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 14:46, 11 June 2007 view sourcePouponOnToast (talk | contribs)1,392 edits →[]: here← Previous edit Revision as of 15:10, 11 June 2007 view source I'clast (talk | contribs)1,511 edits →Starting fresh: but it spoils fastNext edit →
Line 303: Line 303:
:::::Please be patient with me as this is my first time at something like this, make corrections if needed. This dispute has gone on for a very long time. Everyone seems to agree that Dr. Barrett is not board certified so it come downs to whether it is ], ] and ]. It is way past the time to close this already, tempers are now flying. I am disabled and I have learned a lot from this dispute but I have to also say that this information does not belong in the article. It is used against Dr. Barrett, from the external links supplied, as a negative. Him being board certified did not prevent him from practicing nor did it prevent him from being able to go to court as a specialist. Please allow this to close. Thank you,----]]/] 11:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) :::::Please be patient with me as this is my first time at something like this, make corrections if needed. This dispute has gone on for a very long time. Everyone seems to agree that Dr. Barrett is not board certified so it come downs to whether it is ], ] and ]. It is way past the time to close this already, tempers are now flying. I am disabled and I have learned a lot from this dispute but I have to also say that this information does not belong in the article. It is used against Dr. Barrett, from the external links supplied, as a negative. Him being board certified did not prevent him from practicing nor did it prevent him from being able to go to court as a specialist. Please allow this to close. Thank you,----]]/] 11:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::I agree. I have had no involvement in this article and did not even read it until I saw the notice here. For this "no board certified" statement to belong in the article, since it is used as a pejorative and a swipe at Dr. Barrett, it must have relevance to his notability. He is notable as an anti-"quack" activist, not as a practicing physician. Board certification therefore has no relevance whatever and the precept in BLP of "do no harm" must prevail.--] 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) ::::::I agree. I have had no involvement in this article and did not even read it until I saw the notice here. For this "no board certified" statement to belong in the article, since it is used as a pejorative and a swipe at Dr. Barrett, it must have relevance to his notability. He is notable as an anti-"quack" activist, not as a practicing physician. Board certification therefore has no relevance whatever and the precept in BLP of "do no harm" must prevail.--] 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for your opinions. I have to disagree as to an all encompassing "swipe" or "pejorative", or special pleading - I wouldn't want to start a debilities race or "dangerous" medicine/authors topic either. A number of highly credentialed and accomplished doctors and scientists have either disagreed with positions advocated by Dr Barrett or directly disagreed with Dr Barrett. Although these individuals were shouted down in a number of cases, time is changing the "mainstream" tune quite a bit. It is highly appropriate that an individual who spends so much effort attacking the credentials of others, nominally more qualified, accomplished and recognized in a number of areas, should have his own credentials available. I disagree that publications of a notable segment of the health professions are non-notable for material ("not board certified" in one form or the other) for similar materials that are conventionally published at greater length in many Misplaced Pages biographies with less relevance therein. Continued deletion of verified, simple facts that are notable to many but unpleasant to the sympathies of some with a such variety of thin excuses undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. The Biography section is far more than merely sympathetic, it is promotional with any material less than glowing deleted and often seeks to discredit his opponents out of hand even where Dr Barrett is known to be trivially incorrect or greatly misrepresents the situation between mainstream subreptions of "conventional" (very poorly designed) tests and the reported conditions in alternative medicine of proposed hypotheses. The context argument seems overblown, and I think a few words are likely to be the maximum--] 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


== Lindsay Lohan == == Lindsay Lohan ==

Revision as of 15:10, 11 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,
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
    Łukasz Zbonikowski (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 11 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    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)

    Paul Magriel

    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

    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

    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

    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)

    Chaparral Middle School (Moorpark)

    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

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyeballs requested on Glenn Greenwald

    Userlinks
    Article links

    Glenn Greenwald is a political commentator, erstwhile independent blogger and now a columnist for Salon.com. There are allegations from the blogosphere that at some point in his career as a blogger he left comments on other peoples' blogs using different names. The accusation is essentially sockpuppetry in the realm of political blog comments. Even if the accusation is true it is unprovable, negative, potentially libelous and unencyclopedic. The Misplaced Pages is a resource used by the world at large. The crime of "sockpuppetry" is an inside baseball sort of thing and has no meaning to the general public. Anyway, an edit war erupts over and over on the article with Greenwald-haters and sockpuppets adding this information to the article again and again. // AStanhope 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    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)

    The article was recently unprotected and Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again added the allegations to Glenn Greenwald and Sockpuppet (Internet). In view of this conduct, I've reverted the edits, blocked her for 48 hours and warned her that any repetition will result in an indefinite block. -- ChrisO 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Raphaelaarchon is now using another open proxy to add the same allegations to Glenn Greenwald, Michael Barone (pundit) and How Would a Patriot Act?. I've blocked the proxy and blocked Raphaelarchon permanently. -- ChrisO 12:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    WP:AN/I

    The same user now claims to be working with others on an external forum to coordinate further attacks on a range of Misplaced Pages articles (diff). I've posted an alert to WP:AN/I to request that people watchlist the targeted articles for a while. It would be helpful if BLP editors could do the same. -- ChrisO 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    Doug Dohring

    • 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

    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

    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

    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

    • 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

    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

    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

    → 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 he 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 has gone to the talk page of the one third-party that has responded here thus far, asking for secondary sources to support the statement: "Barrett has not been granted board certification in any medical speciality". 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)

    As I've already said, that statement is supported by zero sources -- reliable, questionable or unreliable. The part of it that is verifiable is taken out of context. And it is only verifiable in primary sources. These secondary sources have only been accepted by editors editing on the tiny minority side of the debate. AvB ÷ talk 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    No need to repeat yourself then. I would like to hear from uninvolved editors... hence third-parties. They are welcome to look at the references themselves and determine if Barrett's lack of Board Certification is supported by any/all of the references provided. -- Levine2112 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not even one of the (according to you 25+) editors involved in the discussion on the talk page disputes that Barret wasn't board certified back in the early 60's. That's simply not the issue. And please stop trying to shut me out of this discussion. You have declared, on the article's talk page, that you view these posts on the BLPN as part of WP:DR, presumably some novel type of WP:3O. Keeping those on the other side of the debate (I noticed you did not discourage Steth) from informing people helping out on this board, automatically invalidates it as a DR attempt. Not that I'm going to accept "votes" that are clearly uninformed regarding the discussion on the talk page. AvB ÷ talk 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Great. No one disputes the content being true. After all it has been verified by many sources. Barrett himself is public with bing not Board Certified. What's the BLP issue? WP:DR says: Asking at subject-specific Misplaced Pages:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue. The issue that you have with this content is that you feel it violates BLP. I have posted here to settle your concerns (for or against). Your input here is welcomed of course. But don't be uncivil. That doesn't help. Thanks! -- Levine2112 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Please be patient with me as this is my first time at something like this, make corrections if needed. This dispute has gone on for a very long time. Everyone seems to agree that Dr. Barrett is not board certified so it come downs to whether it is WP:Notable, WP:Weight and WP:Not. It is way past the time to close this already, tempers are now flying. I am disabled and I have learned a lot from this dispute but I have to also say that this information does not belong in the article. It is used against Dr. Barrett, from the external links supplied, as a negative. Him being board certified did not prevent him from practicing nor did it prevent him from being able to go to court as a specialist. Please allow this to close. Thank you,----CrohnieGal/Contribs 11:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. I have had no involvement in this article and did not even read it until I saw the notice here. For this "no board certified" statement to belong in the article, since it is used as a pejorative and a swipe at Dr. Barrett, it must have relevance to his notability. He is notable as an anti-"quack" activist, not as a practicing physician. Board certification therefore has no relevance whatever and the precept in BLP of "do no harm" must prevail.--Samiharris 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinions. I have to disagree as to an all encompassing "swipe" or "pejorative", or special pleading - I wouldn't want to start a debilities race or "dangerous" medicine/authors topic either. A number of highly credentialed and accomplished doctors and scientists have either disagreed with positions advocated by Dr Barrett or directly disagreed with Dr Barrett. Although these individuals were shouted down in a number of cases, time is changing the "mainstream" tune quite a bit. It is highly appropriate that an individual who spends so much effort attacking the credentials of others, nominally more qualified, accomplished and recognized in a number of areas, should have his own credentials available. I disagree that publications of a notable segment of the health professions are non-notable for material ("not board certified" in one form or the other) for similar materials that are conventionally published at greater length in many Misplaced Pages biographies with less relevance therein. Continued deletion of verified, simple facts that are notable to many but unpleasant to the sympathies of some with a such variety of thin excuses undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. The Biography section is far more than merely sympathetic, it is promotional with any material less than glowing deleted and often seeks to discredit his opponents out of hand even where Dr Barrett is known to be trivially incorrect or greatly misrepresents the situation between mainstream subreptions of "conventional" (very poorly designed) tests and the reported conditions in alternative medicine of proposed hypotheses. The context argument seems overblown, and I think a few words are likely to be the maximum--I'clast 15:10, 11 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)
    NPOV violation and cover-up of criticism

    Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.

    This documented criticism needs to be included:

    I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!

    Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Misplaced Pages's "Law of Unintended Consequences":

    Unintended consequences.
    If you write in Misplaced Pages about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

    This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.

    As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.

    Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.

    The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    I agree. This appears to be run of the mill criticism of a public figure. The criticism does not appear to be libelous so what is the problem? The might set a bad precedent, imagine all the politicians sending e-mails to OTRS every five minutes since they know they can blank the criticism along with the article. Is this the path that wikipedia is moving toward?David D. (Talk) 06:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Carla is certainly notable enough to warrant her own article here. She won't like some of the content, but that's life. If she can't stand in for her beliefs or actions and feels compelled to cover-up criticism here, she should choose another vocation as a private person. Her current actions in deleting criticism and warnings is going to make her a lightning rod here. They invite lightning strikes...;-) -- Fyslee/talk 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    The Bus Uncle

    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)

    Reason for notability is more than just a 6-min cellphone recording; they were actually widely reported by the mass media. And about the BLP concern - The three-musts concerning BLP:
    1. Neutral point of view (NPOV)
    2. Verifiability
    3. No original research
    And concerning NPOV, the definition of NPOV as in WP:NPOV:
    "...(the neutral point of view) is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Also: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."

    Let us now see the paragraphs: "As the video became well-known, reporters looked for the "Bus Uncle" near the end of the 68X bus route. Eventually, they found the 51-year-old restaurant worker who resides in Yuen Long, Roger Chan Yuet Tung (Chinese: 陳乙東). As of June 2006, after his identity was revealed, Chan was criticised for reportedly demanding remuneration for interviews."
    "The young man scolded in the video is Elvis Ho Yui Hei (Chinese: 何銳熙), a 23-year-old property agent of his family's property management company. On May 23, 2006, Ho (previously misidentified as "Alvin" or "Elvin") called a talk show on Commercial Radio Hong Kong claiming to be the young man involved in the argument. In a later interview with the South China Morning Post, Ho said he often takes long bus rides home and would frequently ask passengers to lower their voices so he could take a nap. Despite having been threatened, Ho said he forgave "Bus Uncle" and sympathised with whatever stress the older man was suffering. His patience throughout the ordeal was inspired by tai chi chuan, a slow internal Chinese martial art."
    "The person who recorded the video clip was identified as Jon Fong Wing Hang (Chinese: 方穎恆), a 21-year-old accountant and part-time psychology student, after he called a radio station on May 25, 2006. Fong, who recorded the incident with a Sony Ericsson W800i mobile phone, claimed there was a second video yet to be posted online in which Ho fought back by making fun of "Bus Uncle" with a friend on the phone. Fong stated that the reason for the recording was to provide evidence to the police in case "Bus Uncle" became physically violent. However, he "told reporters that he often takes videos as a hobby, and had just planned to share this one with friends.""

    Are the paragraphs not asserting just facts? There is no "opinion" in the paragraphs, they are all "facts", complete with the references. For example: the wording was just something like "is criticized", "stated that", etc. It must also be stressed that assessing whether something is NPOV or not requires the assessor to read in an NPOV. The paragraphs obviously passed points 2 and 3, since everything is sufficiently referenced. I hope that editors, before raising such a concern that has great effects on the Wikipedian community, gain complete knowledge on what those policies and guidlines actually mean, and assess articles with an NPOV. --:Raphaelmak: 04:11, 9 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

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/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

    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)

    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)
    Yes, there's been a bad history with that article. The parts of the page that the IP user keeps deleting have appropriate citations. As an editor of the page, I'm confused as to what the libelous statements might be. I'm open to suggestions for revision, although I have little hope of ever satisfying the IP user, whoever he or she is. SeaAndSand 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Mr. Monckton--if this is really him--is mistaken on all of his charges. Going one by one, a) has been true in the past, but no recent edits have mentioned his views on HIV/AIDS, as any objecitve perusal of the page history will show. As for b), Monckton's views on climate change are not specifically discussed, so I don't know how they could be misrepresented. All statments about his views are statements of fact supported by sources. The paragraph that the IP user repeatedly deletes links to two rebuttals of Monckton's essay by two noted scientists. It would be helpful if the IP user was specific about the "hostile article" in question, but it appears to refer to George Monbiot's piece. This piece is still available on the Guardian's website and there is no link to any correction. I can find no record of any correction online--though Monckton was allowed to respond in the Guardian and this response is linked on the biography page. If the Guardian article is libelous, then the IP user should take it up with them and not sites that link to it. SeaAndSand 03:10, 10 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

    Resolved

    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

    Resolved

    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)

    In Afd ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to List of convicted Australian criminals and removed speculative entries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    In AfD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Removed unsourced and speculative entries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Tagged as lacking sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Pablo Ganguli

    Resolved – article is well sourced

    Not notable, links/ cited articles not found. the article may be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.69.229 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)) (UTC)

    Article seems to be well sourced at first glance. Only a few links seem to be not available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    John Lee Parrott

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Lee Parrott

    • Article is not written in a NPOV.
    • Article libels the foster family, and provides no conclusive evidence that the foster family was inadequate.
    • Judge Parrott is a small time judge in rural Georgia and therefore is not notable.
    • The girl mention was not adopted as claimed in the article.
    • Author makes the claim that he knows the mind of the Judge.
    • Looks to be a hit piece on a judge that the author disagrees with. rather than scholarly work.

    See Misplaced Pages guideline on "Articles about living people notable only for one event" Dougdeal 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Note: I have listed the article at AFD here CIreland 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Talk:Paris Hilton

    Unsourced (and highly questionable) negative information concerning a "medical condition". --- RockMFR 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Lots of linking to pictures of her crying, used for humiliating effect. Since none are allowed since a free image exists showing what she looks like, why link to them at all? It is harmful Cornea 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    "Lots"? I see two links, since you cried foul when you called a mugshot image "abusive." Others are far "worse." You also removed much information from the article regarding recent events, such as her 70 in a 35 speeding, and etc., violating a neutral stance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    I referred to Paris Hilton, not the talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Prospective question

    This in an inquiry about BLP concerns regarding a 9-year old video game star who today is the subject of a major feature in the New York Times The publicity was clearly done with the permission of his parents, and his career has been with their encouragement. (Personally, I think its outrageous behavior on their part & there therefore might be some BLP concerns with respect to them as well). But the NYT considered it appropriate to print, & that's a major national medium. I don't see how we can ignore it, but frankly had I been the Times I would have refused the story. DGG 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages requires an article of everyone featured in the New York Times? Quatloo 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that he is not a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. However he probably will have one here soon. The Star Wars Kid does. Steve Dufour 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    There are many other articles on him. There are articles on him or mentioning him in the Sunday Times, Orlando Sentinel, National Post, New York Daily News, Sports Illustrated, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and an article by Kelli Kennedy that went out on the AP wire. The earliest mention was in October 2005 by Electronic Gaming Monthly. If that's not 'notable', I don't know what is. If someone else doesn't make it in a few days, I'll do it. Nevermind, someone already did and I just couldn't find it. Chris Croy 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Andrea Yates

    • Andrea Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I feel that these type of article, should be moved to wikinews and only touch on the crime or action, not on the person. It is as if the Misplaced Pages is becoming a sensationalist encyclopaedia. I have also put a tag on a similar article stub Lisa Ann Diaz. As I read in wikipedia policy:

    Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

    If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.

    I think that all of these type of articles should be deleted or at least totally rewriten and just focus on the event. Sadly many people are murdered in the world everyday, but it has not object to include these facts in an encyclopedia // Francisco Valverde 11:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    BLP is not for article moves. Misplaced Pages may not be a newspaper, but one of the most notable murders of the 21st century definitely deserves coverage. To exclude Lizzie Borden, for example, would be a huge hole in a general purpose encyclopedia, and very noticeable in one as detailed and comprehensive as ours.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, there is no reason to not have this article merely because others have sensationalized it. Quatloo 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Generally, article moves are one way of decreasing BLP--it was reasonably argued that having personal name in the title would give a very high rating of the WP article on search engines. But in this case I don't see how to move it.
    But I really have a problem with this article, even tho I very strongly dislike the overuse of BLP. The reason is that her conviction was overturned and she was found not guilty. She was finally judged to be insane, not criminal. This really matters--she can not be treated as a criminal in WP--or for that matter elsewhere--she will have her full civil rights if cured. As a minimum, the picture is unjustifiable; no ethical publication can include pictures of the insane to emphasize their insanity--this is not just 20th century sensationalism, this is 18th century barbarity. (After the conviction & before it was overturned, this was of course different). I do not believe in taking unilateral action, but if I did I would now remove the picture. The text also needs revision--one does not publicize her delusions. What she did while insane does not diminish this, or give us the right to over-emphasize the act. The act however was so notable & received so much publicity that we can properly includes a short sourced article. We maintain our rights to objective coverage by not overextending them. DGG 07:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    She notoriously killed her children. She does not have to be found guilty in order to justify having a WP article. Also, nobody once judged insane can have all their civil rights restored -- she will not be able to own a firearm, for instance. Quatloo 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Why does what the court say really matter here? Very few killers lack mental problems, and courts just look at things from one dimension, interesting from a legal perspective, but not necessarily from a psychological or ethical perspective. Of course we should publicize her delusions; you can't discuss a murder without discussing why it was done, and treating delusions like they are embarrassments to be swept under the table is terribly Victorian and hostile to the mentally ill. A full biography of anyone includes photographs.--Prosfilaes 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    Marcus Einfeld

    This article focuses on the subject's alleged lack of integrity. Most references are to newspaper reports which brought the subjects character into question after a speeding ticket controversy. The subject is a prominent Australian legal figure. Thus the article should contain more information about his career and achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.205.72 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    This article was in pretty poor shape with much original research, sources that no longer worked (led to defunct webpages), POV phrasing and undue weight given to relatively trivial issues in order to smear the subject. I have greatly reduced the article and given detailed justifications on the talk page. It should probably be reduced further by someone with greater knowledge of the subject and also requires some formatting fixes which I may do later. CIreland 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ho Yeow Sun

    Neutral opinions are requested as to whether this Controversy section complies with WP:BLP and, if not, what should be done about it. (See also Talk page; the church in question has blocked itself from archive.org during the last week, disabling one of the links.) Jpatokal 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

    I think the present version omitting that section is on balance preferable. I oppose over-extending BLP, but the previous version was not really NPOV & it would be difficult to deal with in a brief space. DGG 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


    DeCavalcante crime family

    Appears to accuse a construction foreman of controling a mob family. Unsourced. Here is a search for all of the other crime family artilces we maintain PouponOnToast 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference cry was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. Fowler, Geoffrey A (June 8, 2006). "Hong Kong's "Bus Uncle" beaten up by three men". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 2007-03-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    3. "The Bus Uncle requires a payment of at least HK$8000 for interviews (「最少八千」 巴士阿叔受訪要收錢 兩度報名參選特首 自稱身價5000萬)". Ming Pao. 2006-06-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    4. Cite error: The named reference SCMP1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    5. Cite error: The named reference WSJ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    6. ^ Cite error: The named reference WP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    7. "巴士阿叔短片攝影師現身 ("The Cameraman revealed")" (in Traditional Chinese). Sina.com Hong Kong. May 26, 2006. Retrieved 2007-03-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
    Categories: