Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:39, 4 August 2010

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Anthony Indelicato

Joshua Pellicer

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

• - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

Has been deleted per AfD discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gary Fitzgerald

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP

Gilad Atzmon (talk)

An editor has entered and, after I deleted it, reverted at this diff a report carried by the International Socialist Organization in its Socialist Worker-USA publication. The report said that it had deleted an interview with Gilad Atzmon because of allegations against him made in letters to the editor. As I explained to the editor at at this diff] this edit violates both Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources and especially Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 which reads: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Additionally, this edit ads no new information but is just part of the piling on of allegations against him, turning his BLP into a WP:Attack page.

Socialist Worker USA is not used as a reliable source in any other wikipedia article, so I considered it just an advocacy group outlet and haven’t bother to go to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But if that seems the more appropriate place, I will bring it there. (Frankly, it's not clear in this situation which board to approach first.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol has misconstrued the situation.

• (a) Does Socialist Worker -- a newspaper for more than 40 years -- even count as "self-published"? By that standard, are all newspapers are "self-published" in the same sense? Is every masthead editorial ever printed now disallowed on Misplaced Pages?
• (b) Even if we accept, as I do not, that "self-published" is the proper category for SocialistWorker, self-published articles can be used to establish that the self-publisher has indeed said something; they just can't be used to assert the truth of what that self-publisher has said. If X self-publishes, "I think Y is Z", then the site can't be used to substantiate the claim "Y is Z", but it can be used to substantiate the claim that X said Y is Z.
• (c) The BLP article in question has several articles from the subject's own self-published website. If Carol really believes that self-published articles are verboten, why doesn't she complain about those, which have been there for years?

The particular case here is a newspaper that retracted an interview with the subject of a BLP article, citing letters that they'd received that the subject was a racist and bigot. The newspaper published two of those letters the next day. The citation was not to substantiate the absolute claim that the subject was a racist and a bigot, but the sourced claim that Socialist Worker had retracted their interview because they'd received letters calling him a racist and a bigot, and decided they agreed. To cite their editorial statement to this effect as WP:RS for the claim "Socialist Worker retracted the interview and gave their reasons" is not a violation of WP:RS. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced, but does it deserve mention in a biography? Without independent sources, I'd say it probably doesn't, but certainly not in such detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So your saying that socialistworker.org (which still is not working btw) did an interview with a guy, some people wrote in saying he is a racist and a bigot, socialistworker.org agree and retract the interview with that as the excuse. And you think it is ok to call a BLP a racist and bigot using a third party partisan site why exactly? mark nutley (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you're asking, but I'm saying that while the information is verified, it probably doesn't belong in the article, and certainly doesn't deserve such a lengthy presentation in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Mark, try to understand what I'm saying. I did not use the Socialist Worker citation "to call a BLP a racist and bigot." Let me repeat that: I did not use the Socialist Worker citation "to call a BLP a racist and bigot." That wouldn't be WP:RS. I and most others who have spoken up agree that the citation can be used to support the claim that Socialist Worker has called the BLP a racist and bigot. Whether or not it's a true claim that the guy is a bigot, it's certainly a true claim that Socialist Worker has called him a bigot, and the latter is what I seek to document, and there is agreement that the source is WP:RS for that claim. This in an important distinction and you would do well to note it. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That site is still down, and has been since i got involved here. Until such a time as they sort their server out i request you do not reinsert the content until it can be checked. mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it via google cache. The article you are using as a source is i think this one? If so then it can`t be used, those are letters to the editor being printed and calling a BLP all manner of things. mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone to the site. The editorial statement I'm looking at is called "An article retracted." I have just loaded the page three or four times in a row so I can't explain your inability to reach the page. Try this Google cache: RT-LAMP (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The cache copy worked, i still am of the opinon that this magazine is not a suitable source to claim in a blp that the subject is a holocaust denier. How much press coverage has this received? I suspect it also falls under wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The text removed from the article does not declare the subject a Holocaust denier and does not use the SW source to undergird that claim. -- it goes no farther than repeating with attribution Socialist Worker 's claim to have received letters stating the subject associates with Holocaust deniers, and repeating with attribution Socialist Worker 's decision, upon deciding the evidence was "damning," to withdraw their previously published interview. In light of this you may wish to reread the section you retracted from the entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is less how the source is being used but rather, should it be included at all? Unless the fact that Social Worker removed the interview received coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it's a rather insignificant fact and not worth inclusion. Shell 06:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a self published primary report and clearly is not suitable for inclusion. It is so accusatory and biased it is an awful thing to add. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Misplaced Pages policy stating that only sources positive or neutral toward the subject can be used in BPL. Is there one? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has published this and wikipedia isn't going to either. It like talking to yourself and then rushing off to add it to wikipedia, its rubbish, total POV rubbish.WP:TOTALPOVRUBBISH After publishing an in depth interview with ..... the socialistworker said that although the interview had no anti semitic comments or opinions, some unnamed people had written to them suggesting the interviewee is anti semetic so we have decided to retract the interview we published previously which as we said contained no anti semitic views or comments. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the editorial statement? It does not say "we got letters calling him an antisemite so we pulled the interview." It says, they got letters calling him an antisemite, and upon looking into it decided "The evidence for these serious charges is damning." That is quire a different matter than what you describe. It would be helpful if you could describe what you think separates this case from the case of quoting any other editorial statement. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the comments here? Multiple editors are saying that without an independent source, it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could describe what you think separates this case from the case of quoting any other editorial statement Simple. It is a character attack. Particularly as it was added to the article; which quite conclusively indicated that they believe he is a holocaust denier. It doesn't matter that it is just repeating what the socialist worker editor concluded; it is still, by indication, calling him a holocaust denier. I would say there needs to be a much wider body of evidence for a start - and from intensely reputable sources (i.e. not letters to the editor :)) --Errant Tmorton166 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none, but to post disparaging information it needs to be rock solid sourcing. The source presented here is not that. It is also giving undue weight to the story as it seems to have only been printed in this one magazine mark nutley (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Side comment: that whole section (on anti-Semitism) needs a pretty deep clean/rewrite. It's quite heavily written from the point of someone who agree he is an anti-Semite. That might be true but still needs to be dealt with neutrally. --Errant Tmorton166 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong. If the subject is an anti-semite, his views will have drawn comment in more mainstream sources with a somewhat wider circulation, which should be cited in preference over the Socialist Worker. And if they haven't, that marks the view of the Socialist Worker as a fringe view. --JN466 01:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

They are, and they have, he has been noted to be an antisemite in, among others, The Guardian and The Times, which are the two largest Newspapers in England. These sources are also included in the article. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The source should not be used to label the subject a holocaust denier. It could be used to note that Socialist Worker retracted an article on him on the grounds of his alleged anti-semitism, but only then if SW's actions are noteworthy (test: what other sources have commented about the action taken by SW?). --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather unsurprisingly, no one does seem to have commented on it. --JN466 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Thanks to all those who noted that mentioning this incident is not notable. Re: Errant Tmorton166's Side comment: that whole section (on anti-Semitism) needs a pretty deep clean/rewrite. It's quite heavily written from the point of someone who agree he is an anti-Semite. That might be true but still needs to be dealt with neutrally. Even worse, neutral info about him from highly WP:RS has been routinely removed by the same editors as WP:POV or WP:Coatrack, even as they keep piling on that section. (See this diff and same info after clarification at this diff.) I've been procrastinating on organizing and putting in new WP:RS info lately because of such reverts, but the common sense I've seen in this thread makes me more optimistic and I'll be sure to bring such examples of POV reverts here in the future. While it is true that Atzmon can be loose with his words, making it easy for enemies to cherry pick and use them out of context, it also is true that there are organized campaigns by left and right to shut up this high profile musician (and former Israeli IDF member) and to destroy his career. We can't let wikipedia be used for such purposes. (I bet the SWP people looked first at the WIKI article for information about him and read that section full of vitriolic opinion rants.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is of course by no means Misplaced Pages's job to protect Atzmon from what Atzmon himself has said, even when it's less than pretty. It is your stance that these quotes are "cherry picked." It is my stance they are part and parcel of his usual rhetoric. Both positions are POV. Misplaced Pages should support neither over the other. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter

There are news reports of a 4chan attack going on against an 11 year old Florida girl who calls herself Jessi Slaughter online. The RL attacks have gotten so bad that the police have had to take her into protective custody. We've already gotten Jessi "Slaughter" Leonhardt and edits to the Cyber police article. Any sightings should be removed on sight. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an edit filter be set up? Fences&Windows 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note the existence of Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned at Viral video#Cyberbullying. Is this OK? Fences&Windows 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski

Wow, User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski is a HUGE BLP violation. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you would point out what parts you feel are BLP violations. I've copied a section of the existing article to my user space sandbox to see if I can improve it. I haven't made many changes yet and the ones I have are cited with WP:RS -- but if you have a particular objection I'd love to hear what you object to and why. Right now this draft article fragment is in a messy sandboxy state ... but if you want to be helpful you'll need to be more specific on how and where you feel it violates BLP. Hoping To Help (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The very first section, which just starts off with his arrest record, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • As Errant points out below and I stated above this is a SECTION of an existing article that I made a copy of to work on to see if I could improve it in private before showing it to the world for feedback. The first sentence that you object to is unchanged from the article that I borrowed it from. Of course this would violate WP:WEIGHT if it was a published stand alone article. But this is a small *segment* of an existing article in *draft* form. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You have the wrong idea of a wiki. Nothing that you do here on the wiki, even on a userspace page, is "in private". Everything that you do here is public, and visible to the population of the planet. This is an important principle to remember. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Last night the content contained large swathes of what looked like copy and paste content from locations some of which that are not wikipedia reliable sources, the content has been trimmed to a third of its size since then, when I looked it was a whole POV write up that will never ever be useful to insert or improve in any way the actual wikipedia article. I see Doug has noindexed it now, which is good. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The content appears to come from this article; it all looks fine to me in that context. My knowledge of this case is actually quite extensive (I work in LE and this was one of my theory revision cases) and it all looks factual. I'd suggest NoIndex is a good idea and when Hoping To Help is done with improvements he gets a friendly admin to delete it - just in case --Errant Tmorton166 08:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist anyways. Here it was at its violating worst at 4am last night. Off2riorob (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, never noticed that :) --Errant Tmorton166 09:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I asked him about it late yesterday afternoon what he was doing there, and mentioned it to an Administrator. When I asked him it was at 8000 and after I spoke to him he increased the content with a lot of swathes of copyrighted and policy (BLP) violating text to 30000 from some reliable and some unreliable sources and then this thread was opened and he has since cut it back again. Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sources section was *never* meant to be published. It was just a place for me to collect information that some small part of which might *possibly* be integrated into the article. Yes, it was links and some direct cut and paste so at a glance I could see what those links were about. I moved them off of Misplaced Pages mainly because I realized it would be more convenient for me to store them elsewhere -- and b/c some of my longer clippings might have been copvio. But I guess my mistake was treating the sandbox like it was a private place to work on an article. My understanding is that the user spaces are not indexed and so that no one lands there from doing a search ... but maybe I'm wrong. ... Off2riorob(talk), I'm still curious why you're spending more energy trying to police my draft user-space sandbox article than you are the published main space article? You objected to a citation I had in the sandbox article that was only there because I copied it over from the main space article. Why didn't you object to the citation when it was used twice in a *published* article by some other editor? Hoping To Help (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I stopped looking at that awful article long ago, I stumbled on your article, it was visible to search engines and I saw no need for you to be creating it there, I still don't and your policy and BLP violations to the content after I spoke to you yesterday strengthen my feelings. Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, as we discussed here you pointed out two links you thought were WP:RS questionable -- which I actually appreciate the effort to help. I then explained that I was never intending to use those sources in the final article and one (http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html ) was just there because it was part of the original article that I copied from the main space (that some other editor had inserted). What I'm still curious about is that you are so worried about about it's inclusion in a *draft* sandbox user-space scratch pad -- yet you've allowed it to remain in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case even -- even after I pointed out to you that it exists twice in that main space published article? I guess I'm confused. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I was unable to help improve that article and it was being defended by multiple users and I came to think of it as a place to keep the policy violations and took it off my watchlist as it was awful to watch the additions and talkpage commentry. I concentrated my energy on attempting to keep the similar violations out of the main Polanski article, which I think was managed pretty well. As I said I stumbled on your article and it was easy to deal with so...you know the rest.Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious but why are you trying to rewrite a current article? Why don't you go to the talk page and make suggestions there or even be bold and edit the article? It doesn't make sense to be doing a rewrite since there are active editors there who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion. My suggestion would be to join the editors at the article and request a speedy deletion of the article you have in your sandbox since there are problems with it. --CrohnieGal 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why am I doing this? Because I think that the article could possibly be improved ... And I think improving it might involve rearranging/changing a number of sentences that I would have a hard time doing on a live article without messing things up. I've copied part of the article to a non-mainspace area so I can try out different ideas before I propose something. I may want to propose a new layout/structure -- but it is hard for me to do that without being able to tryout different versions and see how they read.

Your comment: "since there are active editors who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion." Seems like you might be unconsciously in violation of: WP:OWN Hoping To Help (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now the second time you accuse me of ownership issues. I will tell you again, I have not edited this article. There is no ownership issues and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying this, please strike it out. Thank you, --CrohnieGal 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Stopping a rewrite of an article from happening because of concerns that "there are active editors there who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion" -- is a violation of the intent behind WP:OWN. I never said that you were an editor of this article -- but that the reason you gave went against the intent of WP policy.Hoping To Help (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need to reread the WP:OWN policy since I see nothing there about an editor commenting like I did who has never touched the article. I take this as a personal attack. Please stop this accusation and now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 10:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Massively rewriting an article, particularly this sort of article, in user space and then copying it into article space will be contentious - major rewrites of established articles can lead to much discussion and reverions/editing. It is much better to improve the article piece by piece so others can contribute to the effort. Accusing Crohnie of WP:OWN when she is trying to give you helpful advice to stop you running into controversy later seems a bit unfair. --Errant Tmorton166 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)

The article on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley cites a statement by the British House of Lords that the subject of the article "is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." The cited source unfortunately appears to have disappeared into the archives but you can still see it here for the moment in the Google cache.

An individual using the name of "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" has posted a response in comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/ , a blog run by a third party, arguing that the House of Lords is wrong and that Monckton is in fact a member. A Wikipedian argues here that it is "libelous" to include the House of Lords' statement that Monckton is not a member without including a citation to this blog post arguing that he is.

I see two problems with this: first, there is an absolute prohibition on using readers' posts as sources (WP:NEWSBLOG). As in all such cases, there's no guarantee that this is in fact written by the individual in question. Second, the blog in question would not meet the criteria of WP:BLPSPS, as it is not written or published by the subject. I also very much doubt whether we could use the subject as a reliable source on the membership rules of the House of Lords - as a self-governing body, the House is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. I'd appreciate some feedback from other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the blog post is bollocks anyway. "general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent" - rubbish, has he never heard of the doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament?--Scott Mac 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple of sources ,, which are Guardian newspaper blogs; not sure how they would rate in the reliability stakes, but the latter links to Monckton's explanation, giving it something of a nod, to my mind.--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is a pretty weak claim of an authoritative comment from the house of lords, possible so weak as to be unusable. Surly there must be better claims somewhere? written by Judy Fahys of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Barry Bickmore (someone Monkton was in a row with) has posted on Real Climate blog that he says Monckton is no member of the United Kingdom's House of Lords as he sometimes claims.. Monkton replied: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise." and then according to Bickmore he contacted the information office House of lords asking them if Monkton was a house of lords member and says he got the reply "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." ... all a bit weak to accuse someone of falsely claiming such a thing in my opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Monkton's explanation Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic link - includes statements insinuating a living person engaged in all kinds of malfeasance, and is selfpublished. If a reputable news agency picks it up, perhaps we can link to the reputable news agency. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also noted in . I take no position on inclusion/exclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob that the Salt Lake Tribune citation has a bit too much hearsay to make me feel comfortable. Here's another source a Chicago Tribune article which says that "He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by a member's death." (see page 2)--Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the article cited to the SLT article we have this comment which is written as if we have an official announcement from the house of lords, we clearly don't have that at all.

the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."http://www.sltrib.com/ ..presently cited to the front page of the SLT, supporting a very poor and misleading unattributed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually appeared in the Tribune on April 9, 2010. You can find a copy at your local library, or you can read the cached web content by googling for "http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14856887?source=rss" and clicking on the first link's "cached" copy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I have seen it and read it, that is one of the reasons I am joining in the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found Monckton's comment also at SPPI here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The Salt Lake Tribune article states that SPPI sponsored Monckton so it is credible that he actually wrote it. I dispute that the House of Lords is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. The dispute between Monckton and the (other?) Lords is a political and legal dispute. Misplaced Pages can trust neither side of such a dispute as definitive. If suggestions of dishonesty by Monckton are to be included, minimum decency requires at least one sentence for Monckton's defense of himself. If Monckton's defense is not included then no source of any level of reliability is sufficient to back Misplaced Pages including the libelous suggestion, and certainly not an obviously hostile Salt Lake Tribune article. In the guardian source above it is interesting to note that the House of Lords appears to call Monckton a Lord. So I guess the dispute is only about whether he is a member of the House of Lords, not whether he is a Lord. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well said. There has also been a related discussion on the article talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another page that goes into some more detail of this dispute http://worldreports.org/news/282_all_uk_legislation_passed_since_2000_is_null_and_void The page has very doubtful credibility but it includes some interesting letters such as this one about 40% down the page:

29 September 2008 : Column WA398:

House of Lords: Letters Patent
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what means Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed;
and in what legislation that has occurred. :

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):

The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.

Thus, the Peerage Act 1963 allowed Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords regardless of the terms of any Letters Patent creating the peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions. Conversely, the House of Lords decided in 1922 in the case of Viscountess Rhondda that the terms of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 were not sufficiently specific to allow her to take her seat in the Lords when her Letters Patent allowed her to inherit the peerage, but not the seat in the Lords. I am aware of only one case in which the effect of individual Letters Patent has been changed by Act of Parliament, which is that of the Duke of Marlborough in 1706.

Mindbuilder (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)In short, Moncton is a "Lord" and has "Letters Patent" which state he can sit in the House of Lords, however in 1999 the House of Lords was substantially altered by legislation which (effectively) annuled such Letters Patent, though without specifically addressing each such. In a sense, the "Upper House" and the "House of Lords" are not necessarily congruent? Is that the gist of this entire teapot? Seems to me that the entire bit has only arcane relevance to anything at all. Collect (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not correct. Letters Patent are what give someone the right to a peerage. They do not give the right of membership in the House of Lords. That comes from writs of summons, which are basically royal commands to attend the House. The House of Lords Act 1999 did not annul any Letters Patent - everyone who had a title kept it. Instead, it eliminated all but 92 hereditary peers from the pool of those eligible to receive writs of summons. Monckton only gained his peerage after the passage of the HoLA 1999 and therefore was never a member. The relevance of this is that his relationship with the Lords is of high importance - if he's a member that's highly notable, and he has repeatedly claimed or insinuated that he is one. Others, including the House of Lords itself, say that he is not a member. It's thus of intrinsic significance, as well as being covered in a number of reliable sources as a topic of controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well -- read the blank form for Letters Patent for Viscounts at which, as far as I can tell, is an authoritative source for. "

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts

Which, om its face, specifies "seat place and voice in the Parliaments". Your mileage apparently varies as to what this means. Collect (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This dates to 1992. The Forms of Letters Patent were amended in 2000 so that they now read:

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts And also that he and his heirs male aforesaid successively may enjoy and use all the rights privileges pre-eminences immunities and advantages to the degree of a Viscount duly and of right belonging which Viscounts of Our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy

(I've used the 1992 text, striking according to the 2000 amendment. This is arguably my own WP:OR, but the 2000 amendment only indicates what to strike - it doesn't provide the full text). TFOWR 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But does that 2000 amendment change pre-existing letters patent or just new ones? Mindbuilder (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting - since he's the 3rd Viscount Letters Patent would have been issued to his grandfather using the pre-2000 Form (pre-1992 as well, but for our purposes here that's not really relevant) and it'll be that Form that the subject believes applies. Let me dig further... TFOWR 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article seems to be full of problematic BLP issues. For instance In 2004 Monckton advised a London-based employment firm which was investigated by the National Crime Squad probing an alleged immigration racket involving hundreds of eastern European migrants who were brought to Britain on bogus visas. Monckton was their immigration adviser., now I might be wrong but that looks like something we would cut? On the actual issues we seem to be at one of those impasses; where interesting information about the individual exists and may deserve a mention, but we can only source it through bad means. The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him. We cannot, either, reliably verify his defence/counter claim. For that reason I think we should wait for a more official/neutral discussion of both issues. (Mindbuilder; yes, you are right, he is definitely a Lord - that is his hereditary title and can't really be disputed :)) --Errant Tmorton166 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

TM - I have to admit I'm a bit confused. You say "The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him." You believe the STrib is discussing the issue with the movtive of discrediting him? You believe the house of lords said he wasn't a member of the house of lords with the motive of discrediting him? What, exactly, is more offifical/neutral than the deliberative body and a reasonably major newspaper? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the Tribune and the Guardian are good sources for this. The only caveat is that there is no evidence that Monckton has lied, only that he has a diagreement with the House of Lords. A little bit of an eccentric disagreement, maybe, but that is not exactly breaking new BLP ground with regards to the subject of the article. It also seems obvious to me that Monckton is wrong and the House of Lords is right, but there is no reason for us to say that and it doesn't mean he is lying in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The original source (STrib) is awful; lots of mud slinging - the bit about the lords is used before a direct quote trying to undermine his credibility from one of his opponents. The insinuation is that the HoL response was to Bickmore and not the STrib - which is even more problematic. --Errant Tmorton166 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, it does not make the source unreliable, as long as the SLT has a reputation for fact-checking. --FormerIP (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It does. It's a major, long established newspaper, which has won at least one Pulitzer prize for its reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask a seperate question? Why is Monckton excluded from Members of the House of Lords if he claims that he is a nonvoting, nonsitting member? Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose because his own statements would not be considered an RS in this matter (they are an RS only for the fact that he has claimed to be a member). --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a BLP violation by exclusion? Either it is a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords, or it is not a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords. How could it be a BLP violation in article A, but not in article B? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I presume that list is built from the list of members published by the House. I doubt his exclusion is based on claims in these articles --Errant Tmorton166 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The list dosen't say that. Shouldn't you edit the list to make it clear why Monckton, and the other HOLA99 exclusions, while still possibly members of the house of lords, are not on the list? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, isn't List of excepted hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999, wrong, in that it states "The House of Lords Act 1999 excluded all peers sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage?" And isn't House of Lords Act 1999, in that it states "The Act prevents even hereditary peers who are the first to hold their titles from sitting automatically in the House of Lords." These statements of fact are all disputed by Monckton, and thus shouldn't this dispute be made clear in all the relevent articles? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be a BLP violation to say that he was a member of the HoL, because there is insufficient sourcing for that. However, the sourcing appears to me to be strong enough to say that he has claimed to be a member of the HoL (but that this is denied by the HoL). AFAIK, there is not wider controversy about this. If it were the case that there was a significant body of legal opinion that agreed with Monckton, then that make make a difference (ie shaping the MOHOL article according to Monckton's SELFPUB comments would be UNDUE, but including them in his own aritcle may not be). --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are ya all still going on about it with the debating skills honed over lengthy periods of warring and climate change disputes, At least we can look forward to the forthcoming Arbcom result to this infernal dispute. The content, if no one has touched it needs at least attribution, the reply from the house of lords is from that guy he has a dispute with and we have no way official statement from the house of lords at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Salt Late Tribune it was an "official response." Are you saying the SLT is not a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The information was given to them by the person Mopnkton was in dispute with, all the newspaper did was report what the person told them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What, other than your own personal opinion, leads you to believe that? Can I apply my personal opinion to sources that say things I don't like? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It not my personal opinion it is what I understand from the loose way the article is written. It matters not anyway, Monkton is a Lord as collect states and others, in 1999 or there abouts they changed the door posts, and Monkton is absolutely correct in what he says about it, the content is rubbish, utter rubbish and is only being supported as it portrays him badly, yawn at least all this rubbish will soon be over. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No one doubts he was a lord. There is a difference between being a lord, and being a member of the house of lords. Monckton was not a peer in 1999 - he inherited his title in 2006. Shouldn't we be "getting it right" regarding his peerage? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, the article states, with full context

Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."

The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

I don't see how this is unclear. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This official response was told to the reporter by the person in a dispute with Mongton Bickmore, Bickmore said he wrote to the HOL information and Bickmore said he got this reply. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. The source makes it clear that the official response was X, not that "Bickmore said the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So where do you think the response came from ? Bilmore said he wrote to them, so if he wrote to them then they replied to him didn't they? and he told the newspaper interviewer about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I report on what sources say, not what I personally think happened. For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? If you can't verify something, you can't assume it - in this case, I can verify that a reliable source has said "the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Such low grade opinionated editorials are very often written so loosely as to deceive and misrepresent and sensationalize, we are required to use our editorial intelligence. I disagree with this POV and I am sick to the back teeth of BLP articles being disrupted and warred over and attacked and I really look forward to the result of the arbcom case, and I am sure many other editors are sick of the disruption as well. I like to imagine Mr Monkton and the other living people that have had their articles attacked and disrupted will be laughing their socks off when the big ban hammer is waved around. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it appeared on the news papges of the online publication (/news/, as opposed to /opinion/), what leads you to believe it's an editorial? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, it's clearly not an editorial. It's straight reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? - woah hold on, you are as in the dark over that as Off2riorob. The ambiguity is enough, surely, to cast doubt on the argument. Anyway - the whole argument is an Ad-Hominem attack on Monckton (look, he's lied about being in the HoL - do you think he is telling the truth about XYZ). I think that source is way way off the table. The Guardian source is much stronger and if it has to be reported that is the one to use. --Errant Tmorton166 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What ambiguity? We have a straight piece of factual reporting, directly quoting correspondence from the HoL. There's no reason to suppose that it is anything other than a reliable source. It appears that you don't like what it says, but that has no bearing on whether it meets the reliable sourcing criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't like what it says can we get over this constant nonsense. I'm really bored with people using this as an argument all the time - it is bad rhetoric. Anyway; my issue is that the article is an Ad Hominem - that undermines it's suitability as a RS. It quotes a piece of correspondance without explicitly attributing it's source (which is via Bickmore). The Guardian article has none of those issues and is actually accessible online :) --Errant Tmorton166 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content of an article is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source. Please refresh your memory about what WP:V actually says. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't come here asserting, I have a reliable source and if you don't like it read this policy or that policy and I can add it if I want and if you can't find it go to the libary and this is indisputable as the fabulous not notable reporter is such a good fact checker and then the same people argue the exact opposite when it is against their POV, and another one comes and its like rotating discussion with different users I realize this is never ending, at least for a few more days so forget about it, it will soon be over anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant questions here are: What is the reputation of the newspapers editorial policy? Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and getting things right? Does this "jive" with what other reliable sources say? Does it raise a red-flag? etc.

Your assumption, that we can judge it on whether it is critical or not, is not a part of the process - in fact: what we think about the article is irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

iIts some kind of a local Mormon paper doing an interview with a Mormon apologist global warming supporter about a skeptic, lets not sing its fantastic praises of ace NPOV reporting, Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Salt Lake City's main newspaper. I've never been there, but I doubt your characterisation is fair. At least we know the reporter is relatively unlikely to have been drinking whilst researching the piece, which, reliability-wise is a big bonus compared to most newspapers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune is a major metro daily with a circulation of around 300,000 which makes it the largest newspaper in Utah. Its parent company is based in Denver. Your comment is really off the mark. — e. ripley\ 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And if you knew anything about the SLT, Off2riorob, you'd know it was actually an anti-Mormon newspaper for many years. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V has no relation to the content of the source, it is about the content of the article and attributing it to a RS. We say the HoL has said this (and they certainly did say it - not that it matters) - but the source currently used to verify it is not suitable (to my mind). Reliability of the entire website is important - and I wouldn't really dispute that in this case. But we do need to consider individual sources (articles) on their own merit. In this case I think Ad-Hominem pieces fall easily under Questionable Sources. All of which is moot when you consider the questionable source is, uh, dead and that the Guardian article (live) is a much better alternative :) --Errant Tmorton166 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken. See WP:V#Questionable sources. None of those criteria apply to a news report by a major, long-established metropolitan daily newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chris, but, if it would make this discussion shorter, what would be the problem with using the Guardian instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I'm very happy with the Guardian source (well done to whoever found it). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: We have considerable expertise over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and they should be consulted about the precise wording here. My own understanding, which is limited although I take an interest in these matters, is that Lord Monckton is a peer of the realm, but not a sitting member of the House of Lords. He is among those eligible to be elected by other conservative hereditary peers to sit the House. (Or at least, he was, in one election, listed as someone who got zero votes. He is now a member of UKIP, and I don't know if that means he isn't any long a Tory peer - beyond the scope of my limited expertise) I personally do not know whether it would be appropriate for those who either formally sat in the House of Lords by right, but who do no longer, or those who have inherited a peerage and yet never been elected, to call themselves a "member" of the House of Lords.

A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation.

I would be interested to see a reliable source for the House of Lords officially saying he isn't a member - the source cited seems to no longer work. In order to be notable, though, we'd need more than just a list of members, of which he is not a part. We'd need to see some definitive statement that the House of Lords proper doesn't want him calling himself a member, or something similar to that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. A lot of this is demonization of Monckton. "You lied about X, Y, and Z, therefore you must be lying about climate change, too." The House of Lords issue isn't the only issue on which Monckton's assertions have been challenged in this fashion. Unfortunately, the people making these charges mostly haven't seen fit to document them properly, putting their names to them, researching and checking their facts, and publishing them in full detail in some reliable permanent form. One can turn up people writing on the subject. But people with credentials in U.K. constitutional law, or other identifiable expertise, or even real names, are much harder to come by. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement supposedly made by the house of lords is not very well verified by the SLT article. It's not well verified enough for a controversial issue. But I don't think it is controversial that the HoL made that statement. Monckton hasn't disputed that the Lords made that claim. In fact Monckton himself states that the Lords revoked his pass, asked for the return of his letters patent, and instructed the information office to deny his membership. The only controversial fact here is whether the 1999 act lawfully removed his claim to be a member. The political HoL can't be trusted to make an unbiased evaluation of that fact, so Monckton's defense should be included. It would be legitimate to simply remove the accusation of false statement, but it is such a major issue on the internet when he is mentioned, that I think it should be dealt with here. We're not hurting him by mentioning the accusation one more time, and it is only fair to mention his self defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't agree with you but my disagreement is somewhat subtle. The claim that the 1999 act did not lawfully remove his right to sit in the Lords is so fringe that I'm unaware of any serious authority who would accept it or even put it forward with a straight face. The act passed the Commons (340-142), passed the Lords (221-81), and was given royal assent by the Queen. It doesn't get any more lawful than that. It is therefore not necessary to say, on this one point, that it's "he said, they said". (What is lacking, as far as I am aware, is a reliable source that shows that Lord Monckton holds any such belief.)

  There is a separate question, much milder, where I believe Lord Monckton is also wrong, but it's much less dramatic a claim, and therefore much less bizarre, that he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote. That's different from claiming that the 1999 law is invalid, although it is a claim about nomenclature that is at odds with that law's own language.

  My concern is whether any of this back and forth is actually noteworthy enough to include in the article. I do not know for sure.

  I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction. I say this mainly because I happened to glance at this article the other day (it is on my watch list for some reason) and read a bit about him, and totally failed to realize that he's never actually been in the House of Lords.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The best source I've found that Monckton actually believes that the act didn't nullify his claim to be a member of the house of lords is here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The SPPI is referenced in the SLT article as sponsoring Monckton. The post he made at Wattsupwiththat is less reliable, but Wasttsupwiththat is the leading climate skeptic blog, and therefore has some credibility. It seems unlikey though possible that an impostor there would go unnoticed or uncorrected by either Monckton or Anthony Watts. I think Moncton's claim that the act may be invalid may actually be technically correct. It appears that there actually was some sort of preceding rule or law that an act of parliament couldn't revoke the priveleges of a Lord unless the act did so specifically. It appears the paliament blundered in passing the wrong kind of law. But it's a mere technicality, and Monckton's lack of a claim to be able to vote demonstrates he's not challenging the practical effect of the law. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the parliament couldn't have passed specific laws just as easily if it had realized that it needed to. And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal. An example in the US is when Congress passes laws that the courts declare unconstitutional. It doesn't matter that Congress and the president have passed it.

    When I first heard the accusation against Monckton, my impression was that he had claimed to be a Lord but really wasn't. It made him sound kind of crazy. It all looks much different now that I know that he actually is an official British Lord and that his claim wasn't just made up but is rather a dispute over a technical legal issue. It still seems misleading though for him to insist that he is a member and make that claim without explanation. There is little doubt that he has claimed membership, there is little doubt that they have disclaimed his membership, and the technical legal issue is a little bit interesting. This info is usefully informative in the context of the climate change debate. Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process of those of us who can't take the time to research the issue in depth. So I'd say it should be in. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Don't apply U.S. constitutional theory to the U.K.. You'll go wildly astray, as you've done here. The U.K. doesn't have a written constitution, and constitutional law is a wholly different ballgame, with complex, subtle, and uncodified rules. House of Lords reform, for example, is complicated by issues of entrenchment — something that our article on entrenched clauses fails to even relate to the U.K. at all — and how one changes the structure of a Popular monarchy (AfD discussion) without knocking out the foundations. (There's a lot written in constitutional law texts challenging Dicey's view of entrenchment and the sovereignty of Parliament for being an adducement that is not in a de facto sense true at all. Our articles on this whole subject are far from complete, so don't treat them as Gospel, either. As you can see, we don't yet even have a complete description of what a popular monarchy is.) Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew I should have put an explanation of my analogy. I didn't mean to suggest that the British courts could overrule Parliament. I don't know what it is but there seems to be something in British law that prevents Parliament from changing letters patent with a general law rather than a specific law. This isn't just Monckton's claim, I've quoted the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) below. I don't know if this constraint on Parliament is binding or just tradition or if it's the courts or the queen or who would enforce such a constraint, but the constraint on Parliament appears to exist. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process; I fail to see how Moncktons credibility over climate science is affected by his statements about the HoL - because someone is wrong/misguided/lying on one thing does not automatically extend to another (for example; if a respected climate scientist is having an affair and denies it does that undermine his credibility? I've seen that used before.....). It is simply an Ad-Hominem attack by his opponent. On the other hand if this grows outside the climate debate arguments and becomes a standalone issue (i.e. he publicly disputes the law as a separate issue) then it would become very interesting.

If a person is caught trying to trick people, it casts doubt about everything they say. A different amount of doubt is cast depending on what the deception was. Denying an affair would not reduce one's credibility as much as a completely fabricated claim to be an official Lord. In a strictly logical argument an ad-hominem attack is not valid, but in the real world it is often impossible to make a decision in a strictly logical way. Few of us have the expertise or time to analyze the climate evidence in a rigorous way. Therefore we have to take into consideration the opinions of people more knowledgeable about the subject than ourselves. The credibility of those people is important if we can't rigorously evaluate their arguments. I have tremendous respect for science and scientists, but especially with the revelations since climategate, I don't think we can automatically assume the climate science community is being completely honest, let alone completely unbiased. So I am saying that ad-hominem attacks should be minimized, but are appropriate and even necessary in the climate change debate. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal - as already pointed out law works very different over here. The fact of him being a Lord and his seat in parliament are entirely separate issues; it is indisputable that he is a hereditary peer! --Errant Tmorton166 10:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've found the official source of the statement by the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) at the bottom of this page http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80929w0021.htm In which she states "The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application." Mindbuilder (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've also found this governement site that shows the generic wording of letters patent https://opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19881082_en_2.htm which in part say this "...he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils..." Mindbuilder (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lord Mereworth and other lords are apparently threatening a lawsuit on the theory shared by Monckton http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html Mindbuilder (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion here - Mindbuilder in particular is getting the details wrong. The facts are simple enough:

• Monckton is a peer, which means he can use the title of Lord. This fact is undisputed by anyone.
• Not all peers can sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right to sit in Parliament from all but 92 hereditary peers. This fact is undisputed.

That is not undisputed. Lord Mereworth claims his letters patent give him the right to sit in the House of Lords. Both Monckton and Mereworth claim that the HOLA1999 didn't remove some of their rights because it was a general rather than a specific law. I'm not the one confused here. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Monckton's father was among one of those removed. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton gained his peerage in 2006 on the death of his father, seven years after the passage of the House of Lords Act. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton has described himself as "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote" and "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" . This fact is undisputed.
• The House of Lords itself does not list Monckton as a member and has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." This fact is undisputed.
• Peers are summoned to sit in the House of Lords through a writ of summons, not Letters Patent. The House of Lords Act means that all but 92 of the hereditary peers no longer receive writs of summons. It didn't repeal Letters Patent, which are instruments that grant titles. This fact is undisputed, as far as I know.

Mindbuilder, I'm afraid you are clearly approaching this from a US perspective which is misleading you. Unlike the US, the UK has a doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. It doesn't have the same constitutional setup as the US. The courts do not have the power to rule a law "unconstitutional" - they couldn't, since the UK doesn't have a constitution. Parliament legislates in the name of the Queen, and the courts apply the laws that Parliament passes, again acting in the name of the Queen. Jimbo, the claim that "he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote" is a dramatic and bizarre claim from a UK perspective. As a self-governing body, the House of Lords the only authority for stating who is and is not one of its members. It has said very clearly that Monckton is not and never has been a member, and that the status he claims for himself does not exist. The claim is equivalent to a US citizen saying "I'm a Senator but without a right to sit or vote". Would you not consider that a dramatic and bizarre claim? From a UK perspective Monckton's claim is equally extraordinary. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of getting into too much OR in terms of establishing the correct interpretation of the law here (I'm not accusing anyone of that, just raising a flag). I would agree with you, Chris, that Mockton's legal claim is probably without merit, but unless we can get an RS opinion about this, we don't need to worry too much about whether it is or it isn't.

In terms of what we need to say in the article: (1) It is obviously important that Monckton is a peer; (2) Per Jimbo (and I don't see any reason to object) it is important to clarify that he is not a legislator.

The remaining question is whether and how to report his claim to be a member of the UK legislature (which he appears to maintain - he does not retract it in the PDF cited by Mindbuilder). This seems to me to be primarily about WP:N, and there may be a case for excluding it. But there would not be, IMO, a case for excluding it under WP:BLP (because the essential facts are all well-sourced - including, handily, in a SELPUB), although we should obviously avoid implying that Mockton lied or misled. It does not mean we should avoid the subject area altogether in case a reader reaches the conclusion that he lied or misled, as long as our wording doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should avoid OR or interpretating the law. This isn't the place for it, and please note that I haven't said that Monckton's legal claim is without merit (IANAL). I believe the article did in the past say in the lead that Monckton was not a legislator, but this seems to have been lost at some stage for some reason. Unfortunately I don't think we can get around the dispute over Monckton's claim to be a member of the House of Lords. We have to say that he is not - this is pretty much essential, as many peers are legislators and it is important to note whether a particular peer is or is not a legislator. But NPOV dictates that if we say Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, we need to present Monckton's counter-claim for balance. The key question is what wording should be used. I suggest remanding that question to the article talk page, as this discussion has already taken up too much space here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the UK system is quite different, but the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) seems to think there is something limiting Parliament in how it can change letters patent. It appears Parliament has the power to change and probably even revoke the letters, but there appears to be at least procedural constraints on how that can be done.

The House of Lords isn't a self-governing body because the House of Commons is superior and can change or even abolish the House of Lords if it follows the correct procedure. Furthermore, one subgroup, even a majority subgroup, of the House of Lords, is not an authority on who is a member, and cannot remove another subgroup of Lords from the House, at least not without following proper procedure. And such a claim in America to be a non-sitting member of the Senate would be much less bizarre if the claimant had possession of an official US government document legally granting the holder to special Senate privileges.

I agree totally that Misplaced Pages shouldn't try to decide the validity of the general/specific law issue. But Jimbo has questioned if the general/specific law issue is even credible enough to even mention. Misplaced Pages does have to evaluate if fringe arguments are credible enough to mention. Except in this case I don't think Misplaced Pages should even make that determination. I think that no matter how absurd Monckton's self-defense is, it is only fair that we include one short sentence mentioning it. In order for that sentence to be meaningful, it must be more than a plain denial. It should alert the reader that there is a technical legal issue in dispute. I'm only arguing for a couple of words in a short sentence. It's not that big of a deal. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-- It would be helpful to have more uninvolved editors look at this because most of those commenting have been involved in the controversy in one way or another. I am adding a section below for uninvolved editors, so please don't comment in that section if you've edited the article or the talk page or been involved in the probation enforcement or ArbComm case. The issue as presented is only one BLP concern among others in this article -- any objection if I relist this BLP and ask for comment on all the the ongoing BLP concerns on this article? I also edited the heading of this section so that the BLP name is included. Minor4th 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the heading - you'll break the incoming links from other pages. This is not the right place to have general BLP discussions about articles. If there are specific issues with a particular article, please raise it first on the article talk page. If the issue cannot be resolved there, then please bring it here. This noticeboard is not meant to be a substitute for article talk pages. The vast majority of BLP issues can be resolved on article talk pages without ever coming here (which is just as well, otherwise this noticeboard would be unmanageable). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Technote, headings can easily be changed using the {{anchor}} template to leave an anchor element that inbound links will be able to connect correctly to even after the change.... in this case, place

{{anchor|Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)}}

just below the changed heading and Bob's your uncle. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the anchor to drop the parenthetical; it was duplicative of the current heading. I also moved it above the section heading so that readers arriving via the original link actually see the section they're in. It's possible this could be a problem if the archiving is to different pages... Anyway, cavalierly messing with section headings muddies things. It would be best if they're well chosen in the first place ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chris I'm aware, and as I stated on my talk page, the issues have been raised on the talk pages, and they are not being adequately addressed here by uninvolved editors who are not part of the dispute. I had no intention of having a general BLP discussion -- I want to list the specific BLP issues that have arisen on Monckton and which remain unresolved because there's not sufficient uninvolved editor input. Surely you're aware of that, it is not as if you and I have not been part of the same discussions for the last several days. Do you want the BLP issues resolved or do you want to win a POV war? Why did you remove the section for uninvolved editors? Incidentally, I agree with Jimbo that the issue of his House of Lords "membership" is not sufficiently notable as part of his biography and hasn't been adequately and fully addressed in reliable sources so it should be left out of the biography. There are other issues that have been raised on the talk page -- Abraham's "rebuttal" and sourced through a non-notable blog as an attack piece and Monckton's response to the rebuttal, which is only sourced through self published material (but is being excluded for that reason). I can raise that issue separately since you seem rather possessive of this discussion -- now that I think of it, that is a better way to handle that issue in any event. Thanks. Minor4th 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, Chris, I noticed that the heading has already been changed once today and you did not revert that. Off2riorob edited the heading to clarify that this BLP is in the global warming subject. Why would you not want the name of the BLP included in the heading. Your reversion of my edit to the heading and the reason stated as breaking incoming links simply makes no sense considering the prior edit of the heading less than an hour ago (with no expressed concern). Minor4th 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. The full name of Monckton's bio is long, as was the initial section heading, and the current one with the parenthetical, so this all results in a huge entry in the TOC, and thrashes thing about. The various inbound links can, of course, all be fixed, including by adding ones re your section names that seem to now be gone. This stuff, however, takes the discussion off-track, which is nominally about the bio, here, but is really about too many editors editing fast and furiously out there on the climate stuff. The AC's proposed decision is due, and they've made it pretty clear they're unimpressed with all these edit wars cropping up. I'm hoping for a robust PD that will properly sort the broader issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change of heading earlier. However, Lar has explained that there's a way around the problem it created (thanks Lar) so that's resolved now.

As for your other points: my point is simply that you haven't raised any of the issues you refer to on the article talk page. You raised an issue with the intro which has been discussed at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Overhaul. I and another editor have responded to that and the three of us seem to have resolved that satisfactorily. In fact, you said that you were "going to make more proposals, but given the state of the ArbCom case, I think I"ll just wait a bit in the spirit of harmony". We're still waiting for your proposals. Nobody's stopping you from making them, and people are happy to work with you to resolve any issues you raise. There's no problem yet that requires referral back to this noticeboard. If one comes up then by all means let's refer back here. However, we should use the talk page first. If you want to leave a pointer here to invite uninvolved editors to the discussion on the talk page then please do so, but this noticeboard isn't a substitute for the talk page, as I said.

Regarding Jimbo's reference to Monckton's House of Lords "membership", I think you might be misreading what he said, which was: "I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction." That seems quite reasonable and in fact that info was formerly in the intro but seems to have disappeared at some point. We should discuss on the article talk page how it can be reintroduced. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the additional discussion of sources above means that there is now no live BLP issue and the issue should be taken back to the talkpage to discuss weight and wording. Doe anyone else not think that? --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll start a new thread on the talk page to address the weight and wording issue. In the meantime I suggest closing this particular discussion, since the original issue I raised was resolved a long time ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur, lets close this here and take it back to the talk page. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not so fast. Jimbo later said this, which gets closer to the heart of the matter: A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation

For those of you who want to include this information that is far from settled, examine your motives. You cannot source the information impeccably without leaving out part of the story -- Monckton's reply and explanation. What Jimbo observes is likely what is taking place in this BLP discussion ... a group of editors who dislike Monckton's views intensely and have an interest in portraying him as deceptive when he may not have been. There certainly is no room to draw a conclusion that there is a consensus to include the negative material as you wish. If you're going back to the talk page, I will relist this and call for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Minor4th 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Minor4th has a point that uninvolved editors (meaning those not part of the GW/CC world) should evaluate this. It should remain open. GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means leave an invitation here for uninvolved editors, but there's no point adding still further to this already enormous discussion. It's already too long. Let's revert to the talk page and get this issue resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to invite uninvolved editors earlier today and you reverted me. At this point, because of the length of the discussion and the omission of the BLP's name in the heading, and the lack of participation from uninvolved editors -- do you have any objection to me relisting the BLP with a link back to this discussion? Minor4th 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You created a separate section, which wasn't necessary. Do you think you could possibly do what I asked earlier - raise the issues you want to discuss on the article talk page and then post a link here to that discussion, to invite uninvolved editors? We're all still waiting for you to post the list of issues you said you were going to raise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can not find any reliable source which supports Mockton's contention that he is a member of the House of Lords; he does not qualify for membership under their own definition but has sought to be included in the list of members by their definition and has not been elected. More relevant is that he has claimed to be a member of the UK legislature for which there is no ghost of an argument or reliable source. The latter bears heavily on his credibility and I believe there is no BLP case for excluding them. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's claim to be a member of parliament is partly supported by the Lord President of the Council's statement that letters patent cannot be changed by a general law and by examples of letters patent that declare the right to sit in the HoL. Those sources are from offical government pages. That still doesn't solidify Monckton's case, but it's enough for Misplaced Pages to recocnize his self-defense from the accusation of making a false statement about his membership. If we leave out the accuasion of false statement of membership then we don't have to include his defense. But if Misplaced Pages includes the accusation then it is only fair to make a short mention of his self-defense. He doesn't qualify for membership under their definition, but he claims their definition which is derived from the HOLA1999, is not legal under UK law. His claim to be a member of the HoL and therefore the UK legislature is based on the general/specific issue with the HOLA1999, which is not only a ghost of an argument, it appears to me to be technically correct. Though I doubt his argument will win out in the end because of powerful practical considerations. In any case Misplaced Pages certainly cannot decide if Monckton's argument is correct, we can only decide if it is too frivilous to include. But when Misplaced Pages includes an accusation of dishonestly, the bar for a frivilous defense should be brought very low. The usual requirement for reliable sources shouldn't apply as strictly. I think his defense easily clears such a very low bar. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought at first that the legal argument might be (barely) facially credible, but if you read Lord President Ashton's remarks in Hansard, she specifically refers to the HOLA1999 as "legislation which has that specific effect ". That is, the reference to "specific" law is not, as Monckton seems to think, to a law that explicitly changes *individual* letters patent, but to a law which explicitly refers to peers and their rights. So either Ashton's argument is incoherent (and hence of no value to Monckton's case), or Monckton has misunderstood it. He may genuinely believe himself to be a member of the HoL, but there's no substantial reasoning behind it. (And the House of Lords has historically been allowed to define its own membership, even when its decisions have been legally dubious, e.g., the Mar Peerage Case.) As for the text in the letters patent, that's not necessarily definitive; Lord Wensleydale was issued letters patent with the same text as a life peer, but the Wensleydale Peerage Case upheld the decision of the House of Lords not to seat him. Choess (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning about Monckton's claim diminishes greatly my estimation of the merit of Monckton's claim. But it's not that there is no reasoning behind his claim, it's just that your (or our) evaluation of his argument is that his argument is very weak. But it's clear that there are some limits to how Parliament can go about changing membership in the HoL, and Misplaced Pages doesn't know well at all what those limits are. Monckton's claim is weak, but not totally without basis. It's not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to make a judgement on the merits of Monckton's claim unless the issue is clear. And we're not talking about multiple paragraphs describing Monckton's defense. One sentence and a link to his own defense is only fair if Misplaced Pages is to perpetuate a potentially slanderous accusation. Consider if it was an article about you. Wouldn't you want at least one sentence to mention your defense? Actually I think that if Misplaced Pages perpetuates a potentially slanderous accusation that it should print one sentence of the person's defense no matter how absurd the defense is. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• When discussing a very different issue with a legal academic, he introduced me to a piece of specialist legal terminology used to describe claims such as Monckton's: "crap".
  See Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999: "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  It could not be clearer; unless and until the Act is overturned, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have simply stated what was not in dispute by anyone, not even Monckton. The HOLA1999 says that. But that doesn't settle the question of whether the act is legally effective. If you were accused of something bad on Misplaced Pages I think you would think at least one sentence with your defense was minimally fair. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, I think that you are over-complicating a simple situation, by conflating de jure and de facto positions.

The de facto situation is simple: the House of Lords does not admit Monckton as a member. Despite Mockton's assertions that he is a "Member of the House of Lords", neither he nor anyone else has any evidence in a reliable source that this is the case in practice. Wish and fact are different beasts: I may claim to be the rightful Queen of Ruritania, but until I'm installed on the throne, it is patently false to assert that I am the Queen, regardless of whether my claim to the throne is undisputably well-founded or demonstrably insane.

Remember, he did not claim that he should be be a member. He claims that he is a member.

The de jure situation is slightly less straightforward, but still fairly simple.

1. Monckton claims he is a "Member of the House of Lords", albeit a non-sitting and non-voting member. That directly contradicts the law, which unambiguously says that he is not a member unless he is one the 92 hereditaries who have been been elected to it ... and he makes no claim that he has been.
2. Monckton claims to be a non-sitting and non-voting member of the HoL, but we have no evidence from a reliable source that such a status exists. If such a status did exist, there would be a mountain of reliable sources which attest to that. None have been presented.
3. Mockton clearly believes that the way the law is being applied is unjust. He is quite entitled to his belief, but unless and until there is a challenge to this law through legal process, that remains simply the belief of one man.His claim which may or may not have theoretical merit, but which has neither practical effect nor support from any authority.

However, I do not think we need to go into any of the de jure stuff, because Mockton's statements assert an alleged fact, rather than a claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Monckton were claiming to be a voting member or have a position of real power like a queen, then the de jure and de facto distinction would be meaningful. But what Moncton is claiming is basically just the title of member. He does in fact use the title of member. The government does in fact deny he is a member. Whether he is in fact entitled to the title is the only question. I do not agree that if there were such a position of non-voting member, that there would be a mountain of reliable sources which attest to that. In fact it seems to me that because it is a matter of interpretation and opinion that it would be unlikely that there could be any reliable source on the issue. It's just two sides, each with their claims, and no real authority that could be trusted to reliably settle the issue. Even if a high court heard the issue, the judgement would just be their opinion, and very possibly a political one. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of news coverage or debate on the issue because his concession of voting rights means the issue has little practical effect. It's just a matter of what he calls himself. In fact I have only seen one reliable source claim that he is not a member, the government. I haven't seen the opinions of multiple legal experts that Monckton's claim is frivolous.

Furthermore, even if Monckton's claim is frivilous, if he genuinely believes it then it is not just a lie, and therefore it is relevant to the question of whether he lied about being a member of the HoL. If Misplaced Pages merely states that he claimed to be a member and that the HoL denies he is a member, it leaves the unstated impression that he was lying.

Finally again, if Misplaced Pages was implying you did something unethical, I think you would consider it only fair that one sentence was allowed for your defense. Misplaced Pages should refrain from a judgement on this membership issue unless it is very clear and should allow his defense if there is even a slight possibilty that it has merit. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, t really doesn't help in resolving this that you repeated make the false assertion that the govt has made a statement on this: it has not. The govt is not the House of Lords, and the House of Lords is not the government.

This being discussed in detail on the article's talk page, where a solution is in sight: report the fact that he made a claim, report the response of the House of Lords. Even if it was appropriate to go into the details, we do not have reliable sources on either side to allow such expansion with using an unreliable source for Monckton's rationale, and a synthesis of unrelated legal opinion.

You insist that your concerns are about fair reporting of a BLP, but that stance is not consistent with your continued demands for the inclusion of a synthesis built off the premise of an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to present this information in a way that would avoid BLP violation would require a great deal of SYNTH and OR because it is not possible to discern the meaning or intent or accuracy of Monckton's comments in context without doing legal research and reading between lines and drawing conclusions that are not explicitly expressed in any sources. This should not be included in Monckton's biography. Include what is known -- he is a hereditary peer -- and leave out what is ambiguous and poorly sourced. Minor4th 03:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will propose a form of words on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I suggest that this discussion should be closed and editors should go to the article talk page to discuss this issue further. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not in the habit of closing discussions here to suit our personal position, the threads here die their own death and get archived after ten days of inactivity. Off2riorob (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No SYNTH or OR is necessary. Monckton states himself in his response to Congress here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/answers_to_committee.html states "I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley..., a member of the Upper House ..." and "The then Government ... told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members..." Thus we know that Monckton claimed to be a member of the HoL and he himself states that the government has denied his being a member. His defense is stated there as well. No reading between the lines is necessary. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is prima facie evidence that Monckton talks nonsense which has long been evident. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a really inappropriate comment in a BLP discussion. Have some respect. Minor4th 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is prima facie evidence that Monckton talks nonsense? Mindbuilder (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text - discussion invited

I've posted a revised text for Monckton's political career, including the issue of his involvement with Parliament, at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎#Monckton and Parliament. Input from editors would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of wasted bandwidth there, caused by people continuing to apply U.S. constitutional principles to the U.K., and going (as I said before) completely astray. I've tried to stay out of this. But given the amount of verbiage devoted to completely wrongheaded understandings of U.K. constitutional law being propounded by Misplaced Pages editors, I give you one source that couldn't be clearer:

Professors Bradley and Ewing are credentialed authorities writing in their fields of expertise. If you want to challenge this, you need to find authorities that are at least as reliable as the erstwhile Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Edinburgh for 21 years (now Professor Emeritus of the same) is on the subject. I hope that this puts an end to the nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Check BLP compliance of an article at this AfD

I can't get a response to my analysis from the page-watchers: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination). Please comment on whether you think the article may violate BLP. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally clear on how the above results in an actionable suggestion. CRYBLP is an essay, and not a very good one at that, although SOFIXIT is often (but not always) good advice in general. Are you suggesting that SA delete the redirect from Gene Ray to the article? Or some other fix? I would say that "which includes some racist ideology" needs excising, as I don't think a "style and culture" column from a university newspaper is a sufficiently reliable source. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and removed it, but it was replaced by User:GDallimore, I have opened a discussion on the talkpage claims of racism and attributed it in the article Time_Cube to the actual person that opined the claim, which imo exposes it for the opinionated valueless comment it is. It was previouely presented as if a fact without attribution but personally imo it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For Lar's benefit:

1) If there's a problem, go fix it yourself. Nothing about being at AfD prevents remedy of any BLP issue via normal editing.

2) Claiming there's a BLP issue in an article you're seeking to have deleted (the OP in this thread is the AfD nom) in an attempt to increase leverage to delete the article in question is itself disruptive. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In 2004 Mark Hartwell wrote an opinionated editorial in The Maine Campus student newspaper, in which he said he thought the website contained subtle little racist ideologie.http://mainecampus.com/2004/09/24/timecubecom-where-reality-as-we-know-it-is-a-lie

I have asked User GDallimore if there are other more mainstream publications that also assert racist ideologies or it the site is well known to have racist ideologies, as yet nothing. IMO this opinionated student editorial in a university paper is not a noteworthy article to publish and attribute racist ideologue to a online site that is attributed to a single living person. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion at AfD, please? This discussion here strikes me as forum shopping. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList membership list

The sourcing for the purported list of members of this now defunct list-serv seems to be touch on the dodgy side for my tastes. Does this merit further review? Ronnotel (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure does. This is a powderkeg, to be sure. The more eyes on this the better. It's pretty obvious that the publication of the list of members was probably untoward. Compare to, for example, our Climatic Research Unit documents article where content is only sourced to secondary source commentators rather than the actual e-mail and document contents. This seems to be the best way to handle these things. If a third-party reliable source identifies someone, then use it. If it was done through an unauthorized personal information release, then do not. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NYT identifies some of the people. RS in spades. Collect (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the NYT identifies them, or they identify themselves, I'm all for it. I would avoid using partisan articles or lists as sources. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't need the New York Times as a source. We need reliable sources. We have them. New York Times reporters and editors may have been on the list -- in fact, we know that Paul Krugman was. What's dodgy are statements unmoored to policy that claim we need an even higher standard than policy. The naming of a person who was a member of that discussion board is an elemental fact that a reliable source is unlikely to get wrong. Nearly all of the names come from articles in The Daily Caller. Those articles were news reports. No one beyond Misplaced Pages (and no one here) has disputed that The Daily Caller is inaccurate about the names. If you have a problem with The Daily Caller as a reliable source, make your case. Otherwise, you people two don't have a case, you have a dislike. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"You people" is probably mis-aimed - any attempt to draw a rhetorical boundary line that somehow includes SA and yours truly strikes me as a fool's errand. My only point is that we're messing with people's professions here - being labeled as a "JournoLister" can have a life-long impact for someone who styles themselves as a disinterested journalist. Dropping an accusation here or there can be an exceedingly easy way to settle whatever score someone needs settled. All I'm saying is we need to be exceedingly careful here.Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not messing with a single thing. We're using reliable sourcing to cover an encyclopedic topic. You don't think their bosses haven't already been clued in about this? You say: being labeled as a "JournoLister" can have a life-long impact -- oh, please. They participated in the group. Our coverage makes clear that to participate on some level is not to participate in every discussion or to have some kind of responsibility for every post made by all other participants. The journalistic ethics of this have been mentioned on the NPR website and at the L.A. Times website. and it doesn't look like there's a knee-jerk reaction to this. We aren't responsible for the potential idiocy of some employer now or in the future, as long as we're careful. But you're not talking about carefulness here. Dropping an accusation here -- no, no, no -- the list means only what it says it means: That person was a member, as reliable sources have already told the public. No accusation involved. If the journalists associated with a sketchy operation (meaning one in which there's reason for an employer to be concerned -- and since some members of the 400-member group were seeking to have journalists exploit their employers for partisan gain, why not? Seriously, why wouldn't an employer be concerned about it? Should we avoid covering an arrest or any scandal reported in the press? The same concerns would apply), then they may well in fact have something to explain to somebody now or in the future -- that doesn't make our coverage unfair in the least. It is not a scandal simply to belong to the group, but it is simply a fact that some behavior taking place in the group has been regarded widely as scandalous. We have no reason to be more concerned about the members of the group than we have to be concerned for their employers or readers/audience. "You people" means you two who made the same point, no more, no less. I didn't think you'd find it offensive (and I don't understand how it is offensive), but I'm crossing it out because I'm not here to make you uncomfortable (except uncomfortable with your statements!). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

" It is not a scandal simply to belong to the group..." - in which case, why is a list of names (of members of a discussion group) encyclopedic? If membership is not in itself notable or significant, why note it? Rd232 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding! There are reasons for having lists in articles other than that the members are engaged in scandalous behavior! The list was private but dealt with journalists covering and/or commenting on important topics in public affairs. The journalists used the list (in proper or improper ways, or both, depending on the individuals involved) in writing about public affairs for the public. A reader who wishes to understand the subject of the article will have an interest in exactly who was involved in the group, just as a reader interested in the geography of California will have an interest in List of mountain ranges of California. The list assists with a reader's further understanding of the subject in just exactly the same way. The idea that there is no proper encyclopedic role for such a list is without any foundation whatever. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the entire list from the current public article for BLP reasons - there are far too many redlink names, and a number of sources are not explicitly linking names to JournoList. The old version of the article can be found here, if it is later agreed that the list should be republished in whole or in part. Until then, it should not be republished. If someone wants to work on it in their userspace (with a {{userspace draft}} tag), they can do that, and post a link to it (it may make more sense as a standalone List anyway).

Now, as to whether this list, qua list, has encyclopedic merit, I would say unequivocally no. A membership list of a private discussion forum is not in itself a valid encyclopedic topic; and collecting employment affiliations to add to the list looks like a witchhunt. Given that many of the names are currently redlinks, there are also clear privacy issues. What is encyclopedic is the JournoList article, using reliable sources to note particular members for particular reasons. Those who want to maintain the list should be prepared to defend the list as a standalone page, since the list really does not belong inside the JournoList article, but as List of JournoList members. Rd232 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your move is without any foundation in BLP and without consensus. I'd revert it, but that was already done immediately. Please don't make brash deletions on the basis of unfounded claims that are nowhere close to getting consensus. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it has foundation: WP:BLPNAME, and the fact that many of the names are redlinks. Some (perhaps even most) of these names may be independently notable and merit articles, but BLP caution clearly demands not disseminating names if we're not sure. Beyond that, I also maintain that it is simply unencyclopedic to list the names. A summary description of the membership is everything that's required, along with naming (in prose, with explanation/reason) individuals who have been specifically highlighted in reliable sources. Anything else is a nasty combination of voyeurism and witch-hunting, for participation in what was a private discussion: that some of them were public figures does not automatically make full documentation in the public interest. Without support from anyone else, I'm not going to repeat the action; and I don't have time or energy to make a fuss. But I absolutely stand by it, and argue that the list should be temporarily removed from the public article, and perhaps moved somewhere NOINDEXed (hence the {{userspace draft}} point) for those keen to work on it pending outcome of discussion about the list. Rd232 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME: Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. Consider: Journolist is made up of discussions among 400 members of the group. How are any of the members not "directly involved"? How? "Voyeurism"? You're grasping. BLP caution clearly demands not disseminating names if we're not sure. Uh, where is that stated or implied? a nasty combination of voyeurism and witch-hunting It's automatically bad to be known as a member of this group? Our article doesn't imply that. Critics of the group don't necessarily believe that. Ezra Klein and others say they don't believe that. A subject notable enough for an article deserves to be covered comprehensively. No terrible burden is laid on people on WP's list because a group they belonged to has received bad publicity resulting from the acts or statements of certain members. The list does no more than follow what reliable sources have already published. They were not acting as "private" individuals in the group. The purpose of the group was to discuss privately public business. Listing who was doing that in this group is no invasion of anybody's privacy. The list (and the article) is not even a criticism of the people in the group. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This bit I will respond to, because it's a key issue, and your remarks on this are nonsense: " They were not acting as "private" individuals in the group. The purpose of the group was to discuss privately public business. " The privacy of private discussions is not a function of the subject matter, it is a function of the purpose of the discussions and the status of the participants. As you correctly state (but somehow draw the opposite conclusion), "The purpose of the group was to discuss privately public business.". Unless they were public officials discussing matters within their official purview or the participants were acting illegally (such that the public interest can override their right to privacy), that is all we need to know. PS If it happens that this is true of any individual members of the group, this does not negate the privacy rights of the rest. Rd232 10:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Journolist cont. (Jeffrey Toobin and Spencer Ackerman)

Editors are repeatedly inserting into these articles large paragraphs containing either one or both of:

• Out of context, dramatized quotes from Journolist emails which have no relevance to anything in else in the bio or career.
• Allegations stated as fact that the subject of the articles engaged in a conspiracy to alter news coverage, sourced only to partisan tabloid websites.

The articles involved are short, so this stuff doesn't belong on just WP:UNDUE grounds alone, much less other BLP/NPOV considerations. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When the NYT publishes it, it is certainly usable. Try inter alia. As fpr the belief that if one has a sufficiently short BLP that therefore it can contain no controversy - that would require rewriting WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those two Times articles mentions either Toobin or Ackerman. Are you suggesting we use them to support negative material in those BLPs anyway? MastCell  22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am one of those editors involved in putting the material into the articles. Personally, the sources I've used/reinserted have not been "partisan tabloid." They've included Politico, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and The Daily Caller (it was also discussed in the Wall Street Journal). I believe all pass muster as reliable sources. Much of what's been quoted is available in context at the Daily Caller links. They very much have relevance to these BLPs, since they go to the profession of these individuals--journalism. I have not personally made or reinserted "allegations stated as fact that the subject of the articles engaged in a conspiracy to alter news coverage." Drrll (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, those sources have discussed Journolist in general and the Weigel firing in particular. They have nothing to do with this quotes you've singled out, which have zero journalistic or encyclopedic value. Random private email quotes do not "go to the profession of these individuals" (did you mean professionalism?) and tell us nothing about their career or work. You also have yet to address the WP:UNDUE implications of having random private email quotes take about 25-33 percent of the article of a professional journalist. This is clearly absurd and you wouldn't stand for it if these were right wingers. Gamaliel (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Every source concerning JournoList used in the Toobin and Ackerman articles discusses these individuals in relation to JournoList. All of the sources used but Politico discuss specific quotes by Toobin/Ackerman (and its use makes no claims about their specific quotes). As far as the journalism profession goes, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." Regarding this material taking such a large proportion of the articles, I think the problem is that the articles are too short in general--the JournoList material only takes a few paragraphs. The JournoList controversies are noteworthy enough to have been noted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Politico. As far as BLPs of conservatives go, plenty of them have many paragraphs of criticism about their words and actions. I don't see you having problems there. Drrll (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning their participation. But these journalists are not at the center of the Journolist controversies and these lurid pull quotes serve no encyclopedic purpose. If their professional integrity is in question, then quote a source saying that. If you are using the quotes to say that, then you are pushing an agenda in clear violation of WP policies. The fact that the articles are too short is immaterial. If they are too short, work on expanding the non-controversial parts. Their length does not give you a free pass to violate WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Spencer Ackerman suggesting to other journalists that Fred Barnes and others be accused of racism for no other reason than to gain some political advantage is a deep violation of journalistic ethics, even for a commentator. That's why there are sources out there criticizing Ackerman. That is an extremely important fact about Ackerman that belongs -- prominently -- in the article about him because it is a journalistic scandal. Why would you think this incident is not important? Why would you think it is not extremely important in even a short article about Ackerman on Misplaced Pages? It's a lurid quote because Ackerman's words are lurid. It isn't pushing an agenda when multiple sources have condemned Ackerman. It's information important to the subject. And Ackerman is very much at the center of the Journolist controversy. He's mentioned in more than one incident, and the racism incident is one of the most important of the increasing number of Journolist incidents. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scandal? A random pull quote is not a scandal. And if it is supposedly a scandal, find some mainstream, non-partisan sources to justify that, don't simply throw the quote out on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, and I've already said in this discussion that I'd be very careful about treating such a quote. Please read what's been written before objecting. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is the encylopaedic value of this list? What does it do, beyond seeking to embarrass the people listed?
• What are the criteria for inclusion in the list? The article mentions 400 members, but the list only includes a few dozen.
• Lists are meant to serve as navigational aids that bring together existing or potential articles. Several of these people do not appear to meet WP:N- Lindsay Beyerstein, for example, is simply listed a "blogger", and a quick google search turns up nothing to suggest that she would meet our criteria for a stand-alone biography.
• What's the rationale for including their employer? That seems like unwarranted inclusion of personal information. More to the point, the information about "employer" seems to be WP:OR In the case of Ed Kilgore, the listed source for the information is "Web page titled "Ed Kilgore/Senior Fellow" at the Progressive Policy Institute website, retrieved July 20, 2010". It's not like this is trivial information - Dave Weigel lost his job after his membership in the list was made public. Associating people's names with their employers is problematic. When that connection is not made by the original source, that's especially bad. Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weigel did not lose his job for being on Journolist. He lost it because of some of the things that he wrote on Journalist that his employer -- Washington Post -- found objectionable. Merely being a member of Journolist, and identified as so, is just a fact. It doesn't carry any judgment of moral turpitude.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Weigel lost his job because of his associations with the list. That's the only verifiable fact. In case you didn't realise, the reasons given by a company for terminating an employee are not simply accepted as fact. They're designed for ass-covering, not careful and nuanced communications of facts. As for the idea that there are no negative associations with being a member of JournaList - if that's the case, then why is the conservative media raising such a shit-storm about it, and 'naming and shaming' people like Farrell? No, that's simply false. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true that he lost his job "because of his associations with the list." That is not a verifiable fact if you are implying a simple cause-effect relationship. Read the story in his own words here and here. I am not blaming Weigel or defending the WaPo's terrible response to the pressure to fire him after some of his writings on JournoList were published. But it was what he wrote and what was leaked from what he wrote that got him into trouble with his employer, not the fact that he was on JournoList.~Mack2~ (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, the full list has not been made public by reliable sources. What names have been reliably sourced are on the list. WP:LIST#Purposes of lists shows quite clearly that there are other purposes to lists than just "navigational aids". See also Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. This list is "embedded" in the article at present, but may be a stand-alone list later if it gets much bigger. All items do not need their own article -- policy is clear on that, and it's common sense. The rationale for including the employer (we probably need to change that to "affiliation" to cover blogs and group blogs more accurately) is that for most of these people, the reason that they are at all influential is that they are affiliated with a larger organization that is itself influential. The sortability feature allows readers to group all the "Politico" or "Nation" journalists together, for example, or find out quickly who that "Daily Caller" journalist was who belonged to the list. And Mack2 is right: Weigel lost his job for what he said, not for being on the list. There have been no mass firings. The value of the list is closely linked to the value of the article subject, of course. This subject is considered important in terms of journalism ethics, which is why it will continue to receive coverage and be commented on by prominent publications. It will be covered extensively in industry publications and, later, academic publications about journalism. It doesn't require a crystal ball to see that. If the list gets much longer, it will be worth it's own article page for space reasons or WP:UNDUE reasons. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (added to comment) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the full list has not been made public by reliable sources - so your criterion for inclusion is "Names that have been made public"? That's your only criterion? People are being added to a List of Shame, regardless of notability, simply because someone has included them? And you don't see that as a huge problem?

All items do not need their own article -- policy is clear on that, and it's common sense - not true. There are no policies specific to list content, but the existing guidelines are clear: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Misplaced Pages articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future) It goes on to say Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity - but then you'd need to make the case that these people are "of particular importance".

The rationale for including the employer ... is that for most of these people, the reason that they are at all influential is that they are affiliated with a larger organization that is itself influential - again, you're adding people's employers to a List of Shame, employers that are, in many cases, not even mentioned by the sources...and this isn't a BLP violation?

Weigel lost his job for what he said, not for being on the list. There have been no mass firings - so a few firings is OK, as long as it isn't mass firings? People don't get fired because their employers discover they are liberals. People get fired because someone decides to make a stink about it and embarrass their employers. And how does that happen? Because people put together lists like this one.

Again you are vastly oversimplifying this. As I wrote above, it's simply not true that Weigel lost his job "because of his associations with the list." And your comment here about "a few firings is OK" also implies that others were fired for being associated with JournoList. Nobody has been fired simply for being associated with JournoList. You can read Weigel's account in his own words here and here. And Ezra Klein, who is the creator and manager of JournoList also worked for and still works for WaPo. If anybody was "associated" with JournoList it was Klein. And WaPo had no problem with that. It did have problems with what Weigel said about some conservatives, given that Weigel's "beat" dealt with some of the people he was critical of on JournoList. I think WaPo's craven caving to political pressure was a terrible decision. But again it was what Weigel wrote on JournoList, not his membership in that listserv, that got him into trouble with his bosses.~Mack2~ (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It will be covered extensively in industry publications - then wait for it. Don't make prediction about the future. Especially not when it comes to adding a List of Shame to the page, a list meant simply to embarrass the subject. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread that you have pointed to a policy (well, guideline) that says the exact opposite of what you say it says: Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people: Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity. Misplaced Pages is not covering this as a "List of Shame" and frankly, how dare you characterize my work here that way. Tone down your rhetoric or this will lead nowhere. I'm more than willing to listen to you or anybody with an open mind, but if you're going to make a battle out of this you are damn well not going to get consensus for anything, anywhere, so cool your jets. I very well understand the sensitivity of the subject. I also understand it's importance, and you would help the discussion -- and it would help keep your reaction cooler -- if you acknowledge that importance and acknowledge that David Weigel losing his job, Ezra Klein shutting the list down, 400 journalists, many from very influential publications, are all part of an important subject. The article has quite a lot in defense of the Journolist members because of a commitment among the editors who have edited the article so far to keep it as NPOV as possible. Please respect that. Help avoid turning this article into a battleground. You made a good point about Ed Kilgore earlier. When I get a chance I'll re-edit the article, or someone else may want to make the change. Gotta go for now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think generally (unless the quotes have been repeated by multiple, very reliable sources) we should be wary of using quotes from Journolist since some may have been taken out of context. That's been a problem with coverage of similar situations. I trust The Daily Caller with names of people who belonged to the list -- and no one has disputed whether or not someone was on the list -- but I'm more reluctant to use quotes unless it's very likely that the context doesn't matter. It helps if a particular statement has been widely reported and commented on by a good number of sources. Spencer Ackerman saying that someone like Fred Barnes should be accused of racism, apparently without any reason other than to gain some political advantage, is a statement that has been widely commented on, and Ackerman has now shut up about the matter. It may be worth quoting him. In another case, a Journolist member discussed whether the FCC could pull the broadcast license for Fox News. The Journolist member later objected to that comment being represented as advocating pulling the license. I included that objection in the article as soon as I saw it. That's the kind of accusation based on possible misreadings or out-of-context comments that we need to watch out for. In general, the people mentioned are WP:WELLKNOWN, except for the list, where they're essentially just listed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been pointed out by many in the press that The Daily Caller is yanking these quotes out of context and basically practicing yellow journalism. I'd be very hesitant about using a tabloid website like the Caller in a BLP for any reason. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See which is undoubtedly RS by WP:BLP standards, whish lists specific members of the list - including quite specifically Toobin and Ackerman. And which specifies the positions which were least acceptable. Collect (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If the editors advocating for inclusion were to limit themselves to material from an RS like the Post and not pushing the Daily Caller's conspiracy nonsense, then we might get closer to a mutually acceptable version that conforms to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post seems to advance the same "theories" you dislike. Collect (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, and if they really do say that, why the need to quote the Daily Caller at all? Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Gamaliel has gone ahead and yanked the Journolist material in its entirety from the Toobin article and all but the favorable material from the Ackerman article. Drrll (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Gamaliel. Even though JournoList is notable and an article has been written on it, including a list of known members, the fact that an individual was a member of the Journolist listserv is not necessarily notable in the biography of that person, and therefore needn't be mentioned in every biography. For some individuals it may be a very notable biographical fact (for Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel, for example). But in any case biographies are not just chasing the news of the moment. Nor are they diaries, gossip columns, or curriculum vitae. That a scandal-mongering blog chose to quote a couple of lines that a person wrote in a notable listserv does not make those lines notable in the life of that person, and thus they may not belong in the WP bio.~Mack2~ (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a blog. Many of the quotes that were in the BLPs have been reported by such sources as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post (by someone who covers journalists and journalism as a full-time job), and The Christian Science Monitor. Drrll (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. My point stands: the fact that something is published in a reputable source about a notable event does not make it notable in the biography of every person who is mentioned or quoted. In the case of the lines attributed to Toobin, for example, they just don't matter to Toobin's life, and what it would take to contextualize them in Toobin's bio is far out of proportion to their meaning in his life (his "biography"). When I die, even though I've been quoted several times in major newspapers including the WaPo and WSJ, nobody is going to put "He was quoted in the Washington Post" in my epitaph.~Mack2~ (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point does not stand. The Daily Caller's articles are about a list in which 400 people with access to the media, either through ties to reporters or because they are reporters or opinion journalists. What are the chances that any -- repeat, ANY -- information that is incorrect in The Daily Caller's coverage is not going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb by journalists who will point out any major errors? None. Absolutely none. It's like trying to mug someone in the middle of a police convention. The Daily Caller's coverage has been criticized in minute detail by people who are professional at doing just that. When Spenceer Ackerman calls on someone to be called a racist -- suggesting that numerous journalists do just that -- the quote of that is going to be correct or The Daily Caller is going to hear about it within hours. The name attached to the quote is going to be correct. (Tucker Carlson said he edited the first four stories himself.) When the Daily Caller got the affiliation and position of one person wrong, the correction was made within hours. Even the context of one Journolist comment (about the FCC pulling the license of Fox News) was disputed. Context can be difficult to get right, it can be difficult to be neutral when judging context, and disputes naturally arise about it, so we should be very careful about characterizations of the comments of particular people. Interesting that Ackerman hasn't yet denied saying it. Nor anyone else who have access to Journolist discussions. And that comment has been one of the most prominent revelations. I think it's the most prominent thing Ackerman has ever written. Ever. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not seem to be aware of the many media figures who are pointing out those errors in the DC's coverage. You also aren't addressing issues of UNDUE and RECENT: who is going to care in a year that Ackerman was a meaniepants on some email list? Is this really an important encyclopedic and biographical event? And even if it is, why should it take up 25-33 percent of his article? Also the version pushed by Drrll states as a fact that he engaged in a conspiracy using the DC's widely criticized coverage as a "source", without even attempting to be evenhanded about the manner. Surely this is the kind of "fact" that BLP was designed to prevent from being added to biographical articles. If the proponents are serious about the encyclopedia, as opposed to agenda pushing, then they will produce a version of this material that is 1) evenhanded and neutral 2) abandons questionable sources like the DC and 3) is of appropriate length as per WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. That JournoList was a place where conspiracies were being hatched by liberal journalists and bloggers is far from a proven fact. As far as I can tell, most of the participants were there just to share information, compare notes, and get a better understanding of newsy events. A few appear to have tried out strategies for responding to events. But this wasn't an army, there were no generals and no grunts. There were no marching orders. There was no founding document, no operational anything. It was just a forum for information and idea sharing.~Mack2~ (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That JournoList was a place where conspiracies were being hatched by liberal journalists and bloggers is far from a proven fact. I completely agree with you on that. I would not rely on The Daily Caller for that because something like that exttraordinary charge needs to be extremely well sourced. It does appear that Ackerman was proposing that in at least one case, but I wouldn't do more in his article than say he is reported to have suggested that other journalists on the list call Barnes and Rove racists while purportedlly not caring whether the charge is true or not. It should be an important consideration for us that no one has disputed this allegation. Howard Kurtz has reported that The Daily Caller has alleged it. Feel free to ask me to restate this on the Ackerman talk page if you need more support there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where in the press has been pointed out that these quotes are "out of context", or are these simply your own unsubstantiated claims? And how does a partisan source automatically get disqualified as a reliable source? NPOV does not mean the elimination of viewpoints. Truthsort (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. A partisan source does not "automatically get disqualified", a lurid partisan tabloid whose truthfulness is widely disputed does. Of course "NPOV does not mean the elimination of viewpoints", but neither does it require us to act as stenographer for a partisan tabloid. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Truthfulness is widely disputed"--by what reliable sources? Drrll (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The release of these emails have been covered by independent reliable secondary sources. Quite honestly it does not matter that the emails are coming from a conservative source. However, I have still not seen any evidence of disputing the truth on this or that the emails are taken out of context. Truthsort (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

The a way I understand it the essence of BLP policy is that Misplaced Pages should not be used as a weapon to try to hurt people. It's obvious to me, and I think any reasonable honest person, that something is wrong with posting this list on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that posting the list is not using Misplaced Pages as a weapon to try to hurt people. Certain people with influence on media coverage associated in a group to discuss public affairs. The list tells you who they are to the extent that we know. It does no more. Why would this necessarily hurt people? The article does not allege that the group was set up for a nefarious purpose (in fact we have ample coverage of the stated reasons). The group is controversial. Would quoting former members who comment on the group also be using Misplaced Pages as a weapon against them? When we describe the actions or words of various people is that also weaponizing Misplaced Pages? The assertion that simply listing them is hurtful to them has not been demonstrated. Not even Ackerman is losing his job over his comments. Nor is the woman who said she'd laugh if she watched Limbaugh dying. Did we weaponize Misplaced Pages in mentioning that statement in the article? We're not saying that everyone who was a member said that, and obviously no one rational would think that. The reason for the list is to better understand the subject of the article and to help readers who want to learn more about the subject. You want to stifle that regular kind of coverage ... for what reason? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Because I respect Misplaced Pages and am proud to be a contributor, even if in a small way. The whole concept of an encyclopedia is to give basic information of important topics, not to list names of people who are involved in some controversy. We are not lawyers or detectives. And if you would like to know, I am a social and political conservative with a strong dislike for the "mainstream media" (as some reading this probably already know.}Steve Dufour (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

At first I expected this would be an article about the Fox News controversy, and my feeling was that the members shouldn't be listed except for those that were notable in the Fox thread. But this is an article about the discussion group, just a general-purpose place for journalists to speak freely and there's nothing embarrassing about being a member of the forum. I would say keep the list of participants. Encyclopedic value is in showing the connections. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have worked some more on linking bios to the "red people" on the JournoList table. It takes time but it's fairly easy to do since almost all individuals have been active in some aspect of communications, public policy, or academic work and have institutional affiliations and bios of some kind available. I've even run across a couple of individuals who, on their own websites, shout out "Why not me? Am I too boring or insignificant to be called out by Tucker Carlson?" But as I worked on finding bios I've become convinced that digging out that information and putting it all in a table isn't doing anybody any favors except those who want to find an easy way to harass or persecute people for being a member of this discussion group called JournoList. And I don't think Misplaced Pages should be a party to that -- even if it's just a potential. Anybody who is hellbent on getting the information will be able to get it. But don't let WP be a witting agent in that process.

The story of JournoList should be told. It doesn't need a table. I recommend that the Table be deleted.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If anyone knows of any other of the same type of list mention them here and I will support their removal too.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What article does the list appear on? TLDR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList Steve Dufour (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I argued strongly above and on the JournoList talk page, "it is simply unencyclopedic to list the names. A summary description of the membership is everything that's required, along with naming (in prose, with explanation/reason) individuals who have been specifically highlighted in reliable sources." This was a private discussion group, and the fact that it is feasible to list quite a lot of the names does not make it encyclopedic. Nor does the privacy invasion, as some have implied, depend on the private activity being reprehensible (besides which, there is clearly some bad publicity associated with the group, so that by extension being associated with the group is somewhat negative). The list should go, and it should go immediately (perhaps to someone's NOINDEXed userspace page), with the possibility of merger back if discussion concludes the list is worth having. In sum, if those who want the list can't see it surviving an AFD as a standalone page (which it should be, really, not part of the JournoList article), maybe they should reconsider its supposed value. Rd232 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you put in in your NOINDEXed userspace? I literally have to run out of town for two days.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article as yet. My initial reaction was mixed, as I was unclear about the significance of JournoList and struck by the dominance of the large number of names. I'm now clear on the significance but remin to be convinced of the need for a large number of names, especially if it cannot be proven that they said anything of significance on the list. The danger is that you besmirch innocent people by innuendo. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This seems even worse to me this morning than it did last night. As I said, it is no news to me that the "main stream" newspeople are mostly liberal (if not on the far left). Nor is it a surprise that they talk to each other about it. Besides the list of names taken out, the article should be much shorter related to its real importance -- which is not really all that much. "See also" links can direct people to sources that give more details, if they are interested.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I've moved the list to User:Rd232/JList. It can still be worked on there, and it can be merged back if there is agreement to do so. In the mean time, anyone that wants can edit it there. Rd232 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The list is now taken off and the article trimmed down a little. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

Could any non involved administrator please look into ] and temporally remove the 3rd paragraph “litigations" case until clarified? Could please look into ] where more information is added also?Symbio04 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The ex-wife of Malcolm Sinclair, 20th Earl of Caithness

Information is being added, reasonably well-sourced to a Providence, RI newspaper, about the ex-wife of Sinclair. The two edits are here and here. Since they were divorced in 2004, it is unclear how much relevance to his biography this information has. I am leaving a note on the talk page, but I'm not sure either editor will see it, so I just bring it here for wider attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I removed it. It would only be of tangental interest if she was still married to him, but since she wasn't at the time of these events, it's completely irrelevant. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

COI/BLP issue could use some eyes

A discussion at the COI board has me worried about some potentially serious BLP issues. At first glance it looks like a mess. It might require someone with Lexus access, the admin bit, and some significant spare time to sort out the sourcing and COI issues. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Susskind

Am concerned about the level of detail in the Personal Life section (including birthdates of subject's children, facial birthmark of subject, spouse's school volunteering), that no citations are in the Academic Career section and that the Tools for Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution is somewhat unsourced and reads like a very detailed salesman's product-list.

Shearonink (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I scrubbed some of it, mostly about the kids. --Errant Tmorton166 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Diane Washburn

Notable? I think it's dubious, but would appreciate second opinion. Made more interesting because it appears the article was written by the author of her biography. JNW (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind of interesting article though, it could use wikify-ing and some of the detail may be hard to source, books only I imagine. Some interesting pictures released to commons, they seem like good faith releases but could use a check by a picture expert. I don't see any BLP problems. More notability that a 21 year old that posed once for playboy that is for sure. Off2riorob (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a playboy model is the example for comparison. Nor are an interesting story and pictures a satisfactory rationale. Much of the article isn't even about her, but her father, husband, and famous acquaintances. In other words, it's kind of a puff piece. What I'm looking for is some sense of whether this is appropriate for AFD nomination. JNW (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heroin#Musicians who have used heroin, or written about heroin use

The section has been tagged as poorly reffed since last year. There are a number of living people mentioned in there. While it is common knowledge that the likes of Pete Doherty have long standing heroin problems, it would be better to ref all the claims in the section. Anyone interested in providing a fix?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (Apologies for the pun.)

Should this not be done away with per WP:NOTDIR? --FormerIP (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved all the uncited to Talk:Heroin/Archive 3 and left a note on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I too decided there were more names than I cared to research.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right about that. Certain types of music are of course associated with drugs (and sex) in the popular imagination but an article on the link is better than a list in or out of this or any other article.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, IMO it is extremely tangential and actually detrimental to information the people come to that article to investigate, which is Heroin itself, not which musicians have tried it or not. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

• Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two users are adding content to the controversies section of this article. I feel that the new content summarizes the source material inaccurately, and that an accurate summary of the material would not be closely enough related to the subject of the article to be included.

• • Raj's original edit
  • My edit
  • Raj's revert
  • Discussion — goethean ॐ 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

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

Recent discussion above on this board Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article continues to attract dispute among editors despite numerous attempts at dispute resolution. Gilad Atzmon is a musician who is controversial because of his views, statements and actions concerning Israel/Palestinian issues. Countless editorials have been written about him both in both mainstream and left-wing media. However none of the statements of facts in these editorials can be substantiated by reliable sources. BLP policy states that these sources cannot be used for facts, only opinions. As a result, the article has a "Controversy" section where the editorials are quoted. My view is if the facts cannot be reliably sourced, then commentaries on them should not be used as a backdoor to include them. Of course that would mean removing the criticism section. I have not come across a similar situation before and would welcome any comments on this. TFD (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah again so soon, I was watching and thinking the same thing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is the exact issue now? there is no criticism section? I am dismayed to see this addition of the material that was brought here recently and consensus was clearly against inclusion and User:Drsmoo simply replaced it? It was again removed but what is the point in discussing just to have someone replace it? Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, besides Drsmoo putting back info largely agreed to be against BLP, the issue is whether the subsection currently containing only opinion pieces saying he's antisemitic should be name "Allegations of antisemitism" or just "Criticism." There is one academic source mentioned in lead and an editor asserts there are other academic sources he hasn't put in the section. Obviously having them there would make the "allegations" section title more defendable. Also, I wouldn't say there are countless editorials, but there have been several negative opinion pieces (most of which are mentioned in the article); a number of NPOV ones about his politics, also mostly mentioned in the article. (And many about his musicianship.)

However, TFD's proposal they be removed entirely certainly has its merits too, especially considering that...

The bigger problem is the constant WP:SOAPBOX from a couple editors about what a big antsemite Atzmon allegedly is, using the same and other out of context quotes as his critics. While even some of Atzmon's in context things are pretty outrageous, he over all does write to provoke and for effect, as a WP:RS has quoted him as saying, as opposed to be an ideological antisemite. But people constantly soapboxing that he is the latter only make for a very negative editing environment, since NPOV editors will have to worry about being tarred with guilt by association. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I retitled the section to, Partisan commentary - as it is all a matter of opinion, one side thinks it is criticism and the other side thinks it is correct, all of it totally POV, it is also not to be described as anti semitic, imo this person doesn't clearly fit into that category at all. Perhaps a few users should ask themselves this question..If I strongly dislike this living person, should I be editing his wikipedia BLP Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

An IP from Metropolitan College Of New York, seems to be a bit opinionated and mentioning Nazis? Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Partisan commentary" is even more POV than "Allegations of antisemitism and responses." I have changed it to "controversy" -- one nobody particularly loves, but which isn't blatantly POV either.

I think anyone visiting the talk page will see that the WP:SOAPBOX is not limited to "a couple editors" nor to one side of the Atzmon/antisemitism controversy. It is simply wrong however to claim that there are no WP:RS who call Atzmon an antisemite; see eg the Hirsh citation from Yale. I am ambivalent about the use of the heading "allegations of antisemitism and responses"; the only real justification is that subsuming it into the larger section "politics" would entail the POV implication that antisemitism is merely a form of politics rather than racism, which is a category error and does not do justice to the antisemitism controversy.

And Off2riorob's suggestion has of course a flipside, which is that if you are consumed by such blind adulation for a subject that you're willing to sweep genuine controversy under the rug for the sake of not ruining the hagiography, then you may also want to ask whether you should be trying to polish this particular apple. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RTLamp who is actually a single purpose account as regards this living person, has changed the header to controversies, suggesting my neutral header is strongly POV, whereas I am a complete uninvolved neutral, can the editors that strongly dislike this living person please take a step back, perhaps go and edit the BLP of someone you do like and allow a little NPOV editing? Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Having a controversy section is poor style. The correct way to treat controversy is to place the criticism following statements of fact and followed by rebuttal. For example, "x distributed copies of an article by y. z criticized x for working with y, but x said he did this because...." Unfortunately we have no reliable sources for any of the "facts" which have drawn criticism. TFD (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I found nothing useful on google news, looking at scholar, I found http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf The main Atzmon discussion in on page 100ff which is a reliable source though one who has himself been attacked by Atzmon.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a working paper, it hasn't been peer reviewed, and Hirsh and Atzmon have attacked each other in about equal measure from their respective views. Rd232 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was involved with this article a long time ago, and gave up on fighting for neutrality because the concerted efforts to try to present Atzmon as a sort of KKK redneck were too much for me. What particularly seemed impossible to keep in the article was clarity on an issue fundamental for understanding Atzmon's views, which was his argument that there is a strand in Jewish culture which is a "Jewish uniqueness" which easily becomes a kind of "Jewish supremacism". This arises both from some aspects or versions of Judaism and from major historical factors (Holocaust and Exile), but the result is an "us or them - and let's be frank, it's us because we're better than them" attitude in the more fundamentalist Zionism which Atzmon finds deeply objectionable and considers racist. Only in this context do Atzmon's statements like "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity" become clearer. My point is that Atzmon's view, whether you agree with it or not, is far more coherent than the bitty "seen through his critics" presentation the Misplaced Pages article always seems to return to. The difficulty is that he doesn't coherently express that view, preferring to express parts of it in an often deliberately confrontational way, which makes it very easy for his opponents. Rd232 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a single article by Atzmon in which he describes "Jewish Supremacy" as a "strand in Jewish culture"? Because in every article he paints it as widespread and fundamental. There's nothing incoherent about his essays, they are always clear and to the point. Some people just refuse to believe he means what he writes (over and over again.) Honestly, if anyone wants to see what he actually writes just go to his website and read his essays http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ particularly the "Jewish Power", "Jewishness" and "Shoa/Holocaust" sections.

"Can you provide a single article by Atzmon ..." - this is from memory, and it was a long time ago that I was involved with the topic, so no. I do remember attempting to write a clear version of Atzmon's views, using his own words unfiltered through critics' eyes, and I seem to recall that you were one of the key players in preventing that text from remaining in the article. All manner of spurious wiklawyering was applied by various people, and the whole thing deteriorated into an endless argument that I gave up on. So excuse me for not engaging with you now - I have no wish to repeat that experience (and have no interest in Atzmon and a general principle of avoiding I/P issues on WP), and if in the interim you've developed a genuine interest in what Atzmon actually thinks it would be no harder for you than for me to go and dig out the text I wrote summarising his views. Rd232 10:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Can you provide a single article by Atzmon in which he describes "Jewish Supremacy" as a "strand in Jewish culture"? " What aboout this: "Chicken Soup- is what is left once you strip Jewish identity of Judaism, racism, chauvinism, White Phosphorous, supremacy, cluster bombs, secularity, Zionism, Israel, intolerance, Nuclear reactor in Dimona, cosmopolitanism, genocidal tendency, etc. "Lexicon of Resistance? Incidentally, is anyone else intrigued by the inclusion of "secularity" and "cosmopolitanism" in this list of supposedly unpleasant characteristics? RolandR (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition the section is covered with reliable sources, for example, The Times and The Guardian, two of the most notable papers in England. Here are the sources in the section: The Guardian, The Times, http://www.redress.cc/, Atzmon's personal website http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/, Counterpunch, The_Local, Gisborne_Herald http://tourdates.co.uk, The_Scotsman, and then four sources for his debate on antisemitism http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/, http://www.emiratestribune.com/, Atlantic Free Press, and The_Jewish_Chronicle

And with regards to "concerted efforts to try to present Atzmon as a sort of KKK redneck" Atzmon is frequently featured on David Duke's (the former grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan) website.Drsmoo (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting responses Drsmoo (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see people commenting on the constant edit warring to put in info vs. BLP - first by one and now by two individuals who are defacto single purpose accounts. It's really more to protect Misplaced Pages's integrity than Atzmon's reputation I've been hanging in there for almost two years! And it has been disappointing to see how reluctant people have been to defend it in this BLP - at least til these last couple complaints here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Antisemitism" category from this article -- in no small measure because Atzmon rejects the notion that he is an anti-semite. It was quickly restored, and the talk page has a section (with links to earlier discussions) holding the claim that the category does not imply that he is an anti-semite. I think this is absurd -- particularly because the article itself is full of statements pointing to other people's accusations that he is an anti-semite. In any event, there is clearly no consensus for including this category, and to see it restored in the absence of such a consensus is unacceptable per WP:BLPDEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue across several categories, as I discuss here. Category_talk:Antisemitism#Results_of_Homophobia_Discussion Racism, Homophobia, Antisemitism and Sexism. Probably others too. I think it needs a broader discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Uyghur people in Guantanamo

I raised a similar concern in March. I am concerned that another contributor continues to misunderstand when WP:BLP protects individuals.

In this particular instance User:Iqinn argues that BLP reqires the article on Abdul Razakah to say he was "wrongfully imprisoned", and that his "innocence", and that of his fellow Uyghur captives in Guantanamo had been established "early".

I told User:Iqinn I would always make the first diff I offer be a diff to their most recent comment. Here goes.

Earlier today, I made these edits. User:Iqinn largely reverted, claiming authority on various grounds, including WP:BLP.

"But our personal POV does not matter this is all verified WP:V in multiple secondary sources and that should be made very clear in the article that Abdul Razak was innocent and wrongly imprisoned we can no leave any doubt on that when writing the article as it would not only be amoral but also a violation of WP:BLP."

User:Iqinn asserts that Razakah's being "wrongful imprisoned" and early acceptance of his "innocence" are "established facts". But they aren't. What can be referenced is that these opinions appeared in WP:RS -- not the same as being an established fact.

Other contributors have already tried to explain to User:Iqinn that his insistence on characterizing some captives as having been "wrongfully imprisoned", "illegally imprisoned", or "unlawfully imprisoned", requires references, and that the opinion should be properly attributed to the WP:RS that made it. ,

I am sorry, but as I responded to User:Iqinn's defense of their position:

"Personally, I agree, that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I understand that personal opinions like that don't belong in article space. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. We shouldn't rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghur's "innocence" has been an established fact."

I am concerned that BLP is being called for to justify editorial changes that lapse from compliance with WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda tool for those who want to cover up that the 22 Uighur in Guantanamo were wrongly imprisoned. It is an established fact that they were innocent and had never posed any thread to the US. They are innocent refugee who fled an oppressive China and were just at the wrong time at the wrong place. Tons of sources for that and week by week more coming up. Shame on the US for not letting them into their country and shame on you for spreading propaganda on Misplaced Pages. I am going to put this back into the article as these are all verified facts WP:V. Nobody should cut out verified information in favor of propaganda. We have WP:RS for all of this. It is all verified WP:V and i will put it back into the article. I warn you. Stop spreading war propaganda on Misplaced Pages by cutting out verified facts WP:V. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (originally added at 22:46, 26 July 2010)

That as maybe; but, as I said in the article; unless we have a source that a) explicitly says they are innocent and b) says they were wrongfully imprisoned then it just cannot go in. Remember; verifiability, not truth.Please bear in mind that accusations of propaganda will not win you support for argument :) it's best to avoid bad rhetoric like that. Whatever you feel about these people (and, I assure you, I feel the same way) the fact is we must rely on sources rather than our own opinions and interpretation. This is very simple: find the right sources and your wording will be fine --Errant Tmorton166 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Despite four years' wrongful imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Bakr reserves most of his rage for Beijing." BBC News, 2007. "Although cleared of any wrongdoing four years later, they remained in detention until last year when Palau, a former US-administered territory in the Pacific, agreed to provide a temporary home." AP, July 2010. There you go. Fences&Windows 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what i said there are tons of WP:RS, innocent and wrongful imprisonment is verified WP:V. These are well established facts based on WP:RS. It would be irresponsible in terms of WP:BLP to not have this in the article. Thanks for your advise. IQinn (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The BBC quote, and the Sydney Morning Herald quote are excellent examples of WP:RS expressing the opinion that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I don't see these references, or the Boston Globe or CCR references already in the article support representing this opinion as an "established fact". I think User:Randy2063 made an excellent point here here. I am going to paraphrase him -- if, for the sake of argument, the habeas ruling does use the term "wrongfully imprisoned", should we imply the officers who commanded the camp prior to the habeas ruling were breaking the law? Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia should not be a propaganda tool for any side in this controversy.

I am trying to insist the article being written from a neutral point of view -- this should not be characterized as "spreading propaganda". That the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned, or that they are innocent is not an "established fact" -- it is an opinion. When Sabin Willett describes the Uyghurs as innocent, that is notable. He is a prominent attorney, one of the two dozen or so most notable of the thousand or more who have worked on behalf of Guantanamo captives. Personally, I respect him. But that doesn't make his opinion an established fact. Properly, attributed articles on Willett's clients can say he asserts the DoD knew they were innocent way back in late 2002 or early 2003. But such opinions have to be properly attributed. They are not "established facts".

If the phrase "wrongfully imprisoned" was used by an WP:RS it can be used in the article, again, properly attributed and referenced. No one is suggesting this phrase be cut, if it can be substantiated. The first four contributors who weighed in at Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Terrorism/Guantanamo/"Extrajudicial detention" and-or "unlawfully detained" looked for a substantiating that any WP:RS used the similar phrase "unlawfully detained". Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You extent your propaganda onto the talk pages and noticeboards. These are established facts verified WP:V by tons of WP:RS. The Uighur's were nothing else than refugees who fled their oppressing government for the search of a better live. Innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. Tons of of WP:RS and you try to water down this fact. I repeat: This is a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS. That all reminds me to much on Mahmudiyah killings where you last year still claimed the victim was not a 14 year old child based on years old sources despite the fact that all sources for the last past three years gave her age at 14 years old without doubt. Despite that this was an established fact you continued to dispute this fact. You tried to hide this fact as you try to hide that the Uighur's in Guantanamo are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. a fact that is now already reflected for years in WP:RS. These are established verified facts based on WP:RS and to not make this absolutely clear in the articles is a violation of WP:BLP. I will add this to all Biographies of the 22 innocent Uyghurs who were formerly wrongfully detained. IQinn (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The position immediately above is inconsistent with earlier positions. Is the Uyghur's innocence an "established fact", as originally asserted? Or is it merely "a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS"? The two positions are quite different. Further, the initial wording you used was that the Uyghurs' innocence had been established "early". The view that is widespread now is not the view that was widespread early.

No one objects to quoting, summarizing or paraphrasing WP:RS that represent the Uyghurs as "innocent", provided you actually cite those WP:RS fairly, and attribute their opinions to the authoritative authors who expressed it -- and don't try to represent their "innocence" as an established fact, or an established fact that has been accepted for half a dozen years.

I first read about the Uyghurs between five of them being determined to have been "not enemy combatants" in March 2005 and the March 2006 publication of the CSR Tribunal transcripts. The first dozen or so times I read about the Uyghurs I read the comments of attorneys of captives whose clients' CSR Tribunals had determined them to be enemy combatants. Those lawyers wrote, (paraphrasing): "what is going on, my client was not alleged to have attended a training camp. My client was not alleged to have been in Tora Bora, or any other battlefield. Yet here are these five Uyghurs, who were alleged to have attended a militant training camp, and to have been on the Tora Bora battlefield, yet those five are going to be released, while my client has to stay. So the view that the Uyghurs were recognized as innocent, "early" is simply not tenable. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it does not matter how much you fillibuster i can only give you the same answer:

You extent your propaganda onto the talk pages and noticeboards. These are established facts verified WP:V by tons of WP:RS. The Uighur's were nothing else than refugees who fled their oppressing government for the search of a better live. Innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. Tons of of WP:RS and you try to water down this fact. I repeat: This is a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS. That all reminds me to much on Mahmudiyah killings where you last year still claimed the victim was not a 14 year old child based on years old sources despite the fact that all sources for the last past three years gave her age at 14 years old without doubt. Despite that this was an established fact you continued to dispute this fact. You tried to hide this fact as you try to hide that the Uighur's in Guantanamo are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. a fact that is now already reflected for years in WP:RS. These are established verified facts based on WP:RS and to not make this absolutely clear in the articles is a violation of WP:BLP.

IQinn (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am restoring the original subsection heading for this subsection. I had already left diffs that included the original subsection heading, and the retitling erodes the value of those diffs, without a good reason. When User:Iqinn changed the title the edit summary they offered was "change also the title to something neutral and helpful". The original section heading was more detailed, and more useful, and I do not believe there was a valid concern over its neutrality. Geo Swan (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am changing uncivil ad hominum title to a neutral content based title. IQinn (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As you know someone commenting from your wiki-id volunteered, earlier this year, that they were not a native speaker of English. I am sorry but I see your concern that the original sectin heading was uncivil, and "ad hominum", as a reflection of an imperfect command of English. Ib ny opinion, changing the section headings, like this, is disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As we know user Geo Swan has a long history of attacking people based on false informations. I do not have any problems of understanding English. Absolute ridiculous, uncivil and baseless. The title as well the post he started of this discussion is uncivil and ad hominum. Fact and visible for everybody. User Geo Swan has a long history of uncivil behavior and i ask him one more time to stop his disrupting Misplaced Pages. IQinn (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

<- I'm a bit confused. When BBC journalist Neil Arun writes "Despite four years' wrongful imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay" as posted above, he is not expressing an opinion. It's a news report by the BBC not an opinion piece by Neil Arun for the BBC. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, that this passage appeared on the BBC may be an established fact. But it is, nevertheless, an opinion. This opinion merits coverage, but properly attributed to its source. Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • You seem to be assigning the US military some undue veracity in their claims. And as "Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that Hatim's detention was illegal", how is that not "wrongful imprisonment". You seem to be twisting around to avoid stating the obvious, and I don't understand why. Geo Swan, do you have a COI in this matter? Fences&Windows 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't just wrongful imprisonment. It's saying they were held wrongfully for X number of years. That implies the military broke the law, which it did not do, or that they could have been released sooner.

Even now, no one is being held without a legal process in place to keep them there. The wording of these judges' decisions is being applied in ways I don't think the judges meant.

Prior to the judges' orders, the detainees are being held as the legal process plays itself out. The Supreme Court itself didn't allow habeas corpus right away. Can you say they were being held wrongfully then? Nope.

Afterward, the government is still able to appeal, which you probably know has been won at least once so far (although that will be again appealed further). Can you say they're being held wrongfully during the appeal? Nope.

Once the last appeal orders them released, they still need to be held until they can be sent somewhere. They don't have the right to walk around outside the gates of GTMO. They still don't have the right to be sent to the U.S. (We have thousands of otherwise innocent people being held in immigration detention right now.) In other words, each is being held for legal reasons.

What's "undue" about their claims? They lost their case. Good cases are lost all the time. It doesn't mean they didn't have one.

The standard of proof in these tribunals is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. With such a legal standard, it's not odd to find that the CSRT decided it was more likely than not, while a judge would find it's less likely, and then perhaps an appeals court judge might find it, again, more likely than not.

With the Uyghurs, they're not considered enemy combatants by the U.S. because their enemy is China, not the U.S. As Geo pointed out, they've got their detractors. I wouldn't say they were innocent sheepherders.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda, Propaganda... I wouldn't say they were innocent sheepherders. So, please speak up and show us your evidence! Please! The government failed to show credible evidence to the Judge and they do not try anymore. But please Randy you now have the evidence after eight years? What did they do other than to be refugees who tried to find a better life? Randy we are here at the BLP noticeboard and these are serious issues with serious implications for many people. So please show your evidence or i am sorry. Please shut up forever and keep your misguided personal view for you.

As i can see from your comments your understanding of habeas corpus has not increased since our last conversation. I urge you one more time to have a closer look at habeas corpus as this is a very special set of laws that is above all the things you mentioned. You are introducing a lot of misconceptions and i will try again to explain to you.

Wrongfully imprisoned implies the military broke the law? Is it implied? What's wrong when this is implied? Did they broke the law? What law? Anyway irrelevant at the moment as it does not change the fact that the Uighur's where wrongfully detained whatever moral or legal consequences that might have for other parties. You might look up some sources that discuss these questions. Did you see some?

The Uighurs won their habeas corpus and the judge ruled that they were wrongfully imprisoned. The government could not show credible evidence to the judge that would fulfill the anyway very low standard that is necessary to justify their detention. They had nothing and they were wrongfully imprisoned all the time. The government has made clear that it is not disputing that fact anymore. The continues legal disputes deal only with the question if they have the right to be brought to the US or how they can be released securely. Shame on the US that they reject these innocent refugee entry into their country after all the trouble they brought to them. Shame on them! There are actually some communities in the US they want to take them but politics politics .... how would it look like Huuuhh... There were innocent people in Guantanamo. How could they keep up with their lies.

Like it or not that's are the facts. Randy you have shown an extended pro government pro military POV in the years here at Misplaced Pages but i suggest you may give up on this one here. To spare us the time, damage of the reputation of Misplaced Pages and possible legal implications.

Sure you are entitled to your personal POV as i am but the facts are: (Verified WP:V in tons of WP:RS). The Uighurs are innocent refugee they were wrongfully imprisoned they had never posed any thread to the US. Sure you are entitled to your personal POV but as i said you might give up on this one here because you can not talk away the facts and sources WP:V in WP:RS and because of the serious BLP issues and possible consequences that this could have for Misplaced Pages and the Uighur's. IQinn (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They're not refugees. It's as I said:

The Los Angeles Times says, "many of the men said they saw themselves as allies of the U.S. against China. Several said they had traveled to Afghanistan for training to fight the Chinese."

There's more but I'm not looking for it this late at night. They're allegedly either members of, or associated with, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.

You act as though habeas corpus is a no-brainer. In reality, it's never before been given to suspected enemy combatants outside the country in a time of war. It was only after a long series of court challenges that it was finally given to them, and even then the Court said it wasn't meant to be immediately applied.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda, Propaganda...They are innocent refugee. Your cherry picked out of context quote does not change this fact. Yes and there are tons of false allegations against these innocent men that could not be proofed. You have more evidence? Evidence the Judge did not look at? They are innocent refugee who fled an oppressive Chinese government with the longest list of human rights violation in the universe. These Uighur people are innocent and have never posed any thread to the US. They were wrongfully imprisoned and that is verified in tons of WP:RS. These are verified facts. Please stop, there is no way to cover this up. These are verified facts and to not make this absolute clear in the articles is a BLP violation.

Habeas corpus a no-brainer? What are you talking about? This is one of the oldest laws and it was withheld from the prisoner in Guantanamo for a long time and they had a long way to go and endure a lot to finally were given the opportunity to show that these allegations are false and that they are innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. IQinn (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "propaganda" shows you know that you don't have anything. It violates good faith. It is beyond that, considering this is a news source from the LA Times. They have rules for BLP similar to ours. You misunderstand more than habeas corpus. There is plenty of testimony that they were affiliated with Abdul Haq (ETIP). They'd likely be in the same boat as any alleged Al Qaeda member if the U.S. hadn't decided it didn't need to detain enemies of China.

If you say that I, or the U.S., need to present more evidence for the judge in this case then you completely misunderstand it. It is not like the other detainee cases. He was not ruling on their status, allegations of guilt or innocence. He ruled only on whether or not they could come to the U.S. It is not something that I, or the U.S., need to present more evidence to this judge. He already ruled in the U.S.'s favor.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No that is absolutely false

That's wrong. The judge ruled that their detention is unlawful. They are innocent the government could not provide sufficient evidence for their allegations. Full stop. Your statement is absolutely wrong The Uighur's won their habeas corpus their detention was ruled unlawful and the government nor you do have any evidence of any wrongdoing of these men. They are innocent as they said.

Propaganda, Propaganda... shows that you do not have anything than your repeated false accusations without be able to proof them. The government could not show that the have ever done anything wrong as well as you can't. False accusations. There is nothing they are innocent refugee they have done nothing.

No that violates not good faith. Ridiculous. I confirm that i fully believe that you do make these comments in good faith but they are misguided, wrong and harmful for Misplaced Pages and a BLP violation and i urge you one more time to stop good faith is no excuse.

You still show zero understanding about habeas corpus. Your statement about this so wrong that it is hard to even discuss it. It's just false. It is your misguided false personal opinion. Misplaced Pages is not the place for people who want to spread their personal believe, Misplaced Pages is not a forum.

Stop spreading your false believes Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX and you might start a blog or join a forum elsewhere. I am sorry but even people act in good faith their behavior might be disruptive at the same time. IQinn (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies

This article is a BLP nightmare, thus far i have removed, blog posts, twitter sources, SPS sources. Any chance of some extra eyes on this? mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give an opinion on these sources as use in a blp please commondreams.org source and truthorfiction.com both are used here mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner of conscience

• Prisoner of conscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — This article contains a "See also" section which amounts to a de facto list of prisoners of conscience. I have just removed all of the names on that list that were uncited, which had been marked "citation needed" for about 10 months. Really, though, I am uncomfortable with this list, which does not actually say what it is a list of. I'd like to gather some thoughts on whether there should be a list in that article, and if so, what it should be headed, and what kinds of people (properly cited of course) might be on it. I think there are several reasons to be more rigorous about this--obviously it's a BLP violation to say someone is a prisoner of conscience if that can't be verified, but in addition, we have a larger obligation to be very careful about such a politically and diplomatically important term. Thoughts? Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a great article, considering the importance of the subject matter. Maybe it should be merged somewhere (eg Political prisoner, although that also does not look like a model WP article). The section is not good. We shouldn't really have anything in bullet-point and I agree with deleting the stuff that is unsourced. But rather than eliminate worthwhile content, maybe you should leave a tag on the section for now and come back in a month or so. --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao

A tricky one, this. If one follows the edit history, one sees that this has been all over the map. The article as it stands now is actually poorer than it has been in the past, but even at its best it's not been very good. I'd stub it, except that I've tripped over a little problem with sources. The best source that I can find is a profile in the Hindustan Times. Unfortunately, it's a fairly light paraphrase of our article from the day before. It was around the time of that profile that this person came to particular prominence in the news (and, as you can see, a torrent of edits suddenly began to rain down on the article) as he went on a hunger strike. There's little source material from before that, that isn't more than dribbles of information. (The few sources actually cited in the earlier versions of the article are, as is so often the case for badly written articles, bare URLs that have rotted away.) This article needs attention. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've fiddled with it a bit... apart from being an incumbent MP his only other notability seems to be the hunger strike --Errant Tmorton166 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I have done some work on the article, but there is a problem with an editor who has promised to keep adding a rather garbled paragraph (see these three edits). I removed it once in a major edit, then removed it when it was re-added, but it is back again. I have explained some background at Talk:Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao#Sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It was the actions of that editor that brought the article to my attention in the first place. That's not even the worst BLP problem in the history of the article. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for picking up the ball, here. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Happily that editor had a reasonable source and seems happy with the addition I proposed & Johnuniq improved. I love it when a plan comes together :) --Errant Tmorton166 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Heilman

• Samuel Heilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - After noting that some controversy has arisen about Samuel Heilman's recent book The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, I checked his wikipedia page to find out more about the author. I was surprised to find that, for an author/professor who is well-known and generally respected in his field, judging by his awards as well as his being often quoted in the media, his wikipedia page seemed to be very heavy on criticism. Upon close examination I learned that the criticism on his page falls into three categories:

1. An indicent in the mid-90s which did paint Prof. Heilman in a bad light but concluded in a relatively mild fashion 2. Criticisms of his books by a small number of individuals in the communities about which he has written 3. Criticism that is either uncited or relies on self-published sources or those that are not reliable secondary sources.

As a result, I made changes to reflect the general balance of praise and criticism of Heilman, removed many of the unreliable sources, and added some extra content. This change has been edited by the same user several times, calling my edits a 'love-in' or 'vandalism'.

It is important to cite the specific violations I found in this article, as documented in the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. These are sections of the guidelines which I found were violated in the page as I first encountered it:

1. Tone BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections.

2. Criticism and praise Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, as long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

3. Sources -- Challenged or likely to be challenged Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

4. Sources -- Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. // Cnvb (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cnvb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - brief explanation // Cnvb (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some minor problems. Have removed the critical blogs per RS/BLP. That seems to be the worst of it. The edit history is interesting, there's a couple of SPAs. Misarxist (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What are SPAs? /Cnvb (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lemrick Nelson

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

Newly created bio. There was a question as to the notability of this person and if it should be redirected into the main article about the Crown Heights riot. I also removed ssome material that was being duplicated for some reason. More eyes would appreciated since I will not revert it again. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have removed the external links as they were just press reports, citations useful to support additional content, not external links. I don't like that article at all actually and I don't think we should create BLP article about such people when we already have a main article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can other folks please chime in here. I just reverted back the article to remove ethnicity from the lead per mosbio. I also changed murder to killing, which I am less sure about. I will not revert again since the editor who is reverting me has been engaging in personal attacks against me and I don't want to get into further. Thanks,--Tom (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Philip E. Johnson

User:Keepcalmandcarryon is misrepresenting what is in sources and abusing this BLP. A consensus seemed to be reached much of the text, but he's now gone back and added all sorts of misrepresentations of what's in the cites, added scare quotes to established terms like Darwinism, and used opinion pieces as cites. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about how you believe he is "abusing" this biography? Darwinism is, in fact, a deprecated term (e.g. ). There is no categorical bar against opinion pieces as citations in BLPs, although of course they need to be used judiciously. Can you elaborate on your concern? MastCell  17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support the assertions that Johnson is "A member of a prominent AIDS denialist group, Johnson has written that HIV does not cause AIDS," or that he has stated that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". And opinion pieces by advocacy groups are certainly not appropriate to establish such controversial assertions. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• - notified User Keepcalmandcarryon. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources in the article, Johnson has written five pieces questioning HIV/AIDS science; he has given interviews in which he questions HIV/AIDS science, suggesting that AIDS statistics are exaggerated; he was one of the twelve founding members of "RA", or the "Society for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis; his views are succinctly expressed in RA's letter to the journal Science, asserting that the HIV does not cause AIDS but instead is merely "tautologically correlated" with it; additionally, three secondary sources in the article, two of which are cited in the lead, associate Johnson with AIDS denialism. The opinion piece is used only as a direct source for Johnson's statements, an acceptable use of primary sources in BLPs.

As for Darwinism and materialism, these are terms Johnson uses in a pejorative manner to support his assertion that scientists adhere to religion themselves, an (in his view) empty, hollow and contradictory religion of atheism/Darwinism/materialism. Thus, his usage of these terms differs decidedly from the words' accepted meanings. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Johnson expressed these views about HIV/AIDS in the 1990s (e.g. , or see Impure Science by Steven Epstein). He seems not to have said much publicly about HIV/AIDS since the mid-1990s, so perhaps that should be made clear in the article? MastCell  18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon's distortions are not acceptable and if he continues to misrespresent what's in sources and to try to pass off opinion pieces as sources he must be barred from this subject and other related subjects where he refusees to abide policy.

Certainly Johnson questioned the connection between HIV and AIDS (as was noted in the article) during the 1990s. The accurately sourced content should be restored along with clarification on when this was (and I have no objection to noting that he was a party to the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis). What we cannot allow is any further dishonest misrepresentations to slander the man or his beliefs, and Kappcalmandcarryon should be barred from furhter distortion of what good faith editors have developed so far:

Johnson has been associated with AIDS denialism, the idea that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, called for further study of HIV as the cause of AIDS, and has claimed that the reported morbidity and epidemiology of the AIDS disease are both exaggerated or incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand. There is no dispute that Johnson has questioned HIV/AIDS or is/was a founding member of the most influential AIDS denialist group. Additionally, Johnson's contributions to the AIDS denialist movement are mentioned in (now) four secondary sources cited in the article. How, exactly, does citing these sources constitute slander? It would appear that, rather than summing up Johnson's statements, you would like to present his arguments against HIV as the cause of AIDS. I object, and I suspect others would, too. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot

An editor is edit-warring trying to add a few paragraphs of suspected synthesis. I have replied on the article talkpage here but I copy the segment which best highlights my concerns:

I have marked the segments where synthesis is suspected in the contested paragraphs:

After Stephany's body was identified by her brother at the morgue, Stephany's father said in Spanish and English language media interviews such as interviews with the Associated Press and CNN/HLN network Nancy Grace program, that DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot.

If there is no reliable source to provide the answer to the tags we have a synthesis problem. I think the above paragraph is synthesised by the editor involved and not by a reliable source. However if there is a single reliable source stating the complete paragraph as written above I would, of course, not object to its inclusion. Same goes for the second paragraph:

But in interviews in the following days Mr. Flores said that Stephany's body would be exhumed to gather the fingernail DNA evidence, and that her body had not been cremated for this reason.

The same goes for the conclusion:

It was not clear why the evidence was not gathered prior to burial.

Any advice/help would be appreciated. Dr.K.  18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected (which is a good idea) this is about a ongoing trial and as such we need to use the highest quality citations and take care not to add OR, and if opinionated comments are added, care should be taken to attribute them correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. BTW, I asked for the protection. Thank you very much Rob. Take care. Dr.K.  18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg

(See also Philip E. Johnson above) POV pushing editors have distorted the chronology of his career and scrubbed accurate descriptions and clarification of what his views were as far as questioning the HIV-AIDS connection. They've also removed citation needed tags of dubious content and are downplaying his career achievments so the article focuses solely on controversial aspects which they've put in the worst possible light. This kind of dishonesty and vandalism is despicable. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would first encourage you to consider our civility guidelines. Beyond that, what is Peter Duesberg known for? A basic search of news articles shows that all or nearly all articles on Duesberg during the past 25 years concentrate on his AIDS denialist theories or their political and social ramifications. Duesberg's work on influenza is mentioned in the article. His cancer virus work, likewise. We also discuss his version of the aneuploidy theory of cancer. None of these, however, is what Duesberg is best known for, and the article should not be rearranged or rewritten to suggest otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't write articles based on your OR. Either provide a source or remove the disputed content. Furhtermore, you vandalized the article to completely distort the chronology of his career. You seem to be on some sort of campaign, but this is an encyclopedia, not your personal soap box. Please abide by our editorial policies and respect that this is an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't indicated what, precisely, you dispute, other than the accepted, consensus use of the term "denialism". As such, it's not clear why you are posting to this board. If you feel I have vandalised an article, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:AIV. If you feel I am damaging Misplaced Pages through a personal campaign of POV-prompted original research, file a complaint at WP:ANI. I would be making these suggestions at your talk page, but you've asked me not to comment there. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As with the above thread on Philip E. Johnson, it is unclear exactly what this complaint is about. Can we tone down the bluster and have some specifics that can be addressed? What is the "disputed content"? What needs to be sourced that isn't already sourced? MastCell  20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely clear what I am complaining about which is why you fixed up the lead which was completely out of order and distorted. I have done the same in the body and I hope you will make sure it stays consistent with our editing policies and isn't distorted by POV pushers seeking to disparage subjects they disagree with. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't clear at all, because you express yourself with aggressive bluster rather than coherent specifics. I made my best guess. I'm glad you agree with it, but you need to work on expressing yourself coherently and less combatively. MastCell  21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which part of editors have "distorted the chronology of his career and scrubbed accurate descriptions and clarification of what his views were as far as questioning the HIV-AIDS connection. They've also removed citation needed tags of dubious content and are downplaying his career achievments so the article focuses solely on controversial aspects which they've put in the worst possible light." you're confused on? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another vandalistic edit where keepcalmandcarryon completely reorders the man's career, misrepresents what is (and isn't) in sources, and reverts uncontroversial grammatical improvements wholesale. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use appropriate language. WP:VAND is very clear: you must not label edits like the one you cited as "vandalism" because it is obviously not. You might argue that the edit has removed verified information, or that it has added unverified information, or that it contains a BLP problem (be specific), or some other policy-based problem (I am not commenting on the edit, only on how it might be described by someone who opposed the edit). Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did I cite wp:vand. The definition of vandlalism is quite clear, as is the pattern of that editors damaging and distorting edits. They need to be stopped and the misrepresentations fixed, as this type of edit serves to slander article subjects bey dishonestly denigrating their views, writings, work, and careers. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I cited WP:VAND to demonstrate that your "vandalistic edit" text conflicts with requirements on Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lydia Schatz List of deaths by corporal punishment

Hi, just to let you know we have remove a bit from the List of deaths by corporal punishment page, which is below - we have some good pals who love the wikipedia and all thought was unacceptable! Take a look at the talk for the major reasoning, but basically we looked up the policy page and reckon this isn't really on with the policy that's there. Hope you're all well, Artie and Wanda (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lydia Schatz, a 7 year old from Paradise, California, was beaten to death, allegedly by her adoptive parents on 6 February 2010. According to Mike Ramsey, the District Attorney of Butte County, California, "for several hours the 7-year-old was held down by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of her body which caused massive tissue damage". The District Attorney maintains the girl was being disciplined, in accordance with the parent's religious beliefs, for mispronouncing a word during a home-school reading lesson. The previous day the couple is alleged to have also similarly disciplined their 11 year old adoptive daughter who had to be hospitalized and put on dialysis in an effort to save her kidneys. A third child, their biological son, was also beaten but received less extensive injuries.

Restored, seems well sourced. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed, since the article's title implies guilt, and wikipedia is not a judge or a jury. Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong: there is no dispute that the death was due to corporal punishment, only about who did it. This belongs here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical, could you please provide a reliable source that specifically says this person died due to CP? Otherwise this looks like original research/opinion. Just because you believe this to be the case doesn't make it so, we need a RS that says CP. --Tom (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are a bit vague; cause of death wasn't even established at the time of those articles (there may be new info now). There is lots of alleged etc. Better to wait till the trial? --Errant Tmorton166 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"DA Michael Ramsey explained the autopsy on Lydia Schatz showed she died from “blunt force trauma” and that they pathologist reported “multiple whip-like striations between the child’s lower back and knees.” The autopsy shows there was a rapid breakdown of muscle tissue which leads to damage to the kidneys and other organs. " Apparently it would take more research than I'm willing to do to get RS on this, because and want money. If you read a bit about it, the case is completely obvious but you are right that we should wait on the technicality, or sources . BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.tulipgirl.com/?s=lydia+schatz

• - http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14706455

• - http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_14707093

• - http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14371777

if these are the citations User:Becritical is presenting to support his additions then imo none of them are quality citations in any way? Content supported by such citations is not even worthy of a wikipedia talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sources for sure, although the whole article is pretty questionable. Surely there is a difference between "corporal punishment" and "child abuse". A list of deaths from official CP like in schools, the military etc, may make some sense.. but this Lydia Schatz case just sounds like child abuse and shouldnt be listed at all in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are not RS. As I said. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what are you posting them here for as such they have nothing to do with any improvement to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be a regular I'll explain that, while the sources were not sufficient for the article, they were sufficient for explaining my position on this page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your position, I have no idea what that is but I am not interested in it whatever it is either and I am not interested in your rubbish citations, please don't post such like on the BLPN again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil, it's not nice to give other editors orders. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well don't come to the BLPN explaining your POV with multiple citations that are not wikipedia reliable then. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical is right, Off2riorob. Do please remember to stay civil in discussions. Incivility does not further your point, nor does it provide a good atmosphere for editing. Remember to assume good faith. GorillaWarfare 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Did someone ask you to come comment here or were you just passing? Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical posted a Wikiquette alert here asking for help with the situation. GorillaWarfare 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there sources which specifically say that the child died from "Corporal punishment". I think having this case mixed in with examples of people who have died from corporal punishment inflicted by schools, prisons or the military is unhelpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, when someone dies as "punishment", we tend to call that "capital punishment". When a child dies when being beaten by his or her parents or guardians, we tend to call that "death by abuse", regardless of what the alleged provocation for such. Unless there's a good RS that calls the death a result of corporal punishment, addition into the list is SYNTH POVism and unacceptable. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just cleaned this out and left a BLP edit summary, but I'm headed for bed and I see at least two other BLP issues, of Indian teachers named as causing the deaths of their students, and neither reports a conviction in either case. Someone else want to clean them out and delete the revisions that include the teachers' names? Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the two section entirely and put them on the talk page - the first one does not actually seem to idicate a conviction at all and the second one states one has not yet happened. Hope this is all ok! Artie and Wanda (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate entry

John_F._Harris_(Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Upon reading the opening sentence of the Harris Biography I find that there is an undocumented inaccurate entry which borders on libel. The biographic entry that suggests that Harris is "...thought to have been in coordination with Blagojevich regarding many of the Illinois Governor's scandalous activities..." is completely unsupported by a factual citation. Moreover, that suggestion is inconsistent with the facts as they have been subsequently adduced at trial in the Blagojevich case. Review of the complaint that served as the basis of Harris' arrest, as well as the Governor's, demonstrates that Harris was only accused in connection with two acts. He was accused of conspiring with the Governor to extort the Chicago Tribune Corporation by threatening to withhold favorable state action of financial assistance with respect to sale of the Chicago Cubs in return for the discharge of a Chicago Tribune editor who had written editorials which criticized the Governor. Harris was also charged with a conspiracy with the Governor and others to personally benefit the Governor through appointment to the senate seat vacated by Barrack Obama. With respect to the charges concerning the Tribune, those charges were dropped by the U.S. Attorney when it was learned that Harris refused to relay the Governor's extortionate demands. With regard to the allegations concerning the senate seat, Harris entered into an agreement with the government, plead guilty to that charge and provided testimony in connection with the Blagojevich trial. With respect to the issues of improper campaign contributions or lying to the FBI, that have been the basis for charges against the Governor, there has been no accusation or evidence of involvement by Harris. Moreover, the evidence adduced at trail demonstrates that Harris received no money or improper personal benefit in connection with his exercise of his government duties. To suggest that Harris was "thought" to be involved in the "range of scandalous activity" alleged against the Governor is inconsistent with established facts. I respectfully request that this sentence be removed from the biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercomputer1784 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the ] article? I will take a look. --Errant Tmorton166 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok a removed the POV wording and made the leade more neutral. Normally I would remove all reference to charges because he does not appear to have been convicted at this point; except that the indictment has it's own article (in which he is mentioned). With that in mind I left it - but if someone disagree's I have no issues with that. --Errant Tmorton166 10:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The case is in its final stages at the moment so such an opinionated comment in the lede like that was a bit much, an update will be in order after the case closes. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-closing-arguments-20100727,0,5270302.story - Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, that makes me happier about it :) --Errant Tmorton166 10:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon Nuttall

The issues with the article have been fixed and the article added to Pending Changes, but the user who wrote most of the BLP-violating content (who seems to be preoccupied with the subject - 344 of his 859 article space edits, 13 of 28 talk page edits starting from his first week on Misplaced Pages in May 2007) is now making quite a scene on the talk page. I'd appreciate if admins could take a look. There may be a valid claim by the user that there are problems with the Jayant Patel article (controversial surgeon in Australia accused of negligently killing patients) but I am literally just about to head AFK for five days due to offline commitments and have no time to look. Orderinchaos 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I watch listed both articles, might have time later to have a good look. --Errant Tmorton166 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for that. Orderinchaos 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

Need additional opinions on the introduction of material alleging that founder of this church has sexually abused members. Two of the news citations point to an archive site that charges for article copies. The third citation is from the LA Times archives; the abstract is available online, but the entire article is pay-only. I'm personally leaning toward excluding the material, but wanted to solicit additional input, as the editor who introduced the material is adamant about it's inclusion and the strength/validity of the sourcing. OhNoitsJamie 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs editing because it uses quotes without quotation marks. I don't think Misplaced Pages can exclude sources which must be paid for though. I remember it discusses just that somewhere in the policy pages, but I can't find it at the moment. If the paid sources are acceptable, do you have any problem with the material? Can someone point us to the right policy page? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V Access to sources see:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V or WP:PAYWALL "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible."Wantthetruth? (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?

Additionally, All the material from major newspapers is verifiable within the articles sourced AND within the abstracts from that papers online archive, the abstracts do not require payment to access. It would seem unreasonable to assume that the papers' abstract would contradict it's own article.Wantthetruth? (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?

• - If anything controversial or contentious is to be added to an article about a living person we should use the highest quality and easily accessible sources to support such content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to use the paywalled ProQuest link for the LA Times, they have the full text up on their own site. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although that article itself is also very weak to add controversial content claims imo. It talks about a recent case and yet doesn't give any details and the allegations are excessive and imo for propagation through wikipedia such allegations about a living person would require exceptional citations, which that clearly is not, its actually quite vague and sensationalist. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Roche

Frank Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This not a known public figure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarcrush (talk • contribs)

"known public figure" is not the inclusion criterion, notability is as described in the guidelines. A quick read suggests that this guy just meets those guidelines, but by all means WP:PROD or send to Afd if you think otherwise. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible vio reg Francis Xavier Clooney

Section in question: Talk:Kali's_Child#New_Book

I am seeking second opinion regardsing possible BLP vio of Francis Xavier Clooney. The edit in question is:

The way I perceive is it:

The way the editor who added it perceives it: , discussion thread

I think trying to link Francis Xavier Clooney--a Roman Catholic Priest and a religious scholar--with Catholic sex abuse cases when there is clearly no relation between the scholar and the cases--because he is a "blurbster"--is defamatory. Other editors are kindly requested to share their thoughts & take appropriate actions if necessary.

Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed, clearly inappropriate. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Brady (Illinois politician)

Bill Brady (Illinois politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been repeatedly reverted by Bradyforillinois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others to include campaign propaganda and remove facts on the candidate. Current sections include "Taking on the Family Business" and "The Brady Record: Clean Break, Common Ground" which put forth bias information on the candidate. The original article included campaign platforms and personal history. Presently, the article is involved in an edit war that is unproductive.

• • • UPDATE 5 - 2:07 pm *** Someone added references to campaign supporter/backer/person for accuracy’s sake. That person (bclaire54 of http://bclaire54.wordpress.com) may be Brady’s niece.

User:BradyforIllinois reported to WP:UAA as a user name violation. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, that article is poor, and has suffered from subtle and not-so-subtle POV-pushing by people politically opposed to the subject. The article's odd section ordering, where all of the information on the highly controversial political stances taken by this politician are mentioned first in the article ahead of everything else, has been questioned on the talk page. And I've spotted one source already that has been abused and editorialized upon in order to cast negative aspersions. Both sets of POV-pushing are unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Percy Gibson

Does this person deserve an article? He seems to be of no significance other than his marriage. Trudyjh (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He's the fifth husband of Joan Collins. Could redirect there perhaps. Rd232 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Fences&Windows 23:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anurag Dikshit

Anurag Dikshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a single pupose IP address and new user is repeatedly removing references (and external links) from this article, and completely removing a section on a guilty plea the subject entered (which is about 40% of his notability) while adding a bunch of off-topic stuff. This is the most recent stable version.

• Joproffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new single purpose account
• JamesmaharrisonPRO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - second/sockpuppet account
• 62.49.31.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - IP address of same user

Tolkien family

The article has been protected for two weeks because of an edit war over BLP data of Royd Tolkien (whose name was changed to "Baker" in the article by an IP in 2009) and a certain Christopher Carrie. The issue is about the mentioning of a court case Christopher Carrie vs Royd Tolkien which Carrie lost . A look at the edit history of the article shows several edits by and IP calling a link to www.poynter.org inaccurate and then another IP adding a lifetime (1946-2010) to the name Christopher Carrie. In April 2010, User:Ddgrant and User:Solicitr had a discussion on the article talk page about allegedly untrue statements about an earlier criminal history of Carrie. Recently now a User:Christopher Carrie has turned up and engaged in removing any reference to that name from the article, calling the sources given "bogus" and threatening R. Tolkien to be sued again if his helpers would edit the article again: .

Apart from that court case which was called a precedent in the article and has made it to certain law blogs and law news websites, Royd being the great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, and a cameo appearance in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the section did not say anything about Royd Tolkien's notability and importance as of this edit. That is maybe why User:EdJohnston proposed to omit the entire section. It turns out though that he is in the film producing business, e.g. Pimp (film) and another 2010 movie "Tontine Massacre", and also plays a role in Pimp . He also has his own literary agency.

For the record, I have reverted two of User:Christopher Carrie's deletions because his arguments seemed to be biased and I would even regard him as an SPA. It has also been speculated at AN3 that he is a sock of Ddgrant. I have moreover notified Solicitr but all in all I had no idea of this recent edit war until 2 days ago. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that I'm with EdJohnston. Your edit here was well-intentioned, but based upon a superficial analysis that a SPA was edit-warring, and wrong. Much as it displeases me, I find myself in agreement over article content with a edit-warring sock-puppetting (more on which later) legal-threatening single-purpose account.

  I agree absolutely with this limited removal of content. The accusation of blackmail is poorly sourced, and the identification of the person is an unacceptable inference being made by Misplaced Pages editors firsthand, based upon nothing but the existence of a name in a listing. Our content policies prohibit both. They also prohibit the subtle threats that you observed. I agree with this more extensive removal of content in that this is not discussed in sources as anything to do with either parties to the action, but as a source of subtle change in English libel law. If anything, discussion of this lawsuit belongs in its proper context in articles on English defamation law. It is not biographical to either party. But it is a point of English law that has been discussed by Lilian Edwards, a professor of Law, as such. I have no disagreement (and indeed no opinion) over that section up to the point of the word "Osgiliath", although I strongly suggest that sources be found to support all of it before any effort is made to restore it.

  As to sockpuppetry, even if it weren't explicitly stated in the court decision that M. Carrie logs in under pseudonyms and assumes personae, it's fairly clear that there's sockpuppetry here. I hold Ddgrant (talk · contribs) and Ddgrant2010 (talk · contribs) to be sockpuppets on their face, and have revoked the latter account's editing privileges. (One account only in a dispute, people!) Given that it is reliably sourcable that M. Carrie lives/lived in Solihull, it's also fairly clear to me, from behavioural and geolocation evidence, that 81.86.100.254 (talk · contribs), 86.129.65.231 (talk · contribs), 82.46.191.221 (talk · contribs), and Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs) are all one single person. There's no overlap in edit times, the IP addresses are all parts of dynamically-assigned blocks for ISPs, and since it is plausible that this person will use the named account only from now on, I have taken no action there, although any further progress down the road of threatening legal action, or use of multiple accounts and IP addresses in the future, will of course lead to revocation of editing privileges by me or another administrator. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I agree with you that the lawsuit does not belong into a biographical overview, it may be added to English defamation law though. So I suggest the following for the article "Tolkien family":

1. We restore the name "Royd Tolkien" per the court record, IMDB and his official website. But let's mention "Baker" too, as his (unsourced) entry at Tolkien Gateway explains how he usually uses his mother's surname instead of his birth bame Baker .
2. Restoration of the section until "Osgiliath"; the appearance in the film is sourced by IMDB.
3. We add Royd Tolkien's other business activities, such as acting in and producing films plus being a literary agent. The combination of all this asserts notability — if not for a standalone article at least for this section.

De728631 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with De728631 - I think this is an efficient solution. Furthermore I think further discussion re the notability of the court ruling is one for others - perhaps for the English defamation law and related talk pages? isfutile:P (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment copied here from the article's talk page:

The issue appears to be one of Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else.) A search on google and cached pages revealed his website http://www.jtolkien.com has recently been taken down. The information contained in section in question of the WP Tolkien Family entry appears to be properly sourced and verifiably sourced. Whether all of this meets WP notability standards is another question - however this point could be applied (and has been in the past judging by this talk page) to much of the Tolkien Family article. However, the court ruling in 2009 does meet notability criteria on google hits alone and does appear to be a notable precedent in internet/blogging and defamation law in the UK. isfutile:P (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you (and of course anyone else interested) work up some properly sourced and neutral text for that section on the article's talk page. Leave out the court case entirely and concentrate on the stuff that, apparently, has been swept along for the ride. EdJohnston, I, or another administrator will happily put it into the article. But while we're dealing with this issue, let's set the bar high, and ensure that the content that we put in is up to Misplaced Pages standards. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Novice User: Christopher CarrieFirst I did not lose the case, the case was never tried it was struck out, however the case is certainly worthy of mention and I have no objection – I do object to the text which states Christopher Carrie attempted to extort money from the Tolkien Family and Christopher Carrie tried to blackmail Fr John Tolkien both those statements are untrue an invention of Manches LLP the Tolkien family solicitors and broadcast by Royd Tolkien – The sources said to substantiate those libels ie the Sun Newspaper and something called Anonova do not support the claim – there is no police record of such activity and surely if it was true the police would be the first port of call for any Tolkien.I am not good at using the Internet therefore Royd Baker runs rings around me in bullying and slandering, his purpose is to deflect attention from victims of his distant relative Fr John Tolkien - Fr Tolkien was arrested by the West-Midlands police following multiple accusations of child molestation - The West-Midlands police forwarded his case to the Crown Prosecution Services - the case past the evidential stage but was not continued on the grounds of Fr Tolkien's failing health - As far as (Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else) Christopher Carrie stands on his own two feet and has no puppet affiliate - if Misplaced Pages are happy to print libelous comments made by a self seeking egotist such as Royd Baker go ahead and do so - the truth will out Royd Baker's comments supported by puppets are lies and the truth will be just that - for the purpose of clarity I will be posting the full dealings of the court hearing Carrie v Tolkien on MY website http://jtolkien.com for lawyers and anyone else interested to see how and why my libel case against Royd Tolkien was struck out. 17:16 1st August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Carrie (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Carrie More to the point; I did not lose the High Court Action HO: 08X00693 issued by me against Royd Tolkien. Best & Soames the defendants’ solicitors applied to have the case struck out on the basis it had no prospect of succeeding. Sir David Eady agreed with that premise given that law firm Ross & Craig who represented me up until three days before the hearing had listed the wrong domain address in the claim rendering the prospect of sucess void. Foolishly I pressed on unrepresented acting as litigant in person, a lamb to the slauter standing alone against a team of barristers and solicitors. Unsurprisingly the action was struck out on this technicality in favour of the defendant. Consent in this, my case, should not be considered to have set a precedent by any other finding themself in a similar position. Royd Baker should not be credited with winning this case, Ross & Craig my solicitors gifted strike out to the defendant.User talk:Christopher Carrie 2nd August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Carrie (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hardy

BLP dispute at this article history over the inclusion of claims about the subject's sexuality. Reverts from multiple editors pro-inclusion and con-, experienced outside input appreciated. Skomorokh 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been reported in sources like the Daily Mail. But they are quoting an interview given to Attitude. So my question to people here is, does the inclusion of something from what we consider a lesser source in better ones, for example Daily Mail, give us the right to publish it on the better source's authority? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While I think that the Daily Mail and similar tabloids are quite weak sources too, they at least generate publicity, so I'd say we can use the "better" source's authority in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The original source is fairly vague, the better sources even more so (the Mirror is a shoddy source; "string" - not supported by the original material at all :P). A lot of boys experiment in their teens so it is hardly unique for his biography. Throwaway comment in a popular interview - I'd say keep it out unless a better source emerges with more detail --Errant Tmorton166 20:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. But I was under the impression that the Daily Mail was pretty good, is that untrue? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is it is reportage of the original piece... I see where you are coming from - but I think it is reasonable to judge the relevance of material and the source in this case due to it simply being regurgitation. I agnostic though if people consider the DM a reliable source (lets not go there ;)) and stick it in --Errant Tmorton166 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is his sexuality a part of his notability? That attitude link doesn't give me the interview? Never the mirror, why is his sexuality an issue? Is it just like, my names **** and I'm a ****** If we had a link to the actual interview we may understand if it is noteworthy.Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, really I thought tmorton166's first reason for leaving it out was better... it's just not really a very notable thing. Personally, I think it is true and accurate, due to the multiple (non-RS) sources with no rebuttal from Hardy. And if it were worthy of being in the bio, I think endorsement of the material by the Daily Mail, however bad its politics, is sufficient for RS. But I'm really not sure it should be there for the reason he said. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it could well be likely possible true, he says it was not a big deal to him and he messed around when he was younger, personally I don't see any notable reason reason to include. I suppose the mail (which has a better reputation that the mirror and is pretty widely used on wikipedia and is a reliable source) article is the same content as the mirror? From what I can see so far I think its not notable to include..Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my main concern. It doesn't seem notable within the context of his life. And it doesn't seem notable in general (i.e. it is not unusual for teens to experiment sexually). If this is a major thing in his life more solid sources will appear eventually :) (for the record; I was only joshing about the *spit* Mail *spit* :)) --Errant Tmorton166 20:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Mail story for anyone to form an opinion http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298384/Inception-hunk-Tom-Hardy-admits-Ive-sexual-relations-men.html. The big issue for me is that without any additional notable factors we should avoid asserting that men having sex with men is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth mentioning. What would we say? "In an interview with Attitude, Hardy said he'd had some sexual experiences with men years ago and wasn't now interested in men". Meh. Fences&Windows 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Blumas

Why has Trevor Blumas's page been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiagale (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone proposed the article for deletion and the concerns they raised per policy were not addressed within 7 days. --Errant Tmorton166 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Blumas, yes deleted by User_talk:Phantomsteve in March 2010, if you want to work on the article you could ask him to userfy it for you and you could improve it in your userspace. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariastella Gelmini

The last paragraph of Mariastella Gelmini's current biography contains quite a few non-factual, political statements. Certains words ("privileging", "analogally") also seem to be phonetic transliterations from Italian and certainly do not yet exist in the English language. I humbly suggest this paragraph ought to be scrapped.

"She has been heavily criticized by students, teachers and other state school employees for a new law which she drafted, that will weaken the Italian state school sector whilst privileging the private education sector (mostly owned by the Roman Church); Analogally, she tried to give more power to the religion teacher currently employed in every public school and chosen by the local bishop, by giving them the same right to vote for a student as the other teacher (each one of them had instead to pass complex public exams to obtain his/her desk) had; thanks to her religion teachers also grow more rapidly than any other teacher a seniority that contributes to both their wages and their retirement treatment. Recently (October 2008), demonstrations have taken place all over Italy in order to try and stop the new law, known as Law 133. It gained final approval on October 29, 2008." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excel27 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was a bit skewed but it was broadly correct. I've replaced it with a sourced sentence about the protests against the law. Fences&Windows 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold

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

This article is biased, defamatory, libelous, material has been taken entirely out of context in order to portray a one-sided narrative Biased story. Plain and simple.

There is no basis to support that I am closely aligned with or associated with the subject of this article or I am the author. The issues discussed in the entry for Salon are wrong and this article from the Village Voice contains commentary from Paul Krugman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner as well as Salon, that balances out and makes it more neutral. The editors of the Jason Leopold article simply refuse to include anything about Leopold that would add neutrality to the story. This needs to be included to replace the what is there:

In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article from its website authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had not been adequately credited from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that an email had been "misquoted" according to a report in the Village Voice. As the Voice notes "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." Salon never used the word "plagiarism," according to a report in the Village Voice and Leopold, as the Voice report notes, said the story was credited twice http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/ Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q". The Voice reported and quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who picked up the article: "Obviously, Leopold made mistakes, but it's not at all clear they justify a full repudiation of the story or a revocation of his journalistic license. As Paul Krugman told the Voice, "Everything else in that story checked out. The substance of his reporting was entirely correct." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the IP has both made claims to being Mr. Leopolds attorney and to having no connection to Mr. Leopold . Active Banana (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP had a clear COI (note, claiming to be someones attorney is usually a bad idea on wikipedia) and perhaps it is better to discuss his issues here. As I see it there are cites that refer to plagiarism and there were issues, I don't see any problem? Its all op eds and this opinionated editorial is nothing to write home about so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point something out, and I'm sure all will agree, so I'm only saying this for emphasis. Particularly for the purposes of the BLP Noticeboard, the conflict of interest that may or may not be exhibited by the ip number is of no concern. We are only interested in seeking the truth and a thoughtful, carefully written biography that does not give undue weight to negative claims. The ip may or may not be misbehaving in some way; I propose that we let others worry about that. Our task is to get the article right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely not an oped! It's a report from the Village Voice and includes a quote from Paul Krugman about the substance of the story in question that is included. If nothing to write home about then why not include it? Where does it say that this is an oped? As the Voice story notes, Salon said the story is still available on Lexis, does not state the story is plagiarized, shows evidence that the Financial Times was credited and states that the email in question was "misquoted." It's absolutely relevant. Why are you so determined to be biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/1.. the village voice.....Our Leopold article has a few issues, COI being no one of the least and too much detail supported by primary reports including many from the subject himself. We currently have this, if someone could have a good look at it to see if it is all correct...you will notice the message from the editors and an apology to its readers.. "this sort of plagiarism is a serious breach of journalistic trust"....Personally, a retraction of the article and an apology, which included a mention of plaglarism is quite substantial imo. Perhaps we could add a rebuttal from the village voice article but the comments should not be given authoritative weight and should be attributed correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• - In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had been plagiarized from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that key portions of the story could not be corroborated. Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q". Leopold's article shows that he cited the Financial Times 3 times in his report, although he used 7 paragraphs verbatim from the story in question. Leopold initially said he believed that the FT had used one of his wire articles and that "I had written the story first and that the FT stole it from me". In his reply to Salon, Leopold admits that his quoting of the Financial Times was a careless mistake and insisted that Salon had all the relevant documents, including the email, before the story was published.

• - http://www.salon.com/letters/editor/2002/10/01/note/index.html

• - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

• - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00063.htm

• Whatever. Despite this rhetoric overflow above, it's pretty clear to me and apparently to many others that there is a COI here--if you'll look at their reversals of a simple copy edit of mine it's obvious that rhetoric is the goal. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that there is much more to this story, based on the Village Voice report, and Salon's letter to Romenesko. You rely entirely on one or two sources and fail to give this any balance. The editors have extrapolated. Salon had changed its story several times based on links that can be found on Google. First they did not use the word plagiarism, then they said the email was misquoted. Leopold's assertion that Salon was under pressure from the Bush White House should be considered. This is not black and white. And Paul Krugman plays an important role since he picked up that story and quoted it and that is what sparked this backlash. So what he says at the end of that Village Voice story is important and as the Voice notes it is not clear what exactly happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The editors and other contributors to this article have absolutely failed to take the time to search for other relevant stories and articles that can be used to balance this out. In doing so, they have shown how biased they are. I challenge the neutrality of this article. I have done a search of numerous other wikipedia articles on journalists and have seen examples of how these individuals have the same cites that are being objected to here. Misplaced Pages must apply the same standard across the board. At this stage, Leopold is being singled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unsigned person, what are you talking about? I'm not relying on anything at all--I am just noticing that you have too much passion for this article and treat Misplaced Pages as a resume (maybe not your own, but I don't care about that). Your rhetorical flourishes, the name dropping, the "look who else mentioned this guy," it's got nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Many of your edits show a blatant disregard for whatever common sense and Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest for objective writing, and remarks like "just do a Google search" are evidence of your misapprehension of that Misplaced Pages is. Why don't you just start a Facebook group for the subject? Drmies (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely does as based on the dozens of other entries of journalists that I reviewed. Why are you not applying the same standard? Again, this is a biased article and lacks neutrality and the powers that be must immediately do something to address it. Instead of attacking me why don't you point to specific examples of where my contributions show "a blatant disregard for whatever common sense..." And I will show you examples of other similar entries that contain identical contributions. So which is it?

And this is an entry that should be included and I'd like to know why it continuously is being pulled?

Bush Administration's Torture Program

Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been discussed and cited by Countdown with Keith Olbermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, The Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/search-results?cx=002266174228027960838%3Azfnctxmj5lc&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=jason+leopold&sa=Search&siteurl=washingtonindependent.com%2F#581 Harper's Magazine http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004094, http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004387.

And one of Leopold's exclusive reports on the first high-value prisoner's, Abu Zubaydah http://www.truth-out.org/government-quietly-recants-bush-era-claims-about-%22high-value%22-detainee-zubdaydah58151, may have helped the case of a Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be innocent, in what the Ottawa Citizen described as a "bombshell report," citing Leopold's work http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Harkat+gets+bombshell+help+from+declassified+documents/2749092/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Declassified+documents+present+bombshell+revelations+case+against+accused+terrorist+Harkat/2750542/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• We're headed into Misplaced Pages:Too long; didn't read territory. You could try to address the issue. For instance, what is the point of adding Krugman's Nobel prize? Why not add his date of birth or his astrological sign? Or is the answer, because Krugman has a Nobel prize our subject is a good guy? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Well just look at it, its a load of rubbish, detrimental to the article. Also, it is promotional fluff with hardly a mention of yourself. This is a biography not an advert or a resume Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You and I know that, but I was hoping to turn this into a teachable moment and prevent blocks and protection and all that... Drmies (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Attn Misplaced Pages moderators: The contributors here are including defamatory material by extrapolating from multiple sources to build a biased AND UNTRUE narrative. They consistently misrepresent and make absolutely untrue claims about this article and refuse to include contributions highlighting the author's work even though similar contributions appear for other articles. Please address this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The material in the new section "allegations of plagiarism" is wrong and relies almost entirely on Salon, whose story was called into question as can be seen by the Village Voice. The editors here continue to claim this is a biography but fail to even make the slightest attempt to provide balance to this article and when someone else attempts to the material is wiped clean. This must be addressed as they are now entering into libelous and defamatory territory as can be seen by the legal letter on the talk page

The entire section is wholly out of context. According to the Village Voice, "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 In a correction published by Salon, the news magazine, according to the Village Voice "does not use the term 'plagiarism.' "The correction also states that White's alleged e-mail was misquoted. It should have read, "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." Salon decided to respond after Leopold went public with his story being removed from the website.

• I finally read through this, and the section was indeed biased in my view. Using the word 'plagiarism' is too strong for this case, especially in the section title. I don't see why editors have been so insistent on writing this to slant it against Leopold, it's like people want it to be a hit piece. I've edited the section to make it more neutral (and to copyedit it, which it badly needed). Fences&Windows 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is still a biased article and as long as bonewah is around making edits it will continue to be. Each attempt to add factual material to balance it out is met with an immediate edit. This is wrong and something must be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No one must do anything. I'd drop that attitude straight away. Please take a moment to calm down, back out of the personal dispute with Bonewah (which appears to be no longer focused on the content), review the Misplaced Pages policies on biographies and try to make constructive edits to the article. --Errant Tmorton166 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When I first wrote the section concerning Salon and Leopold it didnt have the word plagiarism in the title , and I used the phrase "Following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had been plagiarized from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject." because the source (Salon) says "On Sept. 17, an editor at the Financial Times contacted Salon and expressed concern that some material in Leopold's story might have been plagiarized from an article that ran in his newspaper on Feb. 4, 2002. " and "In the absence of any corroborating evidence to support Leopold's version of events, we decided to post a correction noting what we reluctantly had to conclude was an instance of plagiarism." which sounds exactly like they were concerned about plagiarism. I disagree that the word plagiarism is too strong for the title, given what the sources say, but I never challenged your edits that changed it. Furthermore, I have added a number of citations for claims that previously were tagged with a citation needed, and, where I couldnt verify the claims, I removed them. If the net result of that is an article that is unflattering to Leopold, so be it, in my view, balance does not mean add something good for everything bad.

However, I will admit that tmorton166 is right, of late, my discussions have been mostly unproductive, and, if people think it would help, id be happy to refrain from editing this article for an extended period of time. I only ask, that the article be page protected again, if the IP wants to change the article he can gain consensus on the talk page. Bonewah (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a longstanding dispute over whether a specific sentence belongs in this article. This is the most recent diff adding it: The sentence describes a negative story relating to this person which circulated in 2008, although it notes (as the source does) that this story was a baseless smear. These allegations only seem to have been reported in a single reliable source. The question is, is this a BLP violation? I believe it is; it is not significant enough to belong in a neutral biography, and casts a negative light on both the subject and another notable politician. The main counterargument seems to be 'but this rumour is all she's notable for!' - however, as the article has been kept twice at AfD, once before the rumour existed (1st,2nd), this does not seem to be the case. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think smear campaigns deserve coverage. Keep it out. If all the smears involved in US politics went into BLPs, there'd not be room for anything else. Fences&Windows 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this. there should be clear consensus for inclusion if it is to stay it seems.--Tom (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Its certainly been reported by more than one reliable source. What about here and here? What basis is there to remove it besides partisanship? It's sourced to the Times of London and you can't get more RS than that. If you look at the article on Rush Limbaugh, the biggest section is about his prescription drug use. Huma's salary from Hillary's campaign was about $10,000 for six months, yet somehow she could afford a $649,000 apartment in DC. Kauffner (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides partisanship, it's sleazy,bs, muckracking, gerbil up the azz garbage. I am unemployed and live in a half million dollar house on the water. So what! Reliably sourced garbage is still garbage. feel free to add it to your blog or Twitter page. --Tom (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - baseless rumours have no place in articles. It was simply a smear campaign. Kauffner's question of how she managed to live in that apartment is idle speculation. And did you actually read the New York Observer article? Not a mention of the gossip. And The Insider's post says that "This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from The Insider editorial staff." Sheesh. Kauffner, who are you trying to kid? Fences&Windows 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So the Times of London is somehow not good enough as a source? It's not news that Hillary is bi. That was in Gennifer Flowers book back in 1995. ("Honey - she's probably eaten more p---- than I have," p. 41.) The Congressional travel records show that Hillary is much closer to Abedin than to any other member of her her staff. (Money NYT quote: "Even when Bill and Hillary escape for a relaxing Caribbean vacation, Abedin is part of their entourage.") Abedin is routinely described as very beautiful, extremely quiet, and not all that interested in politics. Kidding no! I tried writing a joke here before, but that was deleted, I assume in accordance with the "no kidding" rule. Kauffner (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Times says it is a smear attack. It doesn't belong in the article, and your BLP violation doesn't belong here either. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be used to propagate smears and attack politicians. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Kauffner, its probably time to put down the stick and move away from this horse. I think I ask above, does any other editor think this rumor should be included in this BLP? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Tvoz/talk 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Above, Kauffner writes: Its certainly been reported by more than one reliable source. What about here and here? What basis is there to remove it besides partisanship? It's sourced to the Times of London and you can't get more RS than that. ¶ The second of these linked sources is a gushy article, "Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma?", in the NY Observer. It drones on and on and my eyes glazed over at times, but here's no hint in it that I noticed of any lesbian relationship. The first is to something called "The Insider", and reads: THE Drudge Report notes: “The TIMES of London starts ‘The Ugliest Month’ with a full page photo takeout on Hillary Clinton and her beautiful personal istant.” “Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin,” reads the caption. So "The Insider" has to cite an unidentified part of Drudge in order to comment on tittle-tattle about this "istant". According to "The Insider", according to "Drudge", according to Murdoch's London broadloid, Clinton has been accused of this -- in a caption which (if it even exists) could for all we know continue "but the accusations are obvious bollocks". Can you source this within thetimes.co.uk, Kauffner, or do you expect people to put their faith in recycled Drudge? -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are claiming what, exactly? That I made it all up? Other people had already added this claim to the Huma article before I came along. It's mentioned in two articles on the Times site, here and here. I should note that the first Times story is cited in Wiki's Condoleezza Rice article to accuse her of being lesbian. Kauffner (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Condi article, I haved edited it accordingly. Poorly sourced , not widely covered muckraking rumors, should only be include in BLPs if there is overwhelming consensus for inclusion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd drop this if I were you. You clearly have an agenda to spread salacious gossip about Hillary Clinton. Misplaced Pages takes BLP issues very seriously, so your agenda has no place here. Citing Gennifer Flower's autobiography as though it is a reliable source shows your lack of judgement on this issue. Although you should read WP:OTHER, the Condoleezza Rice article places the rumour about her in context, stating that "There was speculation that she was not chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate because of rumors that she was a lesbian, which could have soured evangelicals to the ticket." I am not sure whether it really belongs, but because the rumour might have had a political impact it has more relevance in that article. Fences&Windows 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you were citing crap sources. You now cite two more. The first of these says The mainstream US media also managed to ignore one of the most read political stories on the internet last week, an account in The Times about a dirty-tricks campaign in South Carolina, including anonymous allegations that Senator Hillary Clinton is having an affair with Huma Abedin, a female member of her campaign staff. Democrat officials dismissed the allegations as an obvious attempt to smear the frontrunning presidential candidate. So yes, the Times mentions it here, but only as part of a "dirty-tricks campaign". The second says The anonymous e-mails and letters began dropping into inboxes and through front doors this summer. / One claimed that Hillary Clinton was having a lesbian affair with Huma Abedin, her beautiful aide. Welcome to South Carolina, the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America. This state’s primary race has already become the sleaziest leg of the 2008 presidential campaign. Nobody is sure who is behind the attacks on Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, but the claims of lesbianism and Islamic extremism have found fertile ground on right-wing websites. So yes, the Times reported that there was such a smear. "BLP" issues aside for a moment, does the smear tell us about Clinton, or does it tell us about South Carolina politics and right-wing websites? -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You imagine that this story was promoted by right-wing blogs to help Obama defeat Clinton in South Carolina?? It didn't originate with blogs or South Carolina, but with Michael Musto at the Village Voice months earlier. Kauffner (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina (singer)

The article is currently using a non-free promotional photo to depict the singer. The appearance of the performer is a central issue in the article and is discussed in length. Although the singer is alive it is absolutely impossible to make a free shot of her as she is living reclusively and makes every possible effort to avoid getting randomly photographed. This was reckongized as sufficient to keep the File:Mina1972 in the article (Rk tag placed). Now a user has raised the issue again, bluntly referring to this policy: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." So far we have interpreted it that as long as it is impossible to get a free photo of a living person, it is alright to use a non-free image for people whose appearance is the matter of discussion and where articles would suffer seriously from lack of image. What is the correct way to go? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the picture. If people want to see what she looks like a quick Google image search would work. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it does fit with a valid fu claim. Here likeness today (even if it could be photographed) isn't as significant as her likeness when she was performing - and you are simply not going to get a free image from that era.--Scott Mac 16:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There must be thousands of photos of her from that era in the personal collections of fans, professional photographers, and magazines. Additionally, she has what appears to be an actively maintained official site, and according to our article "In recent years, Mina has been writing a weekly column on the front page of La Stampa and a page in the Italian edition of the magazine Vanity Fair that answers fan letters." It should not be difficult to get any number of images donated under a free license. That it takes more than 15 seconds of googling, I concede. But that doesn't make it impossible!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have run an in-depth search on Google. A few years ago I contacted the minamazzini.com website with the request. They seemed happy to let Misplaced Pages use her images but I don't think they understood the concept of free license. I can assure no such image exists under any free license.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed, we are not in competion with anyone, our articles do not need pictures, and in regards to living people we do not use copyrighted pictures. Edit summary : - removing non free image from the BLP of a living person where a free picture likely is available. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Football IP Edits

The IP editor from a short while ago seems to be back editing again adding lots of stuff to BLP articles, I have to head off for now but could someone else run through any new additions for BLP issues/problems (history: this IP user has previously been adding a lot of tabloid sourced stuff to BLP articles and tended to use quite non-neutral wording - despite attempts to explain consensus policy) --Errant Tmorton166 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(BTW I think this person does know policy. For example they have made some great edits such as this but then also made ones like this. I can't see a pattern for why some articles are favoured over others!) --Errant Tmorton166 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lorenzo Amoruso

Can I get some insight on this article. Particularly this addition which I think is tabloid reportage and is not really relevant to his biography or, indeed, notable. --Errant Tmorton166 10:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That addition is pure not notable tabloid titillation and has no place in a wikipedia BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Entry on Mitch Miller

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/Mitch_Miller

I believe that Mitch Miller died yesterday or the day before. Sorry, but I have no written source on this - my barber (who cut Miller's hair too) received a phone call yesterday informing him of the death. No obits have appeared in the papers yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.69.8 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We really do need to wait for a reliable source to appear confirming a death before we can report it on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes this means that our noting the death is delayed a short time until there is confirmation, but you can imagine the problems that would be caused if Misplaced Pages—which is usually the number-one Google hit when a living person's name is searched—routinely published unconfirmed death reports that could be rumors, hoaxes, harassment of the subject, and so forth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reported at by MSNBC. Collect (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AP confirms - article is updated. Tvoz/talk 18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

The article has long referenced Clinton's (now current) father-in-law. It mentioned that he is a former Democratic Congressman. He was also convicted of 31 counts of fraud and served a lengthy federal prison sentence - a reference I added. References to the conviction have repeatedly been stricken, while the congressional service and party affiliation reference remain. I believe "former Democratic congressman and convicted felon" would be an appropriate reference. Otherwise... Just mention his name and let people follow the link to learn more. It isn't fair to list one historical credential and not the other. ... and the conviction is probably more historically interesting.

John2510 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about Chelsea Clinton first of all, we should not publish any negative details for other persons named in the article, unless that is their only reason for notability. The conviction of Edward Mezvinsky is explained in his article and that's where it belongs. There's nothing unfair about that but it's about good measure and about concentrating on the main topic of an article. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should just link to his name, with no further reference? ... or is there an actual policy of not publishing negatives unless that is their only notability? That would seem IMHO to be a poor policy. There needs to be fairness and balance. John2510 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you. The guys page's lead is also weighted towards the fraud disproportionately. Can some people here watchlist Edward_Mezvinsky as well as Chelsea's page? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict..Adding the criminal convictions of her father in law is clear coat-racking and unless the subject of the articles notability is related to the crimes they should clearly not be added, those crime details belong on his article alone. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Things will probably die down in a few days. Chelsea isn't that big of a celeb any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I made it a straight reference to the father-in-law's name (which is linked). I think that restores balance and neutrality. I don't think we're in the business of "only saying the good things" about a reference. John2510 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No we're not John but the fact that the person is or was involved in politics is a related notability and could happily stay in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Any "related notability" is insignficiant. It's certainly more historically signficant that the daughter of a President has married the son of a convicted felon. Still... balance and neutrality are maintained by leaving out both positive and negative references. John2510 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well consensus is against your POV John and it has been replaced, please do not edit war over the article and use discussion to seek support for your claims, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The negative info is in the guys article. People can read it there. Whether it's a COATRACK or not is an editorial decision, and the two uninvolved editors here feel that it is. Maybe someone will have another opinion here, but I doubt it. We err on the side of caution with BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on WP:Coatrack suggests seeking a balance of what a reader would consider notable about the person. Mentioning his congressional service, without mentioning his prison time is itself coatracking. Mainstream media articles see his felony conviction as having significance on par this his legislative office (e.g.: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/meet-marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clintons-fiance/). I'm only seeking balance and fairness here in what's notable about him. Two (or ten) other editors who want to avoid "negative info" about the in-laws, while including the positive, doesn't make it right. John2510 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, including some references because they're positive and omitting others because they're negative clearly violates Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy. For clarification... are you telling me NOT to engage in further discussion on this? If so... Wow. John2510 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We are asking you to not restore your version of the article and we furthermore DO ask you to continue this discussion. Please see WP:Edit war for the term Off2riob was referring to. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me for not making that clear and thanks to you De728631 for the clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510 does have a point: NPOV demands we include both or neither, and if BLP requires that we avoid mentioning sourced negative material in an article that he's only tangentially involved in, then that means the positive stuff goes as well. As I read it, the bare link is the best way to meet both BLP and NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have no objections to this position, its a bit pointy though. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"NPOV demands we include both or neither" No it does not. See WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." from WP:NPOV. As cited, mainstream media seem to consider the fraud conviction as relevent as the congressional history. Further, the congressional reference appears to be an inappropriate attempt at aggrandizement through choice of spouse/breeding. John2510 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

←As I pointed out on the article talk page, "Democratic congressman" is merely an identifier, and many would say not necessarily a positive one - and the reason he has his own bluelinked biography here which is the appropriate place for details of his life. This article is about Chelsea Clinton - it's not the place for going into her father-in-law's past history (or accusations against her own parents, or her uncle's conviction, by the way), but to leave off the main reason for Ed Mezvinsky's own notability - the clear lead of his own article - is a POV decision, in my view. And someone's characterization of Mezvinsky in a recent edit of Chelsea's biography as a "fraudster" I believe illustrates that this is not neutral editing.Tvoz/talk 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Think this logic is correct. If her father-in-law is notable, we give the reason for his notability, not other pointy biographical details unless they are also directly relevant to the biography of the subject of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this is an NPOV issueat all. Aside from the fact that, to many Americans, being identified as a member of Congress is not exactly positive, we're talking about relatively neutral, identifying information relating to the subject's main basis for notability. We haven't required, and shouldn't require, that the articles on David Eisenhower and Edward F. Cox mention that their father-in-law resigned the presidency in disgrace, or that he in effect admitted criminal behavior by accepting a presidential pardon. The article on Rand Paul similarly identifies his father as a congressman, but mentions no criticisms of him. This line of argument leads to absurd results; must the article on Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky include references to Bill Clinton's impeachment or the suspension of his law license simply because it identifies her son's father-in-law as a former President? Including references to the negative information about certain members in the Bush clan in articles on other members would be a full-time job. Must the article on Patrick J. Kennedy mention Chappaquiddick because it refers to his father's political career? Does the fact that the article on Prince William of Wales mentions his mother's charitable activities also require that it be balanced by Tina Brown's characterization of her as a ""spiteful, manipulative, media-savvy neurotic"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "merely an identifier." His name is merely an identifier. Mentioning his status as a former congressman has judgmental implications. If you reject that... then "convicted felon" is merely an identifier as well. As I said, I'm okay with dropping both and letting his name identify him. John2510 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Take a look at WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE sometime if you want to understand why. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read them. What do you think they say that makes my statement "nonsense?" John2510 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You've making a false equivalency, and ignoring both BLP and UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's asking you to explain your view of why they apply. Telling him he's ignoring them in light of such a request isn't a helpful addition to the dialogue. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe he's doing so from reading each and every comment he's made on this issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What he said I'm doing... is what I'm doing. Citing acronyms and being dismissive isn't engaging in discussiona and dialog on the topic. John2510 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, the editors above have taken the time to explain things to you, an editor with very little apparent experience at editing Misplaced Pages. Could you please spend some time and try to understand what they are saying, rather than repeatedly advancing the same arguments. Otherwise, you'll start to look like a disruptive, single-purpose account, and those situations usually don't end very well. Best regards, and I hope you hang around and do a lot to improve the encyclopedia, Jehochman 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, In my experience, condescension only tends to inflame conflicts. If you'd care to participate in the substance of the discussion, that would be great. Regards. John2510 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You quoted on my talk page (which I appreciate), "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My post on the conviction appears to me to be at least reasonably weighted with his congressional service. News reports on the wedding (as cited above) seem to support that. Do people have an argument to the contrary? Similarly, my post seems to meet the three elements of BLP you cite: 1) neutrality; 2) verifiability; and 3) not original research.

The answer to the "Undue Weight" and "Coatracking" alleagations is found in an honest answer to the following: Which is more noteworthy to the average reader? - "President's daughter marries son of former congressman" or "President's daughter marries son of convicted felon, just out of federal prison." The former appears to be purely an attempt at aggrandizing the subject through her choice of mate, while the latter is ironic and unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The question might instead be which appears more noteworthy to reliable sources writing on the topic of C Clinton's wedding? --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if we were writing an article about the wedding, but even then BLP would trump NPOV. Of course, we're not writing an article about the wedding, so we're not going to pretend otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage, then. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Same answer. The article is about Clinton. It doesn't even have a sub-section about her wedding or marriage. It has one sentence about her marriage. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so our source for that one sentence should be reliable sources writing about her marriage. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/sunday/main6733650.shtml. Wait... crap - it mentions the fraud conviction. Maybe we should keep looking until we find one that fits our biases better? John2510 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources. Plural. And its also not about what the sources mention, it's about how they describe the father in law. If "congressman and fraudster" is a common formulation, then I concede. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the article: "The groom is the son of two former Members of Congress, one of whom, Ed Mezvinsky, served time for fraud." That's the first one that came up when I Googled "Chelsea fraud." There are many others. John2510 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the fact that John2510's only current editing interest seems to be arguing about this point to be deeply unimpressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the redaction of FormerIP's comments on this page is necessary. Although there is disagreement as to whether Mr. Mezvinski's conviction should be prominently mentioned in discussing Chelsea Clinton's marriage, the fact of such conviction is undisputed, it is reported in his own article here on Misplaced Pages, and I don't see how we can discuss whether or not to include it in the Clinton article without at least mentioning it in passing here. In other words, while the letter and spirit of the BLP policy apply in all namespaces, this is not the type of unsourced, negative speculation or libel that it would be inappropriate to mention on a discussion page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The term was already identified as an inappropriate characterization (1 August 2010 (UTC)), and no source has been provided demonstrating otherwise. The discussion has moved well into WP:POINT. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the allegation of WP:POINT, I think it's notworthy that I created the discussion here to avoid an edit and disruption in the page itself - which currently contains the edit I dispute. I'm hoping for a fair resolution. The "inappropriate characterization" allegations are not valid, for the reasons stated. John2510 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Identified by what authority? Go away. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to Ronz) I agree with you that including this characterization in Chelsea Clinton is probably not desirable. My point is just that given all the discussion above, I don't see redacting the term as necessary or helpful on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove the BLP violation again, despite BLP requiring us to do so. I will request the editor be blocked if he makes another such violation. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please identify how you believe my edits (adding the reference to the conviction or achieving neutrality by simply linking to the name) constitute a BLP violation. John2510 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, as you observed, you initated the discussion here to seek input on this issue. The consensus seems to be strongly against your view. I suggest that you drop the matter, as your interest in it is clearly disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I tell my friends that Misplaced Pages isn't just a vote of what people want to see. I'd like to think I'm right... but maybe not. John2510 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No general conclusions should be drawn from the fact that consensus is against you in one instance. I've been editing here for a long time, and I certainly wouldn't have lasted or been very happy here if I'd taken it personally every time people disagreed with one of my edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John, regardless of the rightness of your arguments, admins here are quick to intervene (or trigger happy if you must) when it comes to BLP issues (or even just perceived BLP issues). At this point, enough editors have disagreed with your interpretation of our "rules", that you are risking being sanctioned. Almost everything we decide on is a grey area, and there is no supreme court (other than the one that Newyorkbrad actually is a part of, since you may not know), so being right when a bunch of other editors disagree is the same thing as being wrong. So, decide if being right is worth being blocked, in which case perform more reverts. Or, continue this discussion, and you may convince some people, although I doubt it. I have no grudge against you, so I just want to tell you what I've seen, and a likely outcome. I say this, because a bad experience early in ones career frequently causes editors to leave and never come back, and I want you to stay. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I initiated discussion on this at an early stage, and haven't reverted since the contentiousness of this subject became apparent. My edits to seek neutrality have been removed. If I risk sanction by even discussing the subject, then so be it. Several of you seem to be attempting to make the point with me that I should defer to your experience in the absence of reason. I've been here long enough to know that sort of elitism isn't appropriate here. John2510 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What other accounts, if any, were you using during that lengthy time? (Your current account has fewer than 100 edits.) You risk being sanctioned because you have carried on the discussion way beyond it's useful end. Jehochman 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Coles

• Robert Coles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-

The "Controversy" subsection violates several aspects of BLP policy. The editorial agenda is obvious and transparent. It maligns and disparages Dr. Coles’ reputation. The general tone of the passage and the subhead itself are in no sense “broadly neutral.” On the contrary, they are narrow and contentious. The supposed accusations raised in the passage are neither verifiable nor neutral. The allegation itself is isolated to a single published source—a book review by a music critic—and relies on hearsay, opinion, and undocumented attribution. Specifically, the writer relies on a single phone conversation. It is not notable, relevant, documented or substantiated anywhere in the vast secondary literature on Dr. Coles’ writing. As such, the “Controversy” section creates controversy where there is none. Harmful, contentious, negative in tone, and poorly sourced, the section makes for a grossly disproportionate biographical profile. As such, it deserves deletion. According to Misplaced Pages policy, "contentious material about living persons that is . . . poorly sourced . . . should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Material that is “negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once . . . " I have deleted the offending material twice. It has been reverted both times. How do I get deletions to stick? // Cooperddc (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read the only source provided for the allegations, an editorial about Bruce Springsteen by D. Hajdu, I'd say that the only criticism is coming from Will Percy, denying his uncle's "comments" on Springsteen. But I wouldn't go so far as to call the section harmful and contentious. The conclusion drawn from Hajdu's article seems to be wrong and exaggerated though. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cooperddc continues to remove this material despite comments from several editors e.g. at BLP Noticeboard explaining why removal isn't justified, at least not as a BLP issue. Can I have a hand here? EEng (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrion Aubry

• Jeffrion Aubry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nycapple123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hakeem Jeffries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 66.104.201.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A BLP on a New York State Assemblyman, was fairly stable at this version. A new user, single purpose account Nycapple123 started editing the article, his edits are full of peacockery and weasel words. I attempted to revert them a couple times and advised the user to use references to back up his information and to discuss the changes on the talk page, but the user did not respond just re-reverted without explanation. Since we're at the point of breaking WP:3RR, I'm bringing it to the noticeboard's attention. It's also potentially a WP:COI, given the SPA and the photo the user uploaded which I can't find on the web. — raekyT 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding another page of relevance and the user's IP that he is also editing with. Hakeem Jeffries is being edited the same way with same problems as previous article. — raekyT 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is potentially resolved, the user was banned then unbanned and is now closely being monitored and edits filtered due to COI. — raekyT 04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

John Clark (actor/director)

• John Clark (actor/director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-

I stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago and immediately felt its tone was not neutral. From examining the history it became obvious it was mostly the work of User:JohnClarknew who also happens to be the subject of the article. I therefore posted a Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest template, which was promptly deleted by User:JohnClarknew. Since then I have removed a lot of P.O.V. and added some well referenced and neutral toned content. User:JohnClarknew has now reverted all of my changes.

User:JohnClarknew displays ownership of this article and seems unable to understand or is willing to ignore Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No original research. Memphisto (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

National/ethnic identity lists

I have a query about the applicability of BLP to lists of people by national or ethnic identity, which I posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons since it is about a specific group of lists, but also about the applicability of BLP in policy terms. Opinions would be appreciated on the BLP talk page. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann (climate change BLP)

Michael E. Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:ATren wants to add material to Michael E. Mann#Climatic Research Unit emails to present a number of allegations of corruption and misconduct made against the subject of the article by one Patrick Michaels. The source for this text is this op-ed column from the Wall Street Journal. The section of the article in question is a summary that links out to Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Although the article already refers to Michaels' claims, ATren wants to present a much longer version of those claims, quoting from emails that were stolen and published by a hacker last November.

The following table compares what is there now with what ATren wants to add:

Several editors, including myself, are concerned with this proposal, which raises issues relating to BLP's rules on how to deal with criticism and praise. The main problems are that:

• it represents WP:UNDUE weight on the views of one individual, with no indication of why his views might be more significant than anyone else's, devoting more attention to his claims than to those of every other commentator put together;
• it presents one-sided claims of wrongdoing without any acknowledgement that they have been rejected by Michael E. Mann's university;
• it presents cherry-picked, out of context quotes from stolen emails without any explanation of what they relate to (which would require a lengthy digression);
• it presents entirely speculative claims of corruption, which I feel are unfit for inclusion;
• resolving these issues would unbalance the entire article, making what is supposed to be a summary section into a WP:COATRACK focusing on fringe allegations made by one man.

I'd be grateful for views on what other editors think of this. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems overly detailed (2nd version) - we don't need to go into that level of detail - people who want that level of information can go to the source and check there. Exxolon (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Several points:

• First off: ChrisO is a long time partisan in this debate, and he is whitewashing this article because he is sympathetic to Mann's views.
• Second: ChrisO is hardly the person to be defending BLP standards -- just last week he edit-warred to include a whole paragraph on harsh criticism from an unpublished source into the BLP of Christopher Monckton -- someone ChrisO doesn't agree with. Now he's trying to suppress the Wall Street Journal for someone he likes. The criticism ChrisO added to Monckton was literally published on some obscure professor's university web page. The juxtaposition of these two conflicts is clear evidence of ChrisO's POV pushing in this topic area.
• As for this specific case, the criticism is impeccably sourced and represents the opinions of many others. Even George Monbiot, a longtime supporter of mainstream climate science, was highly critical of the behavior of the Climategate scientists.
• Furthermore, Chris's version omits one of the major points of criticism, and embeds what remains into another paragraph which exonerates Mann. Well, the whole point of the criticism was that the private inquiries were themselves flawed, but ChrisO conveniently omits that point and makes it appear that the inquiries were the final word. This is typical of the POV pushing in this topic area, where even well-sourced and valid criticism is presented in such a way to minimize or even debunk the criticism. This was a huge controversy which generated worldwide coverage; devoting just a single sentence to criticism is clearly POV. And again, when compared to BLPs on the other side of the debate, where far less notable criticism (sometimes even blog sourced!) is covered in detail, the lack of criticism here is startlingly POV.
• Finally, this is not even a BLP issue. There is no question that the criticism is very well sourced, it's a notable criticism of a very notable event. ChrisO's arguments are about weight and notability, not BLP -- and he's wrong on all counts. The criticism needs to be described in greater detail, and in its own paragraph. That's how its regularly done on other BLPs in this topic area.

If this criticism is muted or whitewashed as ChrisO is suggesting, then I hope the BLP editors here would also help to clean up the other BLPs I've alluded to, BLPs which ChrisO and others have polluted with unweighty and poorly-sourced claims. ATren (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Also note, ChrisO implies that his version is the "current version" -- it's not. I added my version of the criticism and he edit-warred to whitewash it, so there is no "current" version, just his preferred (whitewashed) and mine. ATren (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed a portion of ChrisO's "proposed" summary

Note: ChrisO copied the same two sentences twice, making my proposed edit seem much longer than it really was. I've corrected his mistake, because I never proposed that version. ATren (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

George Lusztig

There's an ongoing dispute about whether we should add George Lusztig's complete date of birth. According to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Lusztig requested to have his birthdate removed (OTRS ticket 2010080110026197). As a matter of fact, however, Lusztig's DOB has been published in the International Who's Who, which is available on Google Books. That means it makes no sense to censor this information on Misplaced Pages. The Wiki policy (WP:DOB) isn't clear on this, and it seems like its interpretation has been debated since recently. So, what to do in this case? —bender235 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is he asking for his year of birth to be removed or just not have the exact date in the article? The year of birth gives sufficient context for his birth, we don't need the exact date - if he's requested removal, we should be conservative and leave it out - it's not a necessary inclusion. Exxolon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what he asked for exactly, but User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry left his year of birth in, so I guess that's okay with Lusztig. Anyway, I don't see why Misplaced Pages has to be censored in this case, when the International Who's Who (re-)publishes Lusztig's exact birthdate every year. His DOB has been published already, why shouldn't Misplaced Pages do it, too? —bender235 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We tend to be very conservative with BLPs due to our high visibility on the internet, our BLP policy is formulated with this in mind. If a subject requests removal of a piece of information and removal does not conflict with our core policies we generally do so. We would not for instance remove an arrest and conviction in the public record, but we might well remove intimate details of medical procedures. Exxolon (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, that would make sense if Lusztig's date of birth was unpublished. But it is publicly accessible on Google Books. Right now, his Misplaced Pages article is censored but refers to his International Who's Who entry as source, where anyone can see his birthdate. This is utter nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Young, Craig (01 July 2009). "AIDS Denialism: A South African Tragedy". GayNZ. New Zealand. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Shallit, Jeffrey (09 August 2000). "AIDS conference proves pseudoscience can kill you". The Record. Ontario. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis website
4. Overestimating AIDS Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.
5. Vau Dell, Terry. "Paradise parents face murder, torture charges". Chico Enterprise-Record, 10 February 2010.
6. Martinez, Edecio. DA: Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz Killed Daughter With "Religious Whips" for Mispronouncing Word. CBS News, 22 February 2010.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages BLP policy