it is unsourced. While I think IQ is hardly encyclopedic and should not be included or hinted, in this particular case it seems extremely biased, putting the person in question in a very favourable light which could be taken as braging/glotting or extremely intellegent and therefore should not be opposed, both of which are hardly views of impartiality. I am removing any mention to IQ as I believe it to fall under Biographies of living persons policy that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". I am notifying you as I am not comfortable with being accused of Edit warring when I believe myself to be following policy. --Kirkoconnell 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I left a note on the talk page. - Crockspot 05:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I copied the above out of archive 17, and am reopening this case. I've been sitting on the article for the past ten days, and I have determined that at the best case, there is an abusive meatpuppet team of three working this article, violating, circumventing, and evading 3RR, committing personal attacks against User:Kirkoconnell, posting personal information about him in edit summaries, and continuously inserting the same piece of unsourced information. At worst case, we are dealing with one person here. Below I have listed every IP address that has ever edited the article. The vast majority have edit histories limited only to this one article, and are involved in the reverts and attacks. Some have been blocked and/or warned. One was blocked for evading the block of another. There is also quite a bit of consistency with unsigned talk page comments. I made some notes at the end, bold notations are blocks and warnings, italics are behavior I observed in edit histories, PA-personal attack, RV-reverting the same unsourced info, PI-disclosing personal information. - Crockspot 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    The only way I see to resolve this without blocking out all of the Maritimes is to semi-protect the page for an extended period of time. As this person or persons seem to have no other interest than this article, he/they will have to create an account(s), and be accountable for their behavior, or not be able to edit. I know that long term sprotects are something that the community tries to avoid, but in this case I believe it is warranted. - Crockspot 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    I support temporary semiprotection on the grounds that it halts edit warring while discouraging irresponsible users from editing and encouraging responsible editors to register.
    Note: as a member of a high IQ organisation myself, I am not at all comfortable with the term accusation (see article talk page & article edit summaries) in the context of public acknowledgement of it, but "I thought I would settle this debate, for good!" is funny :-D Athaenara ✉ 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    Article is now sprotected for 4 weeks. I will add to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    Chaparral Middle School (Moorpark) Template:Blpwatch-links

    Repeated personal attacks against the school's principal being made by anons. Best to keep an eye on this article. Corvus cornix 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    Glenn Greenwald Template:Blpwatch-links

    Just posting to add: This issue has been brought up before on the BLP noticeboard (entry #9 in Archive 15. Also, Greenwald has explicitly denied the accusation, which (as noted by AStanhope above) can not in any verifiable sense ever be proven or disproven because the only original source of "evidence" lies on partisan websites with a longstanding animosity towards Greenwald, and as such, are motivated to discredit him. R. Baley 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've blocked (for 3RR violations) the anon who keeps adding the disputed claim. Strangely enough, she doesn't appear to be very appreciative... -- ChrisO 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    Now the same person, Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (under yet another IP 211.224.128.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as indicated by this and this (edits made during the 24 hr block, btw) is adding the info to Sockpuppet (Internet) as promised. R. Baley 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    We have license to revert and block any user tossing that paragraph around. FCYTravis 07:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have also filed a suspected open proxy check here. R. Baley 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's an open proxy - Google it. I've blocked it indefinitely. -- ChrisO 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Two more open proxies and one sockpuppet account have been used - now also blocked indefinitely. -- ChrisO 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Doug Dohring Template:Blpwatch-links

    • Doug Dohring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contains allegations of unethical financial dealings at a company when per the reference cited these occurred after Dohring had left the company and he had no involvement in them. Contains an allegation of his being linked with "spamvertising" with no citation and no evidence. When I have tried to correct these the editor who wrote them has repeatedly reverted them or changed a few words without changing the substance. When I have place well referenced positive information about this individual, quoting reputable sources including Wired Magazine and Media Matrix, they were deleted entirely. Details are on the discussion page for the article. TashiD 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    I checked out the spamvertising allegations, and they are true. I've added a source to substantiate them. Dohring and his business partners are apparently connected with the Church of Scientology so I am concerned that past edit warring and POV pushing related to that subject may be continuing here. Beware and check all claims carefully. Jehochman 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    The link you added does not go to an article. It goes to a page that says “this article does not exist”. If you do in fact have evidence that this company was linked to something — and can show how this is relevant to this individual’s bio — I’d be happy to leave it. But I don’t see it. More importantly, there are also other serious and potentially libelous statements in this article — inferring that this individual was involved in financial misdealings when in fact, per the document cited, the alleged misdealings occurred after he had left the company. The article cites an SEC document on the misdealings, yet Dohring’s name is nowhere in the document and there is nothing in it that links these “misdealings” to him. Another entry infers that Dohring profited from these misdealings through the company’s IPO, with no citation and no evidence that this occurred. (Even if it were true, the alleged misdealings occurred after the IPO, after Dohring was out of the company. So how is this even relevant to this person’s bio?) It infers that he made money off of illegal actions, with no substantiation. I have detailed these on the discussion page.
    I do not understand your statement about “past editing wars” or “POV pushing”, or the connection to a Church. I don’t see any such thing in this article. The article on Biographies of Living Persons clearly states 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, talk pages, user pages, and project space... This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.”
    The article on Doug Dohring does not meet this standard. It has unsourced and/or poorly sourced contentious, negative material. When I have tried to correct it the same editor simply reverts them — which happened again tonight, without responding in any form to the questions raised on the discussion page. Let’s stick to the point, get it fixed and get the article up to standard. TashiD 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Peter Nehr Template:Blpwatch-links

    User:Anitanehr, the article's main author, is the subject's wife. She says that she was "assigned to establish the Misplaced Pages listing for my husband" (see User talk:Anitanehr). This raises an obvious WP:COI issue, as well as issues under WP:BLP. No WP:RS is cited, which implicates WP:NOR. Further, there is no indication that this first-term Florida legislator is WP:NOTE. Finell (Talk) 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    Anyone elected to a state legislature is generally de facto encyclopedic. The COI/RS issues should be remedied. FCYTravis 06:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hal Blaine Template:Blpwatch-links

    The article on Hal Blaine seems to be a rip off of www.rockhall.com. I dont see any credit to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.105.192 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    James Dicks

    There has been repeated deletion of well documented material in this article by single purpose editors. The article content may well be controversial, because Dicks is controversial. The article started out as a pure commercial message for Dicks. I added much of the controversial (but documented) info. The article has since survived two Requests for Deletion. Since there are possible BLP issues, I refer it here.

    Smallbones 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Alfred G. Gilman

    The following unsourced text is being repeatedly inserted into the article by an anonymous user (129.112.109.250 or 129.112.109.251): "Al Gilman continues to be despised by the UT Southwestern student body and abhorred by the faculty who are too scared to speak against him for fear of reprisal. His overall approval rating is currently 22%, an all time low for any Dean of the medical school in its 63 year history. Send your comments to Alfred.Gilman@Utsouthwestern.edu ."

    I've reverted it three times. -- Takwish | Talk 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ben Bernanke Template:Blpwatch-links

    There seems to be a bit of a spat going on on this article. It's probably worth keeping an eye on this, as the dispute seems to have been going on for a few weeks now. -- ChrisO 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    From a look through his edit history, I suspect that sooner or later User:Wolfowit will have a chat with Arbcom or maybe WP:CN. Raymond Arritt 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's pretty likely, yes. Apparently Wolfowit was involved in sockpuppetry, for which Jayjg blocked him (though it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere). I've asked Jay to clarify this. -- ChrisO 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    Some of Wolfowit's socks had already been identified and blocked by me and other admins due to unrelated problems before Jayjg did a checkuser and found the connections. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    Warriors for innocence

    Someone has added the "biographies of living persons" notice-box to the Talk page of this article. Since the article is about a group or orginization is it supposed to be there/be used like that? CyntWorkStuff 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    Someone believes that this fits easily as well as Project for a New American Century or Hockey Stick Controversy would. BLP would extend over the mouthpiece website of individuals, such as this blog. And someone has a name: Kyaa the Catlord 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    Gackt Template:Blpwatch-links

    • Gackt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Uncited information keeps being re-introduced into this biography of a musician, while an official source on the artist's date of birth keeps being discounted by the same editors, apparently based on the (unreferenced) preconception, that the subject is rather eccentric. Not only is giving the year of birth as "unknown" and "????" quite unencyclopedic in terms of style, it also gives the article an undue air of mystery, that best belongs into the realm of fansites. Cyrus XIII 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    What is the official source for the birthdate? — Athaenara ✉ 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    The year of birth was displayed as part of a live performance of the artist during an anniversary/best of tour. Footage of that performance has been made available by the artist on DVD, which also makes it highly doubtful that he is indeed making an effort to keep this common bit of biographical information from the public. At the same time, the article references the artist's early life exclusively through his autobiography, though readers are being made aware of the nature of both sources in either the respective foot note or right within the main text body. - Cyrus XIII 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    A stage prop is hardly a reliable source for a birthyear. There have been no public releases of any kind with an official date of birth, and the artist in question has claimed publicly that he was born in 1540. We aren't claiming that the birth year is necessarily wrong or doesn't belong there because he's eccentric, we're stating that the birth year is in dispute, as is the validity of the source, and thus it is more appropriate to list 'year unknown' than an unfounded claim. Discussion on the Talk page for the article has led to everyone but Cyrus XIII agreeing that the stage prop should not be considered a reliable source for the birth year. Does it really meet verifiability requirements? Nique talk 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hugh Grant Template:Blpwatch-links

    71.55.132.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just removed a...contentious paragraph from the Hugh Grant article, despite it being IMHO well-sourced. Probably just some well-meaning fan, but I have chosen not to warn the editor in light of the "selective" blanking. If this is the appropriate venue, external input would be appreciated, as I've removed a fair amount of vandalism from this article and may be impaired of my strategic distance :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    Alenka Bikar Template:Blpwatch-links

    Alenka Bikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Persistently edited to serve as a photo gallery and external links to photographs and videos that are not of encyclopedic meric (such as "Alenka Bikar the hottest ass" and so forth).

    I will try to revert vandalism to this page, but it is worth posting at BLP Notice Board. Nimur 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

    Stephen Barrett Template:Blpwatch-links

    → See also: Stephen Barrett section in BLP/N archive 11.

    Here is a BLP interpretation from one of the editors in favor excluding the information: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Umbrella_of_Policy. -- Levine2112 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    The sources that Levine wishes to use are among others to chiropractic magazine while the subject of the article is a noted critic of chiropractics. The problem should be clear. JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    True, some of the sources are from chiropractic trade publications. Of course the main sources which have been deemed reliable by the editors at the Reliable Source Noticeboard are two court documents and a statement made by Barrett himself at Misplaced Pages:
    These sources confirm that Barrett is not Board Certified. Barrett himself says that he is not Board Certified. Barrett says that he is public with this information. I really don't see the BLP issue here. However, I bow to the input of the expert editors here. -- Levine2112 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    But Barrett says (with good reason) that the information as presented is misleading and not relevant. Given that and the related concerns, keeping it in the article is problematic. JoshuaZ 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    What Barrett says is misleading is the source that says that he was "forced to admit" his lack of Board Certification on the stand and that it was a major revelation. Sure Barrett had to say he wasn't Board Certified since he was under oath, but he contends that he wasn't reluctant to admit this and it wasn't a major revelation as this information has been public for thirty years. As he says here on the talk page of his article at Misplaced Pages, he is open with this information. Regardless, whether or not Barrett was reluctant to admit this information is besides the point as we are just going to say, "Barrett is not Board Certified" and leave out the POV issues from either side. Now then, the sources I list above verify that Barrett is not board certified. We have several other secondary sources which discuss his lack of Board Certification. My question is: Are there any BLP concerns with simply stating that Barrett is not Board Certified? And if so, what are the concerns specifically? Thanks. -- Levine2112 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    I believe you already asked these questions and they were answered: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Board_Certification. -- Ronz  17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have asked this question before, but it has not been answered by a third-party expert in BLP policy. That is why I have posed the question here. -- Levine2112 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I'd refer Levine2112 back to the relevant discussion on the Barrett talk page (and certainly the archive linked above by Ronz), where the specific BLP concerns have been explained quite adequately. An overlong discussion, at least two straw pols, an article RfC, and a stalled mediation once again led to a lack of clear consensus to include, and where Levine2112 routinely ignores other editors' compromises. Yet another RfC is ongoing but it is being ignored by most editors who have taken part in the first RfC. I should add that the report at the top of this section (addendum: this also applies to the description of the dispute in "Starting fresh" sunsection below) is shockingly inadequate and almost completely fails to describe a dispute over a seemingly small factoid that still has not been settled after 15 months. It's a BLP issue indeed. A special case in one of WP:BLP's grey areas. At the very least we should err on the side of caution if we don't have a clear consensus. Mentioning the disputed factoid would only be relevant in its context: criticism of Barrett. Levine2112 aims to include it in the article out of context. I feel that outside commenters would do well to take a good look at the talk page and its archives. Why give weight to a handful of partisans whose criticisms have been deemed "statements of opinion, not of fact" by various courts? Disclaimer: As you can probably tell from this response, I'm involved in this discussion and recuse myself regarding any BLPN work on the matter. AvB ÷ talk 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    I apologize that I didn't mention your "out of context" argument above, but I wasn't sure to which part of the BLP policy that applies. I didn't come here to this Noticeboard to engage in debate with you. Rather than having the third-party editors go back and sift through the entire talk archive, it will most assuredly help them for you and/or Ronz to list out all of your specific BLP concerns here. Even if they are grey, the editors who wish to comment here will benefit from knowing exactly what your BLP concerns are. Thanks. -- Levine2112 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't come here to this Noticeboard to engage in debate with you. You have posted a very one-sided report here and shouldn't be surprised that others are correcting it to some minor extent. Don't act as if "out of context" was the only thing said in the debate, or as if I am only referring to my own contributions to the debate. If you want to include disputed context, please provide good reasons instead of trolling the various boards or pestering fellow editors with yet another demand to "list out all concerns". No way. This is not the way to do dispute resolution, Levine. My patience with you just ran out. Take a look at the top of this page. This board is for a specific kind of conflict caused by editors who want to include insufficiently sourced material, like you. Not to report people who want to keep such content out, like me. AvB ÷ talk 19:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Again, if you feel my report here is one-sided, you are more than welcome to explain your side of it here. It will certainly help the BLP experts here aid us in our endeavor to resolve this dispute. According to the top of this page, this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. I believe that is what we have here. Please don't mischaracterize my attempts to resolve this dispute as "trolling". I simply went to the RS Noticeboard first, got the answer that the sources are indeed reliable, and then they advised me to take up any BLP issues here at this noticeboard. I hardly think that qualifies as trolling. Anyhow, let's not discuss this here. It is inappropriate. Rather, let's discuss BLP concerns. -- Levine2112 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    You're wikilawyering. This board is intended to help editors remove unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information from the encyclopedia, not the other way around. AvB ÷ talk 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please re-read the first sentence on this Noticeboard: This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. We have had a dispute about putting in material which you feel may cause a WP:BLP issue. We have had discussions about this for a long time and now it may require outside intervention. I would appreciate it if you helped those who wish to comment here by giving the specifics areas of BLP which you believe would be in violation if this content was added to the article. Otherwise, I am sure that the BLP experts here can get a sense of things for themselves. Please don't accuse me of "wikilawyering". I am not. I am merely trying my best to settle a longtime dispute by following the WP:DR process. This step falls specifically under WP:DR#Discuss_with_third_parties in which we ask for third-party opinions from a discussion page for specific policies relevant to the issue. -- Levine2112 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Who exactly will you listen to, Levine2112? You certainly don't accept my opinion here on this board (which, I may say, is based on experience, in contrast to your wikilawyering). Which of the editors here on this board will have sufficient credentials in your eyes? Who's going to waste time helping you post poorly sourced material? It is my considered opinion that you will not listen to anyone who does not say what you want to hear. It is, therefore, my opinion that responding to you on this matter outside of formal WP:DR processes is a waste of time. AvB ÷ talk 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Why are you being so hostile? This is completely inappropriate behavior. I posted here to get some third-party input on the concerns you brought up. I will listen to the third-party editors who respond here. I am hoping that they will either say that there is no BLP issues or that there is some issue and here are what they are. That's all. -- Levine2112 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Starting fresh

    Disputed content: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified."

    This statement was made by Stephen Barrett on Misplaced Pages: "One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret."

    BLP concerns itself with getting the article right and relying on good sources. Above, Barrett himself tells us that he is not Board Certified and that this information is not a secret. There are other primary and secondary sources that verify that Barrett is not Board Certified, but I think this comment by Barrett helps us determine if there is a BLP violation more than any other. I think it falls perfectly under this provision in BLP: Using the subject as a self-published source.

    I would love some third-party input on this topic. Thanks! -- Levine2112 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Disputed content: (diff).
    Start of discussion, first arguments and explanations given to Levine2112: here.
    Cont'd discussion: here.
    Cont'd discussion, compromise proposals: here.
    AvB ÷ talk 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    AvB is directly involved in this BLP dispute. I would like a third-party opinion on whether or not adding this statement violates BLP given that there are several reliable sources verifying this information, that Barrett himself says that he is open about this information, and that no editor here has claimed that this content is false:

    "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified."

    Thanks. -- Levine2112 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    I've already recused myself from any BLPN duties in this case. I did so above in a part of the discussion you've sor of ended by "starting fresh". I am posting here as a concerned, involved editor who does not agree with the description of the dispute presented by you. I'm doing so at your repeated invitation. AvB ÷ talk 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Then please provide a description as you see it. Currently, what is being proposed is entering the text: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified" to the article Stephen Barrett. Do you agree with that? Do you agree that you have BLP concerns about entering this text? -- Levine2112 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    The fact that one editor has continously harped on about this for several months suggests WP:PUSHPOV is the primary motive especially after not one but two RfCs. Consensus to some means "I will keep going (400+ edits and counting) until I get what I want". Shot info 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Was WP:POV meant here? — Athaenara ✉ 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think Levine is on solid ground. SB came out of retirement to appear at WP and backed it all up. He is OK with clarifying the whole thing, so why isn't everyone else? What's the fear? Levine has offered a very NPOV statement. So let's accept it and close this chapter. Steth 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Barrett came here, not to openly back up the fact of his lack of board certification (which he has never misrepresented), but to counter potentially libelous claims being made here regarding the fact. There is a world of difference! It has never been an issue in the real world or during his entire career, including testifying as a psychiatrist while he was in practice. It's an unnotable fact. Its only "notability" is the fact that his main detractor (Tim Bolen, whom his is now suing for libel) has attempted to make it notable by misleadingly using the fact against him to imply wrongdoing, misrepresentation, or lack of qualifications to do what he does, which is to expose quackery. Board certification is totally unnecessary in that endeavor, so it is still unnotable. Again, there is a world of difference! Steth's statement is quite misleading and further's Bolen's libelous agenda here at Misplaced Pages. (Steth's history here at Misplaced Pages speaks loads about his contempt and hatred of Barrett, including commonly pushing the limits of BLP, if not in fact, in spirit, which is very unwikipedian. He should take his agenda elsewhere.) This agenda has BLP implications and should be handled carefully. When impartial third-party sources start reporting it we can cite them. So far only those with a heavy agenda against him mention it. -- Fyslee/talk 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Steth here. The lack of board certification in his speciality would be a significant factor in his testifying as an expert witness in the field. If he has never achieved any board certifications (which I assume is the case, since his practice was focused on psychiatry), I would suggest a sentence that simply states that. (Example: Barrett has not been granted board certification in any medical speciality.)--Risker 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    As I state above it was never necessary or an issue during his career. -- Fyslee/talk 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Could be something to do with a policy of Misplaced Pages called Biographies of Living Persons? Shot info 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Questions for Risker: Are you basing your opinion on Levine2112's first description of the dispute given above? His second description? Or did you form this opinion after reading the discussion and arguments on the talk page and in the talk page archives? If not, could you please use the links I gave above and let us know if you still have this opinion? Levine2112 has expressed an interest in hearing from what he calls "the experts on the BLP noticeboard". Would you consider yourself such a BLP expert? Did you consider the argument that this piece of primary source info should not be taken out of context? The context is that a couple of partisan opponents running attack sites (of the kind not allowed on Misplaced Pages) have used the argument to attack Barrett, while not a single court has ever required him to be board certified or refused him as a witness or expert because of his not being a board certified psychiatrist? Like 2 out of 3 psychiatrists at the time as reported in the same primary sources? Or, assuming that courts had this requirement, that Barrett retired in 1990, and cannot be expected (by others than his partisan attackers) to be board certified in court cases later than 1997 since certification expires after 7 or 10 years? Etc etc - there's more to this seemingly simple point than meets the eye.

    Would you agree that your example is original research? Zero reliable sources have said that.

    On a side note, Steth is involved in the discussion, and clearly pushing a barrow here. Just this morning I removed a BLP violation where he demonstrated why he and other editors are so keen on including this information in a very specific form. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC) PS Steth then inserted the same attack once again, this time sourcing it to an attack site parroting Bolen, Barrett's main detractor, who (so far) only escaped being convicted for libel/defamation over it due to the court's ruling that his (Bolen's) writings about Barrett were "statements of opinion, not of fact" which is apparently normal in heated prose opposing a public figure. Go figure. I've once again removed the attack per WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps someone can review my two deletions of material per WP:BLP from Talk:Chiropractic? Since I removed the same attack a couple of months ago, I've become involved in the discussion. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    To make a correct BLP assessment I think external editors/reviewers should take into account that Barrett does not have an WP-article because he is a doctor but because he is a controversial Public figure and opinion leader. He uses his MD credentials to make his attacks on all forms of alternative medicine more credible. He is also very keen on attacking educational credentials of proponents of alt med. MaxPont 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    It is quite logical to attack the often fake credentials when they are wielded by alternative medicine quacks, which is a common problem. Diploma mills sell them to many such practitioners, so Barrett is perfectly correct in criticizing their credentials. -- Fyslee/talk 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    An involved editor is displeased with the one third-party response we've had here thus far and has gone to that third-party's talk page demanding secondary sources to support the statement: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified." Mind you, nobody is contesting this statement as a fact. Barrett himself has even come to Misplaced Pages and affirmed that he is not Board Certified. (He is bothered when his detractors say that he was reluctant to admit this information, but he says that he is quite public with not being Board Certified.) Anyhow, we know this statement is accurate and we know that BLP concerns itself with getting the article right. But for further verification, here is just a partial list of secondary sources which mention that Barrett is not Board Certified:

    The primary sources include:

    I would still love some more input from the BLP experts here. Thanks for your guidance!

    -- Levine2112 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Lindsay Lohan

    Hey guys,

    I have no Idea how to work this thing but i just checked Lindsay Lohans article: Her date of birth in incorrect, she's one year older.

    thanks, henriette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.74.8 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hi, Henriette, All I'm seeing, both on and offwiki (World Almanac) is July 2, 1986. Do you have a source that says '85? Ispy1981 20:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Alan Feinstein

    I suspect I am not doing this right, as it is the first time I have run across this problem.

    There is a bio of Alan Shawn Feinstein (Alan Feinstein) which is extremely laudatory. In fact, things are not that clear, and the local paper ran an article about the source of some of his wealth. He also seems to be a very self-promoting person, as far as I can tell, he never gives a nickel to any charity without requiring that they publicize his donation. He makes tv ads about his contributions.

    I made a couple of mild edits to include this info, leaving the ton of laudatory stuff alone, and then in looking at the history found that someone else had tried to do that and had had their edits removed. Also, someone has already flagged the article as of disputed neutrality.

    It's annoying to see a long article that really seems off the beam. What's the policy on this? Can it be fixed to be accurate and then frozen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

    Almost all of the text in this bio was copied from two sources: the March 2004 article in The Providence Journal and the Feinstein Institute page on the Roger Williams University School of Law website. It needs serious copyediting. — Athaenara ✉ 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    Joe Eigo

    Article has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article (, ). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    Jordan McCoy

    Note this edit by 70.225.37.79 (it was reverted). — Athaenara ✉ 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Carla Baron

    "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." - Misplaced Pages

    In light of the above caveat-

    I wish to report that an organization named IIG West has self-published an article on me that I consider to be in extremely poor taste and defamatory.

    I am requesting full protection for this page, of which I am the subject.


    I had emailed Misplaced Pages twice now regarding this issue, with no reply. I'd appreciate a firm and quick response to this matter. I understand that your volunteer associates are quite busy, but this matter is of a critical & professionally damaging nature.

    Thank you,

    Carla Baron Psychic profiler 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    There are a couple of issues here. First, similar criticism is also on the Randi site, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/072106gentle.html#i6 . Is that site not a well known skeptics site? It seems unlikely that it would come under the BPL self-published classification above. Secondly, why are you writing an article about yourself, more importantly, restarting it after it has been deleted. This looks a lot like self promotion. David D. (Talk) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please read WP:NOT. Specifically the following section.
    • Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.
    You should not recreate the article after it has been deleted. You should leave it to other wikipedians to write about you. David D. (Talk) 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Subject has complained on OTRS. My opinion: keep it deleted until it calms down. This is not a high priority topic. David.Monniaux 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    'until it calms down'? This is not a fast-happening current event that might blow over. She's a media figure complaining about a link to an unflattering report written about her in 2005. It's never going to 'calm down' because any article written about her will certainly include a link to that or some other article about her she doesn't like. Here's a suggestion to Ms. Baron: Go prove them wrong. Win their money, then donate it to a charity for crime victims. Chris Croy 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Well at least let's wait until we stop getting emails every 5 minutes. Also, can somebody investigate whether that report is legitimate news, or just some crank? David.Monniaux 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Are you asking if James Randi a crank? He hosts one of the sites critiquing Carla Baron. David D. (Talk) 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    I did not add my name to the Misplaced Pages listings for my name whatsoever.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/Carla_Baron

    I found this listing when someone emailed the link to me after it was created by someone. I know not who.

    I do not need to create publicity for myself, as it is well-known I star in my own series on Court TV. I was merely adding links that I have sanctioned as official for Carla Baron. This is for genuine Carla Baron fans to easily locate links that are mine. I am sorry if I was "redundant" on these as I am new. That is the extent of it. - Carla Baron Psychic profiler 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think much of the problem here is due to your inexperience. David.Monniaux deleted the article, apparently at the request of an e-mails from yourself to OTRS. Why then did you recreat the article? Possibly you did not realise you recreated it? David, can you see who created the first version you deleted? I had edited that first version and I could have sworn Psychic profiler was the user who created that article too. David D. (Talk) 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    My guess is that she was editing the article today to remove the link but this was AFTER she emailed OTRS. While she was editing it, David read her email, deleted the article, then she unknowingly re-created it. It was apparently speedy deleted again at some point before May 29th. Chris Croy 09:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    That makes sense; so this is an ongoing saga. David D. (Talk) 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think it's bad to delete an article about someone who has chosen to be in the public eye and is. There will be negative links; use of psychic powers is controversial, and some people delight in pointing out the man behind the curtain. But NPOV demands that they be there. More importantly, we can't just blank the page as per my comment on the talk page; it looks like vandalism instead of proper administrator action.--Prosfilaes 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


    Thank you for your expedient and authoritative efforts in protecting the integrity of my page, David.Monniaux - Carla Baron

    Psychic profiler 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    The Bus Uncle

    The Bus Uncle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dispute between User:Tony Sidaway who raises BLP concerns and User:Raul654 who says they don't exist. Please comment. —— Eagle101 06:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think the article complies with the BLP, with respect to their private lives. The information about the 3 people involved in the incident have been reported heavily in the press back in June 2006, and references (which are various newspapers, reliable sources) clearly marked. All the content is based on what is written by the media. Those people are notable for one event, given their 15 minutes of fame, and this article does cover that event instead of the people, and Roger Chan Yuet Tung redirects here.
    The article did not delve too deeply into the 3's personal lives, since they only mention their jobs and the district they live in, with no mentions about their family. The focus is on the criticism and analysis near the end. Those experts were certainly related to the subject at hand, in fact, they came as a consequence of the Bus Uncle's confrontation of the bus. If this article simply states what has happened, from various points of view of multiple journalists, I don't think it's biased in anyway, let alone violating WP:BLP.--Kylohk 08:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    BLP applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material, which is not the case here. It must not be used as an excuse for woolly-minded blather about "dignity" (i.e. censorship) since WP:NOT censored, in theory at least. *** Crotalus *** 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    The truth is probably half in between. While they may have been a bit of an undue focus on the private life details of the involved parties, the article isn't terrible, and seems to be very clean now (perhaps unnecessarily so?). The version I saw (it's undergoing heavy edits) seems fine, although Tony is complaining about their names being in the article - this may be an editorial issue, but I don't think BLP really weighs in much there. Other than that, any "undue focus on private lives" is now gone ... WilyD 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Consensus seems to be that their real names are sufficiently well known that they should be in the article. I am uneasy at this but it's not the main problem. There were issues of tone, which I've attempted to fix in recent edits, and there was a fair amount of irrelevant material about the Bus Uncle fellow himself. Past political campaigning, bragging about a checkered past, and so on, which while perhaps entertaining for readers of a scandal sheet are of no relevance to the incident. As the BLP says of such minor persons known only for a single event: editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. The only reason for notability is a six minute cellphone recording. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't dig too deeply into the old article - and the relevency of background material is hard to judge for me as someone who knows very little about the issue. As I said, it probably did go into some unnecessary detail before - I was more concerned with the state of the article as it is now when I took a look. WilyD 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    The names of the people involved were mentioned on the sources (newspapers and TV interviews). Therefore, the privacy of the people aren't be affected. As it stands now, the information regarding the 3 is brief and mainly focused on their involvement of the incident.--Kylohk 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling

    Resolved – article in AfD process

    This recently created article contains a lot of OR and is basically an essay expressing one contributor's opinion. Serendipodous 12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    article in AfD. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Politics_and_influences_of_J.K._Rowling ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Article deleted after short AfD discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Bill Freeman

    → See also: first AfD, second AfD

    Resolved – article deleted
    • Bill Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has been previously deleted for violating the guidelines for biographies of living persons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Freeman_%282%29) Since it has been re-posted with the same factual inaccuracy and bias, it seems worthy of speedy deletion. It is obviously using wikipedia as a means of personal attack rather than the factual information it was designed for. Since there seems to be no way of maintaining a neutral, factual article about Bill Freeman's life and work as a Christian author and speaker, is there a solution for this situation? Rather than having to repeat this cycle of deleting the article, it being re-posted, and having to delete it again, could it be blocked? Wh4ever 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    Is it resolved? Although the article has been deleted three times, as recorded on the logs page, it has not been protected against re-creation. — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I do not think that it is wise to protect. First AfD was keep. Maybe someone will write the article properly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hockey stick controversy

    • Hockey stick controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It just came to my attention that Raymond Arritt posted a notice here regarding my posts on Hockey stick controversy about the unethical behavior of Michael Mann. The notice was posted on May 13 and archived as inactive on June 5. The only comment was by a user who is on a wiki break. Raymond claims there is no reliable source for the information I posted. This is not accurate. The reliable source is the English translation of the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, which is also listed in the "External Links" portion of the article. See Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005. Here's the quote from page 28 (9 of 12):
    The “Censored” Folder As the story unraveled, more intrigue came to the surface. McIntyre:“On Mann’s FTP site, the directory for the North American network contains a subdirectory with the striking name BACKTO_1400-CENSORED. The folder contains PCs that looked like the ones we produced, but it was not clear how they had been calculated. We wondered if the folder had anything to do with the bristlecone pine series: this was a bulls eye. We were able to show that the fourteen bristlecone pine series that effectively made up Mann’s PC1 (and six others) had been excluded from the PC calculations in the censored folder. Without the bristlecones sites, there were no hockey sticks for Mann’s method to mine for, and the results came out like ours. The calculations used in Mann’s paper included the controversial bristlecone pine series, which dominate the PC1 and impart the characteristic hockey stick shape to the PC1 and thereafter to the final temperature reconstruction. Mann and his colleagues never reported the results obtained from excluding the bristlecone pines, which were adverse to their claims.”

    The fact Mann knowingly withheld results that were contrary to his claims is a significant violation of scientific ethics. The facts around this issue have never been disputed. I would like to have this issue cleared up so this information is available to Misplaced Pages readers.RonCram 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

    It seems to me that with format as per WP:CITE this should be a reference in the article rather than isolated in the external links section. — Athaenara ✉ 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking a look. It is obviously an open and shut case. It is shocking to me that anyone would even claim this well-respected science magazine is not a reliable source.RonCram 05:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ron, you are aware that N&T is a popular science mag. right? --Kim D. Petersen 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (bad online translation) --Kim D. Petersen 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Scientific American, also a "popular science" magazine, is respected and is often a reliable source. Is the Dutch magazine very different in this respect? — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    No, SA is pretty much the same. Neither is peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen 07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Good think wikipedia doesn't allow non-peer-reviewed information to be added, Eh, Kim? oh snap, no, thats just the opinions of a few editors, when they want to censor what information can be added to an article, which seams to be a popular thing in the Global Warming articles...--Zeeboid 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ooohh, snappity snap snap. When presenting a NPOV of a subject, and peer-reviewed literature (or the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community) is contradicted by editorialized uninformed opinion (thing Wall Stret journal) and/or wishful thinking (thing Sen. Inhofe) many editors here (not just 'a few') know which carries more weight. The wheels of science often turn slowly, but they do turn, so if the teensy amount of naysayers (wrt to AGW) eventually turn out to be right, then it will be published, a new consensus would develop, and finally, it would be reflected here, in an encyclopedia (not a platform). And we won't have to rely on the random editorial, newspaper, or that one contrarian scientist somewhere to support ideas we don't like. My 2 cents. . .carry on then. R. Baley 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Postscript: According to the masthead and a cover image on its website, it's actually Natuur Wetenschap & Techniek (NWT). — Athaenara ✉ 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    According to climateaudit.org, the February 2005 NWT cover story is based on two peer-reviewed papers published in Geophysical Research Letters and Environment and Energy (see Greenwire for more on the latter.) See also "Breaking the hockey stick" and "Revisiting the 'stick'," both for the Financial Post, the business section of the National Post. — Athaenara ✉ 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    There are extremely serious WP:BLP implications here. RonCram wants to state that "Mann knowingly withheld results that were contrary to his claims" in a published article. This is the most serious accusation that one can make against a scientific researcher. IANAL, but if it cannot be proven true that Mann knowingly withheld contradictory results, it seems Mann would be well within his rights to seek damages from Misplaced Pages (and perhaps RonCram as an individual). Raymond Arritt 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I'm here because Raymond asked me to comment. In my opinion, RonCram has done us a disservice by not giving us the background to this problem. Ron apparently feels very strongly that Misplaced Pages must contain the claim that Michael Mann knowingly violated scientific ethics. Discussion at Talk:Hockey stick controversy has been solidly against this idea, so Ron has turned to other tactics:

    Essentially, Ron is not getting his way in the content dispute, and is trying to use noticeboards to get the upper hand. Ron's behavior is long past the point of being disruptive. If there's a BLP problem here, it's Ron's persistence in attacking Mann. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Akhilleus, I gave the background I felt was important. The issue was brought to this noticeboard by Raymond and archived as "inactive." I did not initiate this action and it is wrong of you to pretend I did. Since Raymond raised the issue, I thought it best to seek a resolution. In addition, your reconstruction of the events is wrong. Scientific data withholding was created prior to my editing of Hockey stick controversy. It was not a POV fork. Connolley nominated the article for deletion. Some of the editors who voted for its deletion did so on the basis they believed the paragraph on Mann belonged in Hockey stick controversy. I wrote a new article, Data sharing, with much of the same information but minus the information on Mann. Data sharing was honored by fellow editors by making the Misplaced Pages Main Page "Did you know?" section. I added the information about Mann to the Hockey stick controversy article as requested and Connolley deleted it repeatedly without reason. I then filed the first COI noticeboard incident. Durova ruled in my favor because Connolley is a colleague of Michael Mann's and they had co-authored a paper together. Durova asked Connolley to keep appearances in mind when making controversial edits. Connolley continued to delete this information without a valid reason. I filed a second COI Noticeboard incident on Connolley. It was at this point Raymond claimed my wording exceeded the text cited. You then ruled in Connolley's favor without Durova's input and without any reflection on her reasoning in her previous ruling. You invited me to file some sort of Wiki action against you as an Administrator. I have not had the time to research such an action even though such an action probably has merit. RonCram 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Raymond, I think my wording accurately reflects the citation. If you think my wording exceeded the citation, you could have modified my entry rather than deleting it or bringing the issue to this noticeboard. I do think it is preposterous for you to claim this Dutch science magazine is not a reliable source. RonCram 05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I never claimed any such thing. Raymond Arritt 05:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Raymond, I apologize for remembering incorrectly. I just re-read the entry. It was user Chan-Ho who made the claim, who is now on a wiki-break. However, the issue you raise about the entry possibly being actionable is just as preposterous. The claim has been published repeatedly in various magazines and online. In fact, Nature's blog published my comment on this issue on May 14.RonCram 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just in case you're unaware, Misplaced Pages holds itself to higher standards than blogs. Raymond Arritt 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Raymond, you know full well the issue was published in NWT, a well-respected journal on the same level as Scientific American. Regarding my blog posting, this is not just any blog. It is published by Nature. There was a significant delay between when I posted on Nature and when it was finally published, which I believe indicates they did some fact checking. Did you happen to read the link I provided? RonCram 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    (1) The link in your Nature "publication" is dead. (2) In any event it was from the personal web site of one of Mann's antagonists. Raymond Arritt 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Raymond, the link is not dead and it is not an antagonist of Mann but Nature. Try it again. RonCram 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please read more carefully. I wrote the link in your Nature "publication", not to your Nature "publication." Raymond Arritt 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Raymond, what link "in" the Nature publication? What is it linking to? Whatever it is, it is not relevant to this conversation. My comment regarding Mann's unethical behavior is in the page itself. The comment is dated May 14. It should be easy for you to find. You need not link outside the page provided. RonCram 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ron, making a comment on a blog is not the same thing as being published. Your assertion that Nature fact-checked your post is highly optimistic, to put it politely. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Akhilleus, Nature has a choice on whether or not to publish comments on their own blog. If they felt the comment was actionable, they would not have published it. Neither would NWT have published if it was considered actionable. That is the point. RonCram 17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Going a bit too far here Ron, NWT and SA are in the same category as each other: Popular science magazines. Claiming that NWT is as well-respected, or as reliable as SA is a claim without basis - it might be correct - but we don't know it. In Denmark we have a magazine much like NWT (and SA (pop-sci)) called 'Illustreret Videnskab', and i can assure you that its neither well-respected, nor reliable. --Kim D. Petersen 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Kim, you have not demonstrated that I have gone too far. Your opinion is only that I might have gone too far but you do not have any evidence to support that. All of the information I have is that NWT is a highly respected science magazine. If you have evidence to the contrary, you can bring it forward. RonCram 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ron, on wikipedia its the originating editor, that has to prove it. Not the other way around. Otherwise we'd end up knee-deep in strange claims. (but a good indicator is that NWT doesn't have an article on the dutch wikipedia - while both SA and New scientist have). --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    From Akhilleus' comments, I get the feeling that this is a GordonWatts-style single-issue POV pushing user. An RfC may be appropriate here. -- ChrisO 08:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Chris, have you visited my User Page to see what articles I have written and contributed to? Did you read my response to and correction of Akhilleus' comments? Your opinion holds no relation to the facts. RonCram 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    This thread seems to have once again gone beyond the immediate BLP concerns into a dispute over content. My inclination is to end it and not respond further; however, if others feel the discussion still is useful, I'll continue. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. This is just more of the same, a politically motivated effort by the usual suspects to spin Misplaced Pages's Global warming articles. That content dispute should be isolated in one place. The editor who opened this case here User:RonCram should be warned not to disrupt Misplaced Pages by abusing process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Jehochman 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    This is not a dispute about content, as much as Akhilleus or others may wish it to be. The only "spinning" being done here is by Raymond who placed the notice on this Noticeboard and those who wish to turn it into a content dispute. I agree with Raymond that this should end. As has been demonstrated, the information regarding Mann is published in a reliable source and therefore is not actionable. RonCram 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Peter Openshaw

    Cleaned up a bit, there is no need to write a BLP based on one incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's currently two paragraphs about him, followed by one on the statement, but people are trying to turn it into a redirect in the middle of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Mary Manin Morrissey Template:Blpwatch-links

    A friend of my parents' is a lawyer, and he is currently mediating a despute between this individual and a former disgruntled employee of hers. Knowing I am admin here, he just gave me a call saying that, during the mediation, the topic of the person in question editing her Misplaced Pages page came up. Apparently he has added a ton of untrue/biased/slanderous material and when she tries to remove it, she is reverted. He mentioned the allegations of additions section as an example. I quickly glanced at it and it appears sourced, but I didn't have time to check if it was reliably sourced. While I told him the process to e-mail the foundation to remove untrue BLP information, we should make a headstart by trying to clean this up as much as possible. I am in my last 10 days or so of college and finishing up projects, finals, etc. so I really don't have time to deal with this myself right now. If some people can look this article over for BLP problems and remove them ASAP that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I deleted material that was sourced to unreliable sources such as emails, personal blogs, and discussion forums and placed warning in talk. I will keep the article on my whatchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. VegaDark (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Elisabeth Kammer

    Resolved – article speedy deleted

    I am not sure that I handled this right. The article is completely unsourced, and a quick google shows me nothing useful (at least not in English). Removing the accusations that concerned me left only her birthdate. I also removed some categories. Please someone check this out as it is an equally sensitive topic to have this info removed if it is true. diff--BirgitteSB 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    I deleted it - a quick Google search turned up nothing conclusive to source it, only a few passing mentions. FCYTravis 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Misplaced Pages wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed, I may be contacted at monckton@mail.com. If I am not contacted, the action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. It is likely to attract considerable publicity, and it will serve as a useful warning to those who come across it that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. I shall be applying for an order that all Misplaced Pages content that in any way references or identifies me should not be permitted to be broadcast on the Internet within the jurisdiction of the UK courts.

    I shall repeat what I have told Misplaced Pages before: the article about me, which is presumably supposed to be a straightforward biography, is repeatedly amended to make libellous comments, particularly in connection with a) my alleged views on the HIV virus; and b) my alleged views on climate change, both of which have been seriously misrepresented. Also, despite my repeated attempts to remove it, a link has been posted to a hostile article about me, but without posting any link to the correction which the newspaper in question was obliged to print the following day.

    I have done my best to get this matter resolved by other means, but without any success. Unless I hear from Misplaced Pages, it will become unlawful for Misplaced Pages to transmit any material in any way mentioning or identifying me into Scotland, and my US agents will apply for the judgment of the Court of Session to be enforced, with damages and costs, in whatever jurisdiction wikipedia uses. It is not acceptable that I, as the victim of a libel in my own biographical entry, should be prevented from editing or removing the libel, while Misplaced Pages can continue unmolested to blacken my name.

    Mr. Monckton, could you please send an e-mail to info-en@wikipedia.org, detailing what you believe is libelous in the article? We will open a trouble ticket and work with you to try and resolve these issues. Thank you. FCYTravis 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Monckton can't enforce his libel judgment in the United States, since British libel law violates U.S. public policy. See, for example, this district court case and this discussion. Other cases include this, a similar case with the same holding. *** Crotalus *** 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have removed a very questionable statement written here by Raymond Arritt. Do not use the BLPN to impugn the motives or issues involved with living persons who question, rightly or wrongly, the factual accuracy and fairness of their biographies. FCYTravis 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    It seems this isn't the first time an anon claiming to be Monckton has made legal threats. See Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Deletions?. By the way, the IP address does trace to the UK (specifically Cable & Wireless/Energis). -- ChrisO 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    List of drug smugglers

    Resolved – Cleaned up and on AfD

    This is a problematic list with no sources itself. I removed the name of people (possibly living) who do not have an individual WP article and also some famous families that looked like vandalism as there was no mention of this in the main articles on them. I also removed the name whose articles I list as problems below. I did not due a great deal of research here due to the number of of problems. diff

    Please tell me if I am doing something wrong here.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    • This indiscriminate list should be nominated for deletion. It's not nearly complete (I can think of at least one Hall of Fame baseball player convicted of smuggling drugs, who isn't included here) and probably can't ever be complete. Besides, the scope is vague. If a famous person smuggles drugs in the country in their personal baggage for their own use, is that smuggling, and is it fair to list them on a list along with kingpins like Pablo Escobar? Also, in some cases the charges are disputed (was Joe Kennedy ever actually convicted of anything?) Better just to delete the unmaintainable list. *** Crotalus *** 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Lists like this are a bad idea and ought to be deleted as soon as they are found. They're too much like tabloid journalism and can attract wrong accusations. Raymond Arritt 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    On AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_drug_smugglers ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Tom Cruise

    This bio article is protected so I can't remove the 'Tom Cruise=Jesus' story that was first printed in a British tabloid, the Sun. I am requesting that an admin remove the reference, as it has been denied by Scientology officials and is poorly sourced. It is at the very end of the Miscellaneous section. 69.12.131.206 20:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    Removed - The Sun hardly counts as a reliable source. FCYTravis 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    I don't agree. Yes, it's a tabloid, but it does carry serious and generally accurate reporting alongside the celebrity fluff. It can't simply be dismissed as entirely unreliable. The report in question was picked up by a great many other sources (see ), so it wasn't just something that the Sun ran. -- ChrisO 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    George Soros Template:Blpwatch-links

    G.S. is a very controversial guy and draws many bizarre criticisms, may of which are included in the very long article, e.g. a Prime Minister once called him "a moron," conservatives call him a "Communist" and a self described "far left-winger" suggest that he works with ("for" suggested) the CIA, and there are also allegations (unfounded to my reading of the evidence) about nazi collaberation (when he was 13 years old!) that have been brought up in major publications. Currently, Bill O'Reilly has said something about him contolling US media and the Democratic Party. My feeling is that some of this might be included - but only to show that notable figures make bizzare claims about him. I'm withdrawing from editing this article for the time being - because it's just too hard to decide what is fair and what is not. I hope others will keep an eye on on it from a BLP point of view. Smallbones 09:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I have removed the "communist" accusation, which is defamatory as well as being simply absurd. Also I believe it is problematic including what every crackpot thinks of every person in the public eye, and not the role of Misplaced Pages to be a sounding board for such things.--Samiharris 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    More lists

    I went through the category for articles tagged with {{unreferenced}} and found some lists which could be problematic for WP:BLP. What does everyone think of these?--BirgitteSB 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    Not Notable - Pablo Ganguli

    http://en.wikipedia.org/Pablo_Ganguli

    links/ cited articles not found. the article may be removed.

    Categories: