Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 27 December 2007

• 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.

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• 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?

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

Individual articles

Coco Fusco

Coco Fusco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was most certainly written by Fusco herself, and has no sourcing whatsoever.

Regina_Russell

The "Discussion" session seems to have gotten carried away with two folks exchanging various opinions that have gotten to the edge of personal attacks between two individuals. Does not appear to really fit into a Misplaced Pages page as much as it would a BLOG on MySpace or another fansite dedicated to Ms. Russell. Would like to get a call from this group as to whether all the "Identity" topic currently in the "Discussions" area should be removed. The article itself is fine and Ms. Russell herself has posted updates to it on occasion. The only area of concern is the current discussion discussing her background and the exchange of opinions. Thanks in advance. UnitedNut — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedNut (talk • contribs) 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don Tapscott

The subject ran for mayor of Edmonton, Alberta in 1977, while he was studying at the University of Alberta. He ran as a far-left candidate in large part to confront another candidate, Eddie Keehn, whose platform was pretty heavily homophobic. He never had any designs on winning, and finished fifth of seven candidates (behind four heavyweights, all of whom served as mayor of Edmonton at one time or another). The article currently says the following: "While earning his Master's of Education at the University of Alberta, he ran for mayor of Edmonton in the 1977 municipal election, finishing fifth of seven candidates." This information is cited. Several IPs on the talk page, and the subject in an e-mail to me, have expressed the opinion that this mayoral run was a minor affair that doesn't warrant mentioning in the article. The subject also expressed some concern that by including only the currently-included information, context is being omitted and he is made to look like a loser (my words, not his). Does WP:BLP require that we remove the mention of his mayoral run, leave it as is, provide additional context, or something else entirely? Sarcasticidealist 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If the cites establish his motivation for running, insert the reasoning (maybe with language similar to what you use above). I see no reason to delete it entirely; it's not something the typical grad student does. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol and T. S. Wiley

• Wiley Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – potential BLP issues complicated by COI issues on all sides, involving Nraden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—who I was told is Wiley's husband—and another editor, Debv (talk · contribs)—who I now see is somehow involved off-Wiki. I was asked by a third editor a few days ago to look at this article in terms of sourcing, and I don't believe there's any admin on board. It appears that Raden understands the COI issues and is not editing the articles, rather discussing on the talk page. I found issues of undue weight and non-reliable sources in the articles, with self-published sources favored and reliably-sourced criticism excluded; the only reliable sources I could find were critical. I removed text sourced to non-RS, left advice about the use of reliable sources, and unwatched, thinking the editor who had asked me to look in there would continue to oversee the page (he hasn't). I just returned to check in and found some potential BLP issues on the talk page, with accusations that living people and published professionals are lying and stealing. I couldn't figure out how to elegantly exercise the BLP violations and personal attacks, so I deleted the entire exchange. I'd like an admin to keep an eye on the issue, and review my deletion of their entire exchange. What is left after my deletion is at Talk:Wiley Protocol#Criticism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Will an admin please look at this page, or should I take this to WP:ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One more time. I am not an admin, and no admin has yet helped, although I first posted here on the 4th. Is this page dead since Crockspot is no longer around? Shall I post to AN/I instead? Is anyone going to look at the AGF and NPA issues, the BLP violations, and threats being made on these articles and on my talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I looked at the deletion Sandy made from Talk:Wiley Protocol and it seems to be well justified by BLP policy. Perhaps Sandy could offer examples of what she means by threats. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's where I'm confused; I'm not clear on our definitions, but I'm not comfortable with some of Nraden's statements, like:

• " The WP threatens a lot of people, its existence and growth are a thumb in the eye to the status quo."
• "Misplaced Pages turns out to be slovenly captive to big media. Debv makes a lot of gratuitous statements above because Misplaced Pages currently serves her purposes - to discredit Wiley."
• " ... I'm warning you that those guidelines are flawed ... "
• " ... you Misplaced Pages editors seem to be so wrapped up in your procedure you've lost your judgment ... "

These kinds of statements from an involved party make me reluctant to participate without help or oversight. Perhaps I'm wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When other editors make a lot of bad-tempered ad-hominem remarks it is tempting to classify them as disruptive. You could try to pursue disciplinary procedures, but in my view it is better to just get more eyes on the problem. This particular case does not even qualify for a COI posting, since both of the main combatants have agreed (for now) to stay off the article and confine themselves to the Talk page. Some admins get good results with forceful warnings asking for better behavior, but regular editors can do that too. Since this is a sort of medical article you could ask for assistance at WikiProject Medicine. Admins are more likely to jump in with blocks if something truly flagrant has happened, but I don't see that here. In fact, there have been no reverts of your edits since 30 November, so an admin probably wouldn't even believe there was an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to get more eyes on this, to no avail. Nraden's last edit was to say that he was going to reinstate content to the article, so the COI concern is active. I have no interest in pursuing the mess at that article; I was only there because someone asked me to look at the sourcing. Since no admins have come forward to help, I'm unwatching and considering I've done all I can, end of story. These noticeboards don't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I believe I'm the 3rd editor SG is referring to. I edit at whim, and since this one is so little fun to edit, I do little on it besides vand reverts most days. I do watch over it, and if I see NRaden actually edit, I will revert and report. Raden has long failed to really engage on the wiki process, but does spend large amounts of time being indignant at other editors unwilling to see the greatness of the Wiley Protocol. It's on my list of things that I really should look into, but I keep getting distracted. That being said, since a series of warnings were posted on various talk pages, both Debv and Raden have been, if not civil, at least quiet on most issues. I'd say the biggest problem is that Raden does not understand MEDRS and WP:RS in general, and would like to put up 'his version' on the page. There's a lot of nuance in my mind on the pages, what sources work and what don't. It is pretty complicated because it's controversial, with no actual pubmed sources, and a medical protocol (theoretically) and COI interests from multiple parties. Oddly, it's complicated because Raden is being as restrained as he is, were he a simple POV warrior this'd be easier because he'd have been blocked, but he is keeping himself to words alone, no mainspace edits. Plus, despite having a pretty functional 'working' relationship (i.e. he listens to me about pure wiki-style, formatting and policy matters), regards content he doesn't like me too much methinks, because I object to many of his suggestions. I haven't looked at either page proper in a while, but my loose recall is that they're not attack pages, though there is some sourced criticism. This is one of the first MED-articles I've been intensively involved in where I've had to refer to the MED sources and style issues, and I haven't put in the time for a thorough read of the guidelines. (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to compliment WLU on his good humour, given the hard time I give him (I'm only guessing that WLU is a "him"). The issues with T.S. Wiley and the Wiley Protocol are pretty simple. Because of Wiley's unintended association with Suzanne Somers (Somers wrote about Wiley and the Wiley Protocol in her latest book), she was the target of a lot of media coverage, most of it unfavorable for a few reasons. First, Suzanne may have a loyal following, but people in the media and especially in medicine view her as lightweight, so Wiley was guilty by association. Wiley has two hardcover books published on women's health and medicine, thoroughly researched and documented, is a published, peer-reviewed scientist (see her cancer research in PubMed), a contributing editor to medical school textbooks, teaches doctors endocrinology and Darwinian medicine for continuing medical education credits (CME) and has almost 10 years of observing and quantifying clincal practice in adminstering her protocol. Little of this can be found in reliable secondary sources yet, only the negatives that have been sown in the media by the people and websites controlled by debv, who is laser-focused on Wiley's destruction (I'd like to point out that debv is not a person, it is a proxy for two organizations that are very active is waging a smear campaign against Wiley, so I don't think debv is entitled to the same courtesy that an individual should be. Perhaps I shouldn't either). So perhaps you can understand my frustration. When Wiley was asked to testify before the US Senate as an expert witness, debv contacted the committee and attempted to paint her as a fraud. There are dozens of instances like this. So this is what I'm dealing with. A few months ago, another editor, Wikidudeman suggested that Debv and I write on the talk page what we think should be in the article. I have, just a few paragraphs, with no claims as to its benefits, just what distinguished it, and it just languished. All I ask is that, if you are going to allow all of this unfounded, but reliably sourced criticism to endure, at least give the subject the courtesy of being defined correctly, if not completely.

For example, the New York Times, as well as the Today Show and 20/20 all described Wiley as "a former actress," something she has not been in ALMOST THIRTY YEARS, but in most cases, never mentioned her books or scientific credentials. So if I get a little frustrated with Misplaced Pages over its definition of a reliable source, forgive me. A slanted, inaccurate article is considered reliable, but the honest testimonials of women and doctors on websites can't even be cited. I think there is something very wrong with your policy. All of the TV networks and the New York Times derive a substantial amount of ad revenue from the major pharmaceutical companies, including Wyeth, who are despearately opposed to any alternative medicine, but BHRT in particular. Isn't it a little naive to assume that this subject would get a fair and balanced hearing? Shouldn't Misplaced Pages, when citing one of these sources, make a greater effort, not just a gratuitous opne, at getting to the bottom of it?

Now if you think this is a minor scuffle over a very minor player and is getting too much attention here, you may be right, but the issues, women's health, who gets to make medical discoveries, menopause and hormone therapy, are huge. Neil Raden (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is much that I could say in reply to Nraden's claims, but most of it would be as irrelevant as the claims themselves, with regard to WP:RS etc. What is reliably sourced is that this self-described scientist, T.S. Wiley, lacks even an undergraduate degree.

And I cannot allow silence on my part to suggest any credibility to the following attempts to disparage me. They are categorically false.

"I'd like to point out that debv is not a person, it is a proxy for two organizations that are very active is waging a smear campaign against Wiley..." I don't even know what two organizations he could be referring to, but I am most definitely a person, beholden to no one and no organization.

"When Wiley was asked to testify before the US Senate as an expert witness, debv contacted the committee and attempted to paint her as a fraud." Also utterly false. I was not even aware of the Senate hearing until after it had taken place.

This is what I am dealing with. Debv (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Sorry, I'm confusing the second quote with another recent claim that implies foreknowledge of the hearing: "In fact, you even tried to get one of your 'harmed' women to Washignton to give testimony until we got her doctor to confirm she wasn't on the Wiley Protocol at the time of her 'severe reactions.'" That simply did not happen.

After I became aware of the hearing and watched Wiley's testimony, I was involved in issuing a response to the Senate committee because her testimony was -- let's say, disputable. Debv (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia made the following statements:

>That's where I'm confused; I'm not clear on our definitions, but I'm not comfortable with some of Nraden's statements, like:

>* " The WP threatens a lot of people, its existence and growth are a thumb in the eye to the status quo."

>* "Misplaced Pages turns out to be slovenly captive to big media. Debv makes a lot of gratuitous statements above because Misplaced Pages currently serves >her purposes - to discredit Wiley."

>* " ... I'm warning you that those guidelines are flawed ... "

>* " ... you Misplaced Pages editors seem to be so wrapped up in your procedure you've lost your judgment ... "

>These kinds of statements from an involved party make me reluctant to participate without help or oversight. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I think yuo are wrong. Why is there a problem, on a talk page, with being fordeful and clear. Let's take them one-by-one:

-The WP threatens a lot of people. The drug industry hates it, as it hates all BHRT. The medical status quo, represented by the Menopause Society, the Endocrine Society and other groups, are all opposed to BHRT, not just the WP. Even the doctors who support BHRT oppose the WP because if it's right, they are all wrong and may even be harming women with their practices. So it is a thumb in the eye, what in the world is wrong with that statement, meant to be discussion?

-I've already made this point above, that what is verifiable is not necessarily true, but that's OK? I was horrified the first time WLU explained that to me. My comment about Debv was hardly threatenting, it was a counterpoint - if she got what she wanted, that was probably bad for Wiley.

-OK, maybe "warning" was a poor choice of words, but there was no implied threat in it

-And I believe it. You would allow drivel to be quoted over substance without thinking about it because to the WP:whatever. Get a spine. Challenge it. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a reliable resource. Guard its credibility.

I've started to make some contributions to other areas using the tutelage I've recevied from WLU and I'm going to reck my own rede on this. You should too. Neil Raden (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...and here's where the problem is. Nraden is challenging a fundamental policy of Misplaced Pages - verifiability, not truth. The fact that right now, all the reliable sources we have demonstrate problems with the Wiley Protocol, means we have to write about the problems. This does not mean that we are forever bound to this set of sources; in fact, if medical trials prove that it's the best form of treatment ever for ____, we will report that, and in fact, it'll take precedence over less reliable sources like the NYT. If you can not handle wikipedia reporting verifiability, not truth, you have two options - switch to a different venue, or attempt to change the policy. Good luck.

Misplaced Pages's reliability is based on, and predicated on, it's citation of reliable sources. Otherwise we might as well call ourselves 'wikiadverpedia'. Your excoriations of wikipedia for not 'having a spine' point to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of, and relationship to, the project. Misplaced Pages is not meant to have a spine. Everything you have said right now demonstrates that either you have not read, or have misunderstood WP:SOAP, which is non-negotiable without the entire community agreeing to realign wikipedia to become a fundamentally different project. I admit you've shown an extraordinary level of restraint given your involvement in this obviously very important issue, but as commendable as that is, it can not make up for what appears to be a very basic misunderstanding of what wikipedia is. WLU (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't going to stop me from complaining about it.

Yeah, yeah, I get it and if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd get that too. It's troubling, though, that you mention medical trials. There are three that I know of spinning up, but it's going to take 3-5 years for that to be reported. In the meantime, tell me, in what venue could a doctor report their own clinical findings in a way that would be acceptable to Misplaced Pages? And there are some othjer things, beyond the sourcing, that are really nettlesome. Dr. Taguchi being on "the Wiley team," Suzanne Somers being a "spokesperson," - these aren't sourcing issues, they're misstatements of fact, and they have to be addressed. Taguchi has gone on record with her experience with the WP, but I get bounced everytime I bring it up. There are other issues, too, like the ACAM report. Neil Raden (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And here is another example of why I am so frustrated with this process. WLU says above, "...it's controversial, with no actual pubmed sources." There are at least three PubMed articles where Wiley is the PI or co-PI and one of them, on progestorone and cancer, which was the bedrock study from which the protocol emerged, is further cited by no fewer than six other journals: Endocrinology, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Biology of Reproduction, Molecular Human Reproduction and Reproductive Sciences. So while the article contains links to three or four soft pieces about Suzanne Somers, these are lacking. That's what I mean about the procedures not working. Neil Raden (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's your right to complain I suppose, eventually if you keep it up you could be blocked for disruption (providing you escalated, right now it's still very reasonable; I'm just delimiting the extreme). I would say that any involvement of those sources would represent a synthesis, thus violating our policy on original research. Unless they mention the words 'Wiley Protocol' somewhere, which I doubt. If trials will be finished in 3-5 years, then in 3-5 years, when it is reported in a peer-reviewed journal, it will be added to wikipedia. The only venue that would be acceptable on this page would be a peer-reviewed journal. If you object to the sourcing and statements you can object at the reliable sources noticeboard, based on the reliability of the source linked to the statement made. However, you can't object because 'you know better' as you are not a reliable source, and we report verifiability, not truth. Paris Hilton can't edit her own bio on the basis of 'I didn't do that', because she isn't a reliable source; this means wikipedia may report untruthful material if the source is wrong. We can also report the correction if it occurs. WLU (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Just the other day, SandyGeorga said, "No one has said you can't describe what the protocol is according to self-published sources; we agreed above that you can do that as long as its correctly attributed." Are you contradicting that with, "The only venue that would be acceptable on this page would be a peer-reviewed journal?"Neil Raden (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You may describe how it is designed to work, but you can not claim that it actually works this way (because it's unproven), or that it is effective (because it's unproven). That is my understanding. I'd say that the description should be short, and only include Wiley's words. Plus, I'd trust Sandy's word over mine any day and if there's disagreement, that's the person that you should turn to. WLU (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I mean about debv's snide comments and poisonous bias that have no place here:

>What is reliably sourced is that this self-described scientist, T.S. Wiley, lacks even an undergraduate degree.

Self-described is not a descriptive term, it's derogatory. Besides, Wiley is a scientist. She is published in popular, scientific and academic press, is invited to speak to scientific gatherings and teaches doctors about science. The only factual statement in this sentnece is that she lacks an undergraduate degree, a fact that Debv works tirelessly for everyone to know. It's in the T.S. Wiley article already, why continue to flog it here except to cast personal aspersions?

>I don't even know what two organizations he could be referring to, but I am most definitely, a person, beholden to no one and no organization.

Another distortion. She is the owner of wileywatch.com and intimately invovled with rhythmicliving.com the other Wiley hate site which is prominently linked on the homepage of wileywatch.com. In a previous post, she accidentally, I think, used the word we, so from that point on, when I refer to "Debv" I refer to wileywatch.com and rhythmicliving.com. I'm not even sure there is a Debv, we can't find her and believe that she actually is the owner of RhythmicLiving, too. The same person.

> After I became aware of the hearing and watched Wiley's testimony, I was involved in issuing a response to the Senate committee because her testimony was -- let's say, disputable.

This articulation, "let's say, disputable" is a veiled assertion that Wiley lied to the Senate. Is this not yet another personal attack, which she sweetly promised SandyGeorgia she would refrain from? This is how debv spends her time. How can she possibly take part in a rational discussion about Wiley and the WP? Rhythmicliving.com attempted to get a "Wiley Survivor" onto the Senate panel, but she was rejected when it was proven that her claims were false.

Having debv in this discussion is like having a chronic infection that can't be cured - it takes all of your time and the best you can hope for is that it doesn't get worse. That isn't a personal attack, it is an observation about someone who has absolutely no interest in this subject matter except to make WIley look as bad as possible. I admit I'm COI, but I'm only trying to get a few facts into the article. The latest editor managed nothing except to increase the number of fluff "sources" while adding no content. If I don't do this, apparently no one will. Neil Raden (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see what this has to do with the main article. Like yourself, debv has agreed she is in COI, and hasn't edited the page in a very long time. Since the page is based on WP:MEDRS, there's not much chance of her opinion ending up on mainspace pages. This doesn't seem like something that needs to be posted on BLP/N. I see no reason or need to speculate on her motivations or persons, and we've a policy that says comment on contributions, not contributors. I see no more reason to assume bad faith about her than I do about you. Opposing and contrary viewpoints are the norm on wikipedia, and should not prevent either of you from interacting and contributing with civility. I also see no further reason to beat this dead horse on this page. WLU (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, WLU. All right, I'm biting my tongue. Here.

Oh the blood... Debv (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I'm indifferent to both of your off-wiki actions, and most of your on-wiki comments (since my actions generally involve pointing out why you can't do or use a source or say something). I don't care who you are or what you do beyond awareness of possible COI concerns. Both of you have no reason to comment on each other since the pages are built around reliable sources. So quit sniping at each other, it's fucking annoying and useless as far as the page is concerned. Neither of you are reliable sources, but you can provide them. End of story. WLU (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth_Kucinich

There are a group of people that continue to add speculative information regard Elizabeth Kucinich regarding her tongue peircing. Not to mention that I believe it fails BLP issues in general for giving undue weight towards what is nothing more than a triva fashion statement. I ask for some guidance regarding this issue as I keep removing because I feel it violates BLP and general rules regarding undue weight not least of which it is purely speculative in its phrasing. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is not speculative. It currently reads as follows:

She has a tongue piercing. When asked if she would remove it in the event that she became first lady, Kucinich replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so.

Footnote provides a source, an article published in The Independent, a recognized British newspaper, at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3174387.ece, which reads in pertinent part:

But her tongue stud was exactly the thing that the interviewer wanted to focus on. Would Elizabeth take it out, she asked, if she became First Lady? "It's been there 10 years, it's part of me now," Mrs Kucinich replied with as much grace as she could muster. Could she give the audience a peek, came the follow-up question. "No I can't," she answered flatly.

--TJRC (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is speculative, it is dicussing future events and has no context within the scope of the article in general. Arzel (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even a separate article? I don't see any reason why it couldn't be merged with the article on Dennis Kucinich. I don't see any separate notability here. *** Crotalus *** 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually agree, but... Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Kucinich --TJRC (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRYSTAL - Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, Arzel, I think you're misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. The phrase you're quoting means, for example, that we shouldn't have articles on movies that might get made, or on elections that might happen, or what have you. Having articles on people in which we include sourced speculation on some element of their futures is fine (see, for example, the couple of dozen articles on U.S. senators in which we report on speculation surrounding whether they'll run for President). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how having a tongue peircing is in anyway comparable to that of runing for president. I don't think you are interpresting WP:CRYSTAL correctly. Future events should only be included if they are notable and almost certain to take place. Whether she has a tongue peircing is certainly not very notable. Whether Kucinich is elected president is very unlikely, thus it does not satisfy the requirement. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Another editor previously started a section on Mitt Romney here at this Noticeboard. However, I have a different and narrower question. The Mitt Romney article presently states: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879." Doesn't this quoted sentence give the strong impression that Mitt Romney's religion condones polygamy? If so, this quoted sentence seems grossly misleading, and seems to be a BLP violation. Even though it is factually accurate, it takes information out of context. None of the reliable sources mention the great-grandparents' polygamy without also mentioning that the Mormon Church hasn't condoned polygamy since the nineteenth century.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see a problem. Lobojo (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo, according to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890." If a Misplaced Pages article further spreads that misconception, why is that not a problem?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Smearing Mitt Romney, by implying that his religion supports polygamy, is disgraceful, and I wonder if there could possibly be a better example of a BLP violation.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP means that info must be sourced and presented fairly, this info is sourced. As for fair presentation, how does "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879 and prior to the LDS' ban on pologamy in 1890." Then sourced info is presented, and any hint of implication is removed. Mbisanz (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mbisanz, that would certainly be much better. However, the BLP policy says that normal procedure is: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." The appropriate thing here would be to pare back the protected article by removing the disputed material. Then when the article is unprotected, there may turn out to be a consensus for including the material you suggest in the first section of the article, although many editors at the Mitt Romney talk page have objected to having polygamy of paternal great-grandparents in the first section of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt here. It is a true interesting pertinent fact, that isn't even remotrly damaging to him. It is also presented fairly. Lobojo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it fair to falsely imply that Mitt Romney's religion condones polygamy?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I would agree that as it is now, I have no objection to its presentation, I was simply suggesting an alternative. Its similar this statement inEisenhower#Religion "All the men in the household abandoned the Witnesses as adults, and some even hid their previous affiliation" which could be seen as a shot at a religion, but for the fact it is sourced and adds to the context of Eisenhower's religous beliefs. No thing implies that Mormon's condone polygamy, it is merely stated that it condoned it at a specific time in history.Mbisanz (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We agree that there is nothing the slightest bit misleading about the Eisenhower article, so why bring it up? Regarding Romney, if a Misplaced Pages article says that a person's religion condoned something, then the obvious implication is that the religion still condones it, unless the Misplaced Pages article says otherwise.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This controversy about the Mitt Romney article has basically been settled, as of yesterday.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 De Anza baseball players rape case

Wondering what to do about 2007 De Anza baseball players rape case. The article had quite a bit of information, but much of it is salacious detail about the rape victim and the people who are accused. Charges were never filed so nobody has a chance to be convicted or have their name cleared. The details of the article are written in semi-tabloid fashion and are no more than just news. Although nobody is mentioned by name in the article, it is talking about specific people who are likely traumatized by the event and whose lives do not seem proper fodder for an encyclopedia article. I would propose the article for deletion, but I'm unclear because the incident itself may (or may not) be notable enough to deserve mention.

Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this article its hard to know where to start. While the references used are generally high quality, I agree that it reads like a tabloid piece. It seems to be slanted toward showing that not prosecuting the rape was wrong. The title is right out. While the incident received an initial media spurt nationally, I'm not convinced that there is any long term notability; I agree that it doesn't appear to merit an encyclopedia article. I've gone ahead and added the prod template to the article. Shell 09:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that would settle it but a user removed the PROD tag in good faith, arguing that the article subject is notable. Inasmuch as PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, I guess the opinion is not unanimous. So I nominated the article for deletion on BLP and "not news" grounds. The discussion is here. Wikidemo (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod, thinking that it was worth a discussion. I see from the AfD that opinion is divided. What I should have done was trimmed the article at the same time to remove extraneous material. Other than that, I do not see that any BLP concern are involved--it was very widely reported and names are not given. The consensus will decide on significance. DGG (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Shlomo Aviner Urgent!!

Can an sdmin please sort this out!!

See this diff. Users are repeatedly adding material from a far-right Israeli attack site that attacks Aviner for his acquiescence to the 2005 Gaza evacuations. They are also adding spurious smears sourced in that site which imply that he sexually abused some of his congregants. Lobojo (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear at the moment. I'll watchlist it for a bit, though I might not be able to recognize more subtle vandalism due to lack of familiarity with the subject. Certainly I can help keep the attack site out. ---Moonriddengirl 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left him advice. When you say "repeatedly" can you provide all the diffs? - Jehochman 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Need some help!

This time, I'm making this request as the private citizen being openly and persistently defamed in two Misplaced Pages articles, and not as a sometime Misplaced Pages editor. Please see this for a good introduction to the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Temple_Lot#Jordan_Smith_as_Civil_Rights_Activist Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no defamation in the article linked to. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While the inaccurate and defamatory comments some of the articles linked to (there are several...which one are you talking about?)have been mitigated somewhat...it is Snocrates' choice of words and innuendo which has become the most defamatory. As I explained, he insists on referring to the 1990 incident as "vandalism" and "arson" while excluding any reference to "civil rights protest" or "protest" or "prophecy." I feel like I'm repeating myself, but thanks for having a look. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks right. I checked some of the sources, and it appears (as usual) that Snocrates knows what he's talking about in Mormonism. Is there any dispute over his identity? Cool Hand Luke 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) No, there is no longer any dispute over my identity. And I know what I'm talking about in Mormonism too...before he tangled with me in this, Snocrates commended my knowledge in Mormonism...and he hasn't even seen most of the good edits I've made to LDS material over the years. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says, "On January 1, 1990, Jordan Smith, a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) who had recently joined the LDS Church set fire to the church building on the Temple Lot." It's unclear to me whether Jsmith 51389 is denying this.

Jsmith isn't denying that. Jsmith is denying the accuracy of most of the 'mainstream media' reports of the 1990 incident, and Jsmith is strenuously denying the innuendo inserted in the article and on the talk page, by Snocrates, and some others before him. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the second and third of the footnotes do not support the quoted sentence. The second and third footnotes merely say that he was "charged." If he was convicted, then an online source saying so ought to be included if available.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would it have to be online? It just needs to be verifiable. I see your point about conviction though. How about this from Newsbank:

MISSOURI MAN CONVICTED IN TEMPLE LOT FIRE Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) January 19, 1991 "A 26-year-old man has been convicted of breaking into a historic church in Independence and setting it ablaze.

A Jackson County Circuit Court found Jordan Smith of Independence guilty Wednesday of second-degree arson and second-degree burglary. Jurors recommended that Smith serve four years in prison on the arson charge and one year on the burglary charge. Sentencing was set for March 1.

Smith earlier testified that he torched the 88-year-old Church of Christ (Temple Lot) on New Year's Day in 1990 on an apparent directive from God.

He said his dreams the night before convinced him that God wished him to make a public point.

``At all times, I felt I was obeying a higher power, Smith said.

He said he used a cigarette lighter to ignite parts of the church.

Officials saved many church documents and artifacts, but the structure was destroyed.

Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If online links are available for footnotes, then why not use them? "Misplaced Pages articles should include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages if they are relevant." Verifiability is facilitated by links.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we always use links when available, but sometimes they are not. I doubt a reliable online source exists for his conviction, but reliable print sources are fine. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we agree (see my last two words).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now we're talking! You have obviously looked closely at the situation. In the specific instance you raise, the 2nd Deseret News link does say he was convicted. But again, that is not the problem with the article. The problem with the article as it now stands is that it intentionally avoids any mention or reference to the 'First Amendment' or 'Civil Rights' issues involved--thoroughly involved--in the protest, and in its aftermath. For more examples of what I believe the article to be sorely deficient, please read those two 'hurried' examples of what a more comprehensive explanation of the 1990 protest should be like. It is possible that if his name must be included in a public Misplaced Pages article, then by default the protester may need or deserve a separate article about him, even though this is not his preference. Anyone who interviews Jordan Smith in a formal capacity in regards to the January 1990 incident, will be the first to do so, ever. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any sources for this though. Frankly, it looks like self-promotional crankery to me; comparing Jordan Smith to Joseph Smith, and so forth. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then if it is self-promotional crankery, then any reference to the incident and the protester should be removed from Misplaced Pages, right? Wrong. The protest did happen, the protester's name is Jordan Smith, and you should quickly move on from any dismissive mischaracterizations based on your opinions of this or that religion or its adherents. IMO, it is not the duty of Misplaced Pages editors to judge the relevance of religious beliefs, it is the duty of Misplaced Pages editors to report accurately on an incident, and more especially, on a person or persons involved. Jsmith 51389 (talk)

Thank you all, for your replies. I probably should go ahead and try and make myself more clear, here. I am Jordan Smith, and the number "51389" is the date (May 13, 1989) when I was baptized in the LDS Tabernacle. I neither threatened nor harmed any person before during or after the protest on January 1, 1990, nor was it an anti-government or anti-Christian protest. I am not racist, or separatist, as Snocrates' inclusion of the Joplin Globe article's title, suggest. On the contrary, I protested racism. I protested abusive religious fanaticism....and was promptly branded an abusive religious fanatic by the local press. Things would be so very different if just one single reporter for one single media outlet had interviewed me. What I think may need to happen is that someone ANYONE (a Misplaced Pages editor?) interview me, either in person, over the telephone, or perhaps in an email series of questions and answer. And THEN....the report that is generated from that information could then be posted somewhere online, and then cited and linked to in the Misplaced Pages article(s). This is speculation on my part...I didn't just now state what I think is the solution, here. All I know for sure is that the status quo is unfair, inaccurate, and a violation of the spirit and letter of WP:BLP Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you apparently haven't quoted anything in a Misplaced Pages article that is false or misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure I have, multiple times. A misleading item which precipitated this complaint is

Snocrates' original headline for this thread-- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Temple_Lot#Jordan_Smith_as_Civil_Rights_Activist --was "Jordan Smith as vandal." That is an example of a misleading statement. The article is about "Jordan Smith as a protester" ....claims and characterizations of vandalism and arson are incidental to the protest, not the other way around. Why are you comfortable with a Misplaced Pages article not explaining what the protest is about? Why are so many people comfortable not having the faintest idea why the heck the protest happened? From my perspective (university-educated, majored in journalism, humanities and anthropology) it's very strange that there are so few inquiring minds, in this. Fortunately, there is at least one other experienced Misplaced Pages Editor who DOES understand the situation. Otherwise, it would feel like I was on another planet where no one understood anything I wrote. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be saying that the article is undue weight because it doesn't mention him as a visionary and civil rights leader. However, the above paragraph suggests that no sources exist because no one in the media ever talked to him. I've warned him to stop editing on this subject unless there are reliable sources. If he doesn't, I'll block him. Any editors who disagree should talk to me. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to you, on my talk page. You have requested no specific sources, even though I have offered (in the preceding comments) to provide verifiable sources. What claim would you like me to substantiate? Incidentally, I haven't described myself as a "visionary" or "civil rights leader," but merely as a 'civil rights activist' who has said and done some prescient things. Just another example of disparaging innuendo, and not facts.Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial comment in this thread spoke of being "defamed" in Misplaced Pages "articles." Articles are not the same thing as talk pages. And defamation requires a quote of something false or at least misleading. Mr. Smith says that "claims and characterizations of vandalism and arson are incidental to the protest." I think it's fair to say that an arson conviction is not "incidental." I agree with Cool Hand Luke and Orange Mike. The article may be crummy (or not), but I see no defamation in it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This dispute seems to be well in hand, and I don't really want to get involved in the debate any further as I've found my attempts to reason on certain talk pages have not been useful with the complaining editor (who — confusingly for me — has apparently been operating under a number of usernames over the past week or so, including User:CH 82 and User:Ftr (for the record), as well as some anon IPs). I should note, though, that I had no ill intent in my edits and I've tried to simply report what is found in the newspaper articles about Jordan Smith's conviction, etc. Apart from this incident, I don't know Jordan Smith from a hole in the ground and I bear no personal malice or grudge towards him, and that was not in any way a motivation for my edits. I thought calling someone a "vandal" when they were convicted of "vandalism" would not be controversial on a talk page — I was only trying to be clear and communicate the content of what I was writing. Snocrates 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly for me to say, Snocrates is right (and Ferrylodge) when he says "this dispute seems to be well in hand. Speaking for myself only, this thread can be stamped "resolved." Here is what I wrote in reply to Ferrylodge, before seeing Snocrates reply, above:

You know what?...I think you may be right...and have offered the advice which can lead to a conclusion of thread. You're right, there is not a defamatory quotation in the Misplaced Pages article....two of the linked articles include rebutting information...and my preference that the article contain more info about the protest may be only that: a preference. This all started because I was appalled at Socrate' wording on the Talk Page(s)...but then again, I think he posted that early on, before he realized there was more to the story...I will only be concerned if an 'edit war' ensues and someone insists on mischaracterizing the protest as an act of mere vandalism. Instead, IMHO, it was an act of mere Iconoclasm. :) Jsmith 51389 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but iconoclasm is not the same as conviction for vandalism. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Although user appeared to be satisfied by this discussion, he proceeded to edit Snocrates' talk page comments, resulting in reversions, another dispute, and this user's demand for Snocrates' legal name, among other things. I issued a warning, and user continued his dispute below at #It's official: I'm being 'wiki-stalked'. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Stephenson

Subject is notable but article seems to be unsourced or poorly sourced. Pointillist (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it as you see fit. Is there a major problem or libel ect issue?--Tom 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Joy Behar

bias writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.242.11 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing on this article is very bad, which is a particular problem since some of it is contentious. Presumably, editors are adding information they've heard on the broadcasts, but some citations are needed for this. I have trimmed the article of some of the more egregious violations, but additional eyes would be much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl 12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Klein and Glenn Greenwald

In both these articles, identical language has been introduced to say that Greenwald "exposed" errors by Klein. Further, the section in Klein is far disproportionate to his career at time and is verboten by WP:WEIGHT as well as BLP.--Samiharris (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is as much of a BLP issue as Samiharris thinks it is: if it's an outright error, calling it a "dispute" does a disservice to Greenwald. I do agree that recent edits have given far too much weight to the subject, though.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I (with -- of course -- the utmost respect) disagree. It is my firm belief that the article IS proportionate because Klein has yet to issue any sort of retraction in Time Magazine itself and has been quite disingenuous about the matter on Time's website. He used his very prominent soapbox (provided COURTESY of Time Magazine) to gratuitously attack Democratic politicians. I would respectfully submit that if the roles were reversed (i.e., if Democratic politicians were to gratuitously attack Klein), then that editors would be clamoring to do document to the Nth degree all of the details.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless Klein admits error, or the controversy results in far more sourcing than is now extant, I do not believe that it is Misplaced Pages's role to say that he committed an error. That is a serious accusation and potentially defamatory. Let's not go there. All we have to say is "disputed" for this to be accurate and neutral. Additionally, I think that this needs to be given appropriate weight, and the version that I reverted in Klein was far, far too long.--Samiharris (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Committed an error" is defamatory? Then what would "My opponent is a pig fucker" be?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Even more so, I would say! No, on second thought, less so, as one is a factual statement alleging incompetence, and the other is a barnyard epithet. Point is, Misplaced Pages does not want to be saying that people committed errors. We have to take a neutral stance unless there is appropriate sources. Mr. Greenwald alone is not sufficient, unless it is admitted by Mr. Klein. At least that is my take. Let's get some other opinions, please. That is why we are here.--Samiharris (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you equate error with incompetence? And why does the committer of an error have to admit to it before it's actually an error?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Error of the kind alleged here is a serious accusation. There must be adequate sourcing for Misplaced Pages stating such a thing. The terminology that is used here takes Greenwald's side and is obviously not neutral, whereas "disputed" is both true and neutral.--Samiharris (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/chi-1128edit4nov28,0,4272704.story

"A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not."

It's an error.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It may very well be an error. The question is, do we have sufficient sourcing to make such an accusation in a BLP? It is always better to use neutral language, or to say that Greenwald "alleged error" by Klein. I hesitate for Misplaced Pages to say this in its own voice. Incidentally I took very much the same position when Greenwald himself was accused of improper conduct, which he denied. We have plenty of time. There is no rush. Let's stop debating it here and wait for a second opinion.--Samiharris (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A strong (very strong, quite frankly) argument can be made that doing he said/she said ad nauseum constitutes original research in its own right.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) In addition to the Chicago tribune link admitting the error in Klein's column, there's also a Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz (link). Some of the more salient points include:

• H. Kurtz: " The liberal blogosphere continues to express outrage at Time's Joe Klein over an error that he made. And there is no disagreement that he made an error."
• Kurtz quoting Klein in Swampland: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right. . ."
• From H. Kurtz: "When I called Klein to ask about this, he said: 'I made a mistake, I corrected it and it's over.'"
  

R. Baley (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those cites clinch it as far as I'm concerned. Thanks much.--Samiharris (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP issue on Nouredine el Fahtni

I ran across this article while tagging for WP:MilHist. The article is unreferenced at this point and basically calls the guy a terrorist. While it seems like the article may have a point, it needs references and I don't speak Portuguese. Can anyone lend a hand on this one? Burzmali (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on sourcing. Dutch would be the more useful language, though. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced everything except the sentence at the most recent trial. It's somewhat difficult, as I don't read Dutch. --Moonriddengirl 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a far cry better than it was. It's always good to know wikipedia won't be showing up on Fox News for calling the President of Morocco's brother a terrorist or something ;) Burzmali (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Ledwith

I have been trying to include some contentious information into the Michael Ledwith article for some time now. Editor Dreadstar has been advising me on sources and content, and I have done my best to get the best sources possible. RTE is the state broadcasting company in Ireland, and therefore I would look upon them as a reliable source. The talk page in question has the details. Dreadstar has asked that I come here and ask someone else to judge the legitmacy of the source and therefore the information. There is also the issue that the relevant information is contained in the Ferns Report, however, while that was commissioned by the Irish Government, it has not been published by them other than in hard copy, and so the best sources are ones such as I understand that Misplaced Pages tries to err on the safe side to prevent libel etc, but surely when this issue has been broadcast by RTE, and is published in a "freely" (for a fee) available document, no libel can be committed? I will let the matter drop if the general concensus is to refrain from adding the information to the article.r011in (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify one thing, online sources are not required on Misplaced Pages. If you can get hold of a copy of the report (from the library or pay for it) to check it you can cite it as you would a book etc. However....

The report (assuming online versions are accurate copies, which I expect they are) does not verify the edits you have made in the past. The man had allegations made against him, he denied them, the police did investigations and decided not prosecute. In one of the two cases, the report clearly indicates that it was a false accusation. The fact that these incidents have not been published in other media (apart from one radio program) confirms my thinking that this is not a notable aspect of his life. BLP policy says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records...--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." There are not enough third party sources to make this a notable part of this man's life. Don't include it.--Slp1 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, your point is taken, I will wait for due process before re-visiting this issue.r011in (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's official: I'm being 'wiki-stalked'

My recentmost exchanges with 'Snocrates' and 'Cool Hand Luke' are at the bottom of these pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jsmith_51389
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Temple_Lot

(ref. WP:STALK and http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:STALK#Wikistalking ) Could a BLP specialist please prohibit Snocrates, Cool Hand Luke and any or all others from perpetrating and perpetuating libel and libelous innuendo about me in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk Pages and Userpages -- or please refer my case to the appropriate administrator ASAP? I won't have time to 'watch' the pages in question, I need protective measures taken by someone else, I'm at wit's end. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your statements - you are involved in an editing dispute, but that was addressed already . What have Snocrates and Cool Hand Luke done since that that causes you additional distress? I'm afraid that they have merely been including cited information from reliable sources. Re. allegations of stalking - I don't see evidence of deliberate, continued, harassment.

Michaelbusch (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for checking things out. I am not involved in an 'edit dispute' per se, I am a private American Citizen who has been libelled by print media in the past, and am currently being libeled in Two Misplaced Pages articles (so far). Please do NOT regard my complaint as that of a Misplaced Pages Editor. I am only a Misplaced Pages Editor on the side. I am a private citizen who was libeled 18 years ago, and now, more than one Misplaced Pages Editor/Administrator has decided to perpetuate the libel, persistently ignoring and deleting FACTS about me, preferring to publicly post malicious allegations about me, instead. Mine is a 'textbook case' of what WP:BLP cautions against, as well as what WP:STALK cautions against. If the founder of Misplaced Pages became aware of this situation, he would be appalled: Editor after Editor joins the fray, only to decide to go with 'first impressions' and continue the libel/defamation/slander of a living person. To answer your specific statement: Evidence of deliberate, continued harassment can be seen at my Talk Page, its archives AND in the Talk pages of the two Misplaced Pages articles devoted to 'Temple Lot' and 'Church of Christ Temple Lot." Previously until recently, I have had to 'hide' behind multiple usernames, in an attempt to prevent my legal name from being slandered/libeled. I have given up on that tactic, and am willing to pursue redress under my birth name, and complete straightforwardness. Please help me, or refer my case to someone who can. Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked this user indefinitely for 24 hours, and have also blocked his sock puppets User:CH 82 and User:Ftr (for the record). A quick peek at Snocrates edit history shows that he doesn't know this person from a hole in the ground and is certainly not stalking. Being a good wikipedian, Snocrates reproduced a newspaper account when someone (presumably Smith) kept removing references to the arson of the (fairly notable) Temple Lot church in 1990. (This structure was on the ground that many Mormons believe a temple will be built which will eventually be where Jesus Christ returns to the earth). The source shows that a one Jordan Smith was convicted of the arson in 1991. That user has strongly objected, brought the BLP, and has edited Snocrates' comments, while berating him for not giving his legal name. User felt that the article was not fair, apparently because it doesn't depict him as a civil rights protester and visionary, not unlike Martin Luther King, Jr. or Joseph Smith, Jr. User posted almost exclusively WP:AUTO, advancing fringe views about himself that appear to be original research. I warned user repeatedly, and ultimately banned him for harassment and disruption. If anyone wants to mentor this user, be my guest, but user does not appear care about building an encyclopedia to me. Cool Hand Luke 06:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE

Someone has posted this vandalism at the Temple Lot Talk Page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Temple_Lot&action=history (CAUTION: don't click on the URL the vandal provides...it shows a mutilated corpse of some kind.)

I don't have any idea who did that but I certainly have an idea of what 'attracted' the vandal to the Temple Lot page. (by the way, I'm the user CoolHandLuke banned for 24 hours, he banned me because he didn't want me to request assistance here, and he doesn't want me requesting accuracy in the articles).

Undoubtedly, there is more where that came from, unless urgent measures are taken to bring the article in compliance with strict Misplaced Pages guidelines...which guidelines are fully intended to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

For the record, most of what CoolHandLuke states in his comment above is false, as even a cursory glance at the relevant edit history would show. For example, no one ever tried to remove mention of the 'the arson' from the article. Snocrates never reproduced a newspaper account (what's that mean?)...and what's a "fringe view"? Anyway, I'm not going to argue. The vandalism added to the Temple Lot talk page brings things to a different level than me pleading in vain for BLP Wiki-editors to please protect me from an administrator who is harassing me, and getting virtually no response except for that same administrator continuing his harassment in plain view, right here, in this thread in which I asked for assistance. (ref. WP:STALK and http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:STALK#Wikistalking )

Dicey situation (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - Dicey situation appears to be a sockpuppet created by Jsmith 51389 to evade Jsmith 51389's block, and has been editing Jsmith 51389's talk page to remove warnings and notice of block sanitize comments and maintain the talk page (see and two other edits). Please forgive me if I've made an incorrect deduction in the heat of the moment, but to me this indicates that Jsmith 51389 is not taking his/her short-term block to heart and is instead perpetuating the dispute even when blocked by editing in bad faith using a sockpuppet. Suggest ban of this sockpuppet, and extention of Jsmith 51389's 24-hour block under the circumstances. Wikidemo (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have 'made an incorrect deduction in the heat of the moment': I clearly admit that 'Dicey Situation' and myself are one and the same, and I correctly allege that the 24-hour block by 'CoolHandLuke' was unjustified, and that his false allegations involving my name has contributed directly to my name being posted on the worldwide web in conjunction with photographs of chopped up dead people (I don't know for sure, I didn't look closely at the horrifying image which comes up when you click on the link provided by the vandal at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Temple_Lot&action=history. _

I am, and have edited in 'good faith,' for example, if my posts here were in bad faith, I would not have openly admitted that 'dicey situation' and I are the same user, and I would not have openly admitted that I had been blocked for 24-hours, and only chose another username because of an urgent emergency situation...which I also clearly explained. With all due respect, this is insanity, and not on my part. I don't want to hear about this or that completely-garbled interpretations of the situation, and reference to a growing list of "options for wiki-editors" supposedly at my disposal.

I have learned these options are NOT available to me, in large part because of the willful slander and irresponsibility of at 'CoolHandLuke' and his pal 'Snocrates' (by the way, Snocrates told me on the talk page he was going to 'give things a rest'....and then fifteen minutes later, he posted a provocative complaint on 'CoolHandLuke's' page (check it out, please), and that caused my harasser 'CoolHandLuke' to come right back aboard my UserPage and this BLP noticeboard, posting the same slander and misinterpretations as he had, earlier. I have been in private communication with the one Misplaced Pages editor who helped me during an identical 'dispute' last August...but I can tell by her most recent reply to me, that the complexity of the situation is finally "over her head" too. Bottom line, people, what would you think if libelous defamatory information generated 18 years ago was repeatedly inserted in a Misplaced Pages article, and then when you attempt to correct the information with verifiable sources, you're scoffed at as a " naive and irresponsible Wiki Editor"....meanwhile your privacy and that of all your family is suddenly being compromised in the worst possible way. How would you like it if it were your name in this link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Temple_Lot&action=history

Again...with all due respect, you have COMPLETELY mis-read the situation, and are invited to study the edit history more fully. I don't know what else to tell you except, please, please, any Misplaced Pages editor or Administrator with any kind of decency please refer this urgent situation to the appropriate Administrator. Ideally, and OTRS should be emplaced (as it was early last August, before an administrator in the Misplaced Pages Foundation literally confused me with Joseph Smith, Jr. and his son Joseph Smith III (b. 1832 d. 1914), and told me I didn't have a legitimate complaint, because they're dead. If you think I'm exaggerating as to that incredibly ridiculous bungle, I can refer you to both the public and private comments made by that administrator.

'CoolHandLuke' approaches the same kind of errancy....for example, he states in the comments above, that the Temple Lot is where Mormons believe the Second Coming takes place. Check page history for Temple Lot and you will see that on Dec. 2 (or 3) that I (under username CH_82), added an explanation that Mormons do NOT believe, nor have ever believed, that the Second Coming takes place in the U.S.....Mitt Romney was challenged with the same misconception, and a U.K. Telegraph article clears it up....Snocrates DELETED the edit and citations...and ten days later, his pal "CoolHandLuke" echoes here the same false rumor about Mormon beliefs as I had tried to correct in the article. Snocrates and 'CoolHandLuke' evidently are not LDS (at first I assumed they both were), and under the guise of 'experts' on the topic, are conducting outright harassment of one or more LDS persons.

I am a living person with an urgent complaint. Please do NOT deal with me as if I am an amateur Wiki-editor...that is only incidental to the problem...I have repeatedly tried to assist and help the situation, and at NO POINT, EVER, tried to delete mention of the protest from the Temple Lot articles. It is Snocrates and 'CoolHandLuke' and some others, who have REPEATEDLY tried to remove verifiable, accurate, non-defamatory information from the articles, mainly because they have a 'vendetta' not against me, but against the bizarre non-factual characterizations of me in a single local press report 18 years ago. (most other inaccurate reports have simply plagiarized or 'cited' that original press report, without question, and without any research whatsoever).

It's a Kafkaesque nightmare, and I will be very grateful if you can help resolve the problem, and not exacerbate it.

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"How would you like it if it were your name in this link?" I would not like it at all. I've removed that link from history because I think it is indeed a BLP violation. There's no reason for what that banned user did. I wish you would appreciate that no one is stalking you.

Neither my nor Snocrates' religious affiliations are pertinent here, although I did notice your threat to have the LDS Church investigate me and imperil my salvation. To emphasize again, we are not harrassing you. Snocrates simply posted a 1991 newspaper account of the arson and Jordan Smith's conviction. Please stop your harassment. Stop demanding Snocrates' legal name, and stop using wikipedia as a forum for your original views. See WP:SOAPBOX.

Once again, we do not rely upon our own original research here. See WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As the "infamous" Snocrates from this dispute, I'm willing to stand by Cool Hand Luke's summary of the incidents in the section above. Cool Hand Luke and I are not "pals"; I know him as much as I know "Jordan Smith"; I turned to him for help only when Jsmith 51389 started editing my talk page comments. I did this because he was an admin familiar with the dispute and I didn't know what to do when an editor started changing my own comments. Anyone can review my edits at Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot); I have always tried to only include information that is published in verifiable sources. I've recently given Jsmith 51389 the benefit of the doubt and let him include information that is probably WP:OR on the condition that a {cn} tag be attached to it, but now other editors are beginning to remove the uncited WP:OR that I originally wanted removed, which I think partially, at least, vindicates my past approach. Snocrates 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Satanic ritual abuse

The discussion on this talk page has gotten out of hand and I think some of the comments may violate WP:BLP. Discussion of the credibility of sources is necessary, but some of the still-living sources have been accused of supporting or engaging in serious criminal acts, and these claims are not at all adequately supported. *** Crotalus *** 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Still happening here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Garth Brooks

There seems to be plenty of questionable claims in this article, and I am unsure of which version is "neutral" (free of said claims). VivioFateFan 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Konrad Dannenberg

• Impartial-Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - made an inappropriate post. I have removed a post by the above editor that appears to have violated WP:LIVING.
• NASA399 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - posted something similar. Upon consideration, this seems to have been a good faith post, but he repeated the negative accusations, so I removed the post nonetheless.

Could editors please consider watchlisting the above article? Thank you. - Jehochman 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe those posts violate WP:BLP. They both seem to be good faith attempts at discussing what info belongs in the article. If some of that info was placed in the article without reliable sources, then they would violate the policy. As such I believe those comments should be restored to this page. Jons63 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims should not be discussed on talk pages either. These may be good faith attempts to discuss an issue but as Jehochman says they still don't belong on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is Misplaced Pages policy on cases like this? When a former member of the Nazi party, a title which directly relates to the rocketry work for which they are famous for and for which they deserve a Misplaced Pages page, and an historical fact which is impeccably and repeatedly sourced, has requested of someone else that all reference to the word Nazi, even when describing their job positions, be removed from their page?

I'm not sure at what point potential libel issues and the need to keep Misplaced Pages accurate and not a whitewash of people's past balance. Is there a Wiki page that discusses this? Personally, I am concerned that Misplaced Pages could become a place for historical revisionism. Scientist-astro (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Heather Mills McCartney

Personal web site for this individual disputes the drinking "rat's milk" encouragement episode attributed to a 2007 appearance by Lady McCartney at Hyde Park. It is potentially libelous. Strongly recommend that, despite the footnote given it to a published source, this clause be removed from her biography. Genehisthome (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting this? This is a very reliable source.--Doc 10:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism

• List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Since the deletion discussion of the Dominionism template, this BLP violating list has sprung up. Of particular note and BLP concern is the "Usage not embraced by the subject" section where a number of people and organizations are listed that do not self-identify with the pejorative Dominionist label. // Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Someone came in and did some preliminary work on removing the BLP offending material. Unfortunately a particular admin came in and rolled it back. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A student group is not a sufficiently reliable source for controversial allegations about living people. I attempted to remove the lists from both List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism and TheocracyWatch but the former was reverted. *** Crotalus *** 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • TheocracyWatch is not a student group, so far as I know, but a research project at Cornell University. The article on TW says nothing about being a student group. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The potentially libelous material has once again been reinserted. Can we please get some action? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And the poorly sourced material was once again reinsterted. This is my third request for assistance in patrolling this and related articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I point out that no reliable third party sources have been put forth beyond the agenda driven TheocracyWatch which does not have any editorial or peer review structures in place causing it to not meet the criteria for a reliable source. It is merely self-published potentially libelous material being posted on a website. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a blatantly false statement. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Because I say so" isn't a compelling argument. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The material that Kyaa is calling "unreliably sourced" comes from (a) a Cornell University project with an editorial board that includes a lawyer and a professor, (b) the New York Times, (c) Rolling Stone, (d) Molly Ivins, and (e) journalists who are acknowledged subject matter experts. In addition, the article does not assert that these people are, as a fact, dominionists, it merely reports notable opinions. Kyaa has also admitted on his talk page that his objective here is to "shake the tree". He is clearly acting in a disruptive and tendentious manner. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that these sources do not actually say, in so many words, that the individuals in question are Dominionists, certainly not for all individuals listed here. Under both WP:NOR and WP:BLP, conjectural interpretations of sources are specifically prohibited. Unless a reliable source (and I am still not at all convinced that TheocracyWatch qualifies) SPECIFICALLY says the people in question are Dominionists, it has to stay out. Our policy is extremely clear on this. *** Crotalus *** 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Earl Paulk

• Earl Paulk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Piles of questionable material and frankly I'm not that invested in addressing it all by myself as I'm not that familiar with the subject and would like others more experienced with bios to lend their expertise in addressing the issues. Any help appreciated. // Benjiboi 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blimely - I'm also not familar with the subject but that article is a lawsuit waiting to happen - crack BLP stormtroopers need to spring into action. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Mary's High School (St. Louis, Missouri)

• 97.87.82.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A petty (but persistent) vandal, but these two edits present significant WP:BLP issues (defamation) and should be removed from the edit history. diff1, diff2. Lquilter (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of that sort can be pursued through Oversight. --Moonriddengirl 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

David Miliband

I would appreciate if people could keep an eye on this article, a user Special:Contributions/Hereward77 keeps trying to add the various crimes of the Red Army for what seems to be pretty obvious political reasons on his part (he implied I must be a communist for disagreeing with him...). I doubt we are going to go round listing the crimes of all the armies that everyone's grandfathers served in so we should not accept it on this article either. Another user Special:Contributions/Phase4 seems intent on including info on the Lockerbie bombing (which he seems to spend most of his time concentrating on) despite the fact Miliband has made no comment on it whatsoever. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute over the Red Army info has been resolved: see Talk:David Miliband#Compromise_proposal, and I have asked for an uninvolved admin to implement the agreed compromise and to lift protection on the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can Opperating Companies be considered Living Persons from Misplaced Pages's POV?

Discussion has been moved to WT:BLP. That is the correct place to discuss that policy. - Jehochman 03:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dido (singer)

The article claims that she is a thief. I am having difficulty finding a reliable source. I tagged it . The trouble with some references is that they quote wikipedia. These can't be used because then WP makes up an alleged fact, other website copies WP, then WP uses that website as a source. Spevw (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I rushed into action and found several UK newspapers who confirm that she "borrowed/stole" a recorder, at the tender age of 5. I will head on over to the article to add the refs.--Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP had already added a ref, to which I added another. Solved, I would say.--Slp1 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan Fogelberg

Contains this "It is believed that the cancer attacked him in retaliation for his god-awful elevator music." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.24.189 (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Plain vandalism, and seems to be gone now.--Doc 11:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Chad Douglas (closed)

Talk:J. D. Roth

I'm concerned that a newbie's mention of specific living people by name, in an attempt to identify the birthname of this TV personality who uses a pseudonym, may have crossed the line as regards WP:BLP. While I'm clear that an unverified/OR-based claim is unacceptable in the article, of course (and have so advised the anon IP), out of an abundance of caution I'm wondering if even the mere mention of these names on the Talk page ought to be deleted from the history? JGHowes - 06:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the messages of concern from the current talk page, but it's still here JGHowes - 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to pursue Misplaced Pages:Oversight? --Moonriddengirl 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have emailed RFO JGHowes - 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucas Cavanaugh, Francis Cavanaugh, and Francis Killian Cavanaugh

User Hdxstunts1 http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Hdxstunts1 has created a series of articles on the Cavanaugh family, alleging criminal activity. None are properly sourced. One article, George Cavanaugh was deleted as violating BLP. The subjects of the others may be dead (Francis Killian Cavanaugh is unclear) but other individuals are mentioned who may be alive. User:Hdxstunts1 has also uploaded several photos of the subjects of the articles that are claimed to be PD from US Government but no specific source is given, so it is not possible to verify that they are indeed the persons named. User:Hdxstunts1 has blanked notices recently place on his talk page asking for better sources.--agr (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the images as unsourced and deleted Francis Killian Cavanaugh as a BLPvio. I've not reviewed the rest.--Doc 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Marc Dutroux

There are some serious issues with this article. While the accusations against Marc Dutroux himself may be fine, the article also hints that there may be some sort of cover-up due to the involvement of the royal family, politicians and top bankers. At least two politicians are named. None of this appears to be reliably sourced and I'm somewhat doubtful it can be reliably sources since the article suggests it's an alternative theory ignored by the mainstream media. Some of the accusations appear to have been made by Marc Dutroux so these can probably be mentioned provided they are only attributed to him but the article definitely needs work Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the material. The whole article could do with better referencing, but that part was egregious. Without solid refs we should not include conspiracy theories, and we certainly can't make accusations against specific individuals in the absence of compelling evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

May Pang

• May Pang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to be in bad shape, with missing citations and citations to poor sources. It needs attention. A banned user, User:Sixstring1965, has edited it, so everything needs checking. - Jehochman 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Enrique Fainchtein

Please see the entry for Enrique Fainchtein. The username was created solely to create this article, it appears, and there are serious POV issues with the article. Writer deleted the tag once, but may be a newbie error. The article itself may not even be notable, but I'll let others decide. Ψν_nu 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've AFD'd it but I've got half a mind to blank most of the content until the sources can be more fully investigated - let's be in no doubt, that article is written by someone with a grudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no disagreement here. Let's see if others agree.

Interestingly, check out the entry directly below - got speedy deleted for basically the same reasons...

Ψν_nu 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz

I have deleted Barbara Schwarz per the BLP policy as formulated by Jimbo Wales: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."
The Barbara Schwarz article is in violation of these policies and several other parts of WP:BLP. It shows no regard for privacy. It does harm. It pains and embarrasses its subject. Please note also that the article is under article probation per the COFS RFAR case. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

• I endorse this deletion - this is just a poor rather batty woman. We don't need to do this.--Doc 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• I took out the link to the article at Barbara Schwartz, which justified the article on the Guiness-book-like claim of "most FOI requests." Well, that's no good. "Tallest dwarf" and "shortest giant" and "most boogers flung" are not appropriate as notability, and this is in addition to the BLP issue. Geogre (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is now on DRV as WP:DRV#Barbara Schwarz. Please comment.--Doc 10:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes

1. Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.

Mitt_Romney

The Romney article is becoming a WP:COAT for those that despise the Mormon Religion. User Qworty continues to add negative comments about previous Mormon practices to this article. Arzel (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits are in reference to George Romney, Mitt's father, who has been dead since 1995. Since the content dispute is not about a living person, it cannot qualify as a BLP issue. Further commentary, for those who are interested, can be found on the talk page here: Any input you might care to give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's still a WP:BLP issue, as it's about the subject father in the article of the subject. Secret 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham

The three subsections labeled “controversies” were originally removed by myself because there was no indication in any of the citations of an WP:RS calling these controversies or commenting on the controversial nature of the material, and as such fail the WP:BLP guidelines. My edits were reverted by user:Will Beback, who then later changed the title to “Notable”, although no indication was given on the notability of these other than to say they had been “noted”. Some of this material should be rolled back into the article, but much of it either does not meet the sourcing requirements for a BLP or the notability for inclusion into the article. Comments. DJ Creamity 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rielle Hunter

• Rielle Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the main allegation is sourced to the National Enquirer, but is clearly defamatory and probably has a political purpose. // JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus

Sbeyewitness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Removing sourced information, while claiming to be "removing incorrect information". I've reverted, as much of the information is clearly sourced by reliable sources or her own publications, but I want a cross-check to see if I may have been violating WP:BLP by restoring some of the information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article on Ward Churchill

Please review the article on Ward Churchill. The writing is extremely subjective and and biased. The article make a number of unsubstantiated claims and refers to this author of several classic books as an "activiist." Not to mention the ridiculous "ethnic background" section. It certainaly brings no credit at all to Misplaced Pages and at the very least should have one of the warning labels on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hanna (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the article looks like an attack piece. And there is a lot of "argued" and "claimed", both of which are bad signs. This needs a thorough going over by someone who will not only try to fix it, but stick around to work on consensus about how to handle this. A controversial figure, in the most meaningful sense of controversial (many supporters, many detractors). - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Laurence E. "Shayne" Hill

Yes, this schoolteacher was convicted for a series of sex offenses (easily verified by a cited source, and multiply verified by a Google search). But is this really of encyclopedic notability? It's been in the Seattle Public Schools. I first noticed it because I didn't like the tone of the section it was in. For the rest of the section, I think I fixed the tone. This, I'd be inclined to just delete. But I'm trying to avoid my completely taking over that article, to which I've made most of the recent edits.

If others here think this paragraph should be dropped, please go for it. If not, could someone work out how it should best be handled? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'd like to ask you for some clarification. Why do you think this is a WP:BLP concern? --Moonriddengirl 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tired of my entry being used settling political and editing scores

I edit on Misplaced Pages as User:Cberlet, and in real life have an entry as my non-Wiki identity as Chip Berlet. For several years, editors who have disputes with me on entry pages, or editors who disagree with my politics outside of Misplaced Pages, have gone to my entry as Chip Berlet and added negative criticsm. I do not object to negative criticism on my entry page, what I object to is allowing editors to add criticsm out of spite or to punish me for edit disputes or my outside political work. In the past Arbcom has ruled that attacking my user talk page or real lfe entry out of spite is not acceptable. Now it is happening again. A pro Lyndon LaRouche editor, Terrawatt, after calling me an Internet Troll during a dispute on the LaRouche-related page National Caucus of Labor Committees, then quickly went to my entry as Chip Berlet and added a nasty paragraph of criticism. See here. Over time this keeps happening. Drive by insertion of criticism. Despite the fact that the overwhelming number of reviews for the book I co-wrote, Right-Wing Populism in America, were positive; the only significant quote on the book is negative on my entry page. This is just unfair. The page is very unbalanced. I really would appreciate an even-handed NPOV approach to this matter.--Cberlet (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Cberlet on this. Obviously, the LaRouchie's dislike their critics, Berlet's work on them is well documented and has been critically well-received. Letting them attack him here is absurd. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke

• Bob Cornuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am not up on BLP, but it seems that this article should be of some concern. Specifically, it appears that original research may have been done to make the guy look bad (in trival ways). For example, citing claim by the subject that he had thought of something in 1988, but then citing another primary source who claimed to have done something similar in 1984. The implication is that Bob Cornuke is a liar (and he may or may not be)....anyway, advice on how to proceede? // TableManners 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Walt Disney

Currently there is a discussion on Talk:Walt Disney about Walt Disney sexually abusing children. I don't really know if the BLP policy covers such a discussion on an article's talk page or not. Could someone with experience with these issues please take a look? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It covers it, but only for living subjects (being cryonically frozen wouldn't count, even if Disney really was). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the thread. WP:BLP may or may not apply, but WP:TROLL does.--Doc 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Laurence A. Pagnoni entry

Hi, I am trying to edit the entry on Laurence Pagnoni. I placed quite a few links to his affiliations and neutralized the tone so it is not self-serving.

How can we move to get rid of the "This article needs citations" box at the top of the entry?

The article entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Laurence_A._Pagnoni Jakilevy (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, actually you've introduced many external links but not references which offer a source that affirms whatever is being stated. They are similar but not the same. See reliable sources as you're on the right track! Benjiboi 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cezanne Visser

• Cezanne Visser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article is currently in the PROD-deletion process. Nominator states "Extreme BLP concerns, non-notable indivdual, no sources for assertions." The article is about a criminal defendant in South Africa defending against charges of sexual abuse against minors. I am unfamiliar with the level of tolerance for the BLP tone exhibited by this article. Your looking at it would be appreciated. // User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a hideous BLP infringement, full of errors, with no real assertion of importance. Thanks for reporting this, and please do bring such things to our attention.--Doc 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Annik Honoré

Unsourced article, with severe BLP problems at the moment. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

re-deleted as non-notable and BLP violating.--Doc 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst

• Koenraad Elst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are major WP:BLP attacks against pro-Hindu author Koenraad Elst. One user (Paul_Pieniezny (talk · contribs)) claims that Koenraad Elst has the same stance on immigration as the Vlaams Belang, and Dbachmann (talk · contribs) claims on the talkpage that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-fascist by any other name.

The facts are that Elst has written that he has helped foreigners to integrate into Holland, that he has written that he has nothing to do with racism and xenophobia, and that he is not anti-Muslim (although he is anti-Islamic). I have added quotes on the talkpage that describe his stance on this: Koenraad Elst talkpage Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

bogus report. Referenced criticism isn't a "BLP violation". dab (𒁳) 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a bogus report. Please add any further discussion on that talkpage. I have criticized Paul's claim of this: he has often defended the party's stance on immigration, and of this: Since this event, he has often been considered the party's specialist on Islam and its link with the new Pagan Movement.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged request for deletion of Arash Markazi by article subject

Let me be clear, I don't say "alleged" because I completely doubt the person is who they say they are, rather I don't know for sure and thus I don't want to say it absolutely is the subject making the request. The subject article is Arash Markazi, a columnist for Sports Illustrated, and the situation happened thusly: (1) an anon account blanked the page (no clear IP identity from a WHOIS), (2) ClueBot immediately reverted and placed its generic "sorry if I'm wrong" tag, (3) I have the article on my watchlist, so I saw the vandalism and replaced ClueBot's tag with a lower-level warning to not delete content. Last night I received an email that alleges to be from Arash Markazi, simple and to the point: "Hi Bobak, I hope all is well. Is there anyway to delete my Misplaced Pages entry?" Since this was only a day after the anon IP blanking, I realized it could possibly be related (or an elaborate hoax by someone who doesn't like Markazi... some sports fans can be extreme). The email included phone numbers to call him, but before I replied (or called) I wanted to first check and see if this is even possible --and it if is I'm not sure admins can decide so on their own. Would he have to contact the foundation? I'd like to have a fuller answer before I reply. I'm thinking to initially ask if there's a particular part of the article that he wants removed/troubles him, but I'd first like to have an answer as to whether we can simply delete the whole thing. Let me be clear: the article Arash Markazi has nothing that's either on-its-face objectionable or hasn't been cited --his cancer has been in articles with him smiling in the picture as well as written about by his colleagues. --Bobak (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I noted the same on AN/I, but since the discussion is moved here - there is no opt out for articles, but the request of a subject (verified to in fact be the subject) can be weighed in an AfD. The notability of this guy can be debated, but if I had to guess as to consensus on this one I'd say the Faces to Watch thing probably will make it a keeper. You might direct his inquiry to OTRS, as well, perhaps before filing an AfD. They have experience with these types of requests and the basis on which action can be taken. Avruch talk 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'm going to direct the subject to using that pathway. --Bobak (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I ended up talking on the phone with Mr. Markazi and I now understand the issue. He felt it read like he wrote it (too detailed on trivial matters like college) and that as a professional was a bit embarrassing to have people think he might have written his own Misplaced Pages page. I am going to take a stab at reigning it in to be more to the point and focused on this professional work. --Bobak (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arash Markazi. Lawrence Cohen 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the previous post? --Bobak (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Martha Stewart - is stating that she's a convicted felon anti-BLP?

User:Jkp212 has removed a large majority of the info on Martha Stewart's felony conviction and jail time, stating that it's a BLP concern, especially concerning "weight." It looks like a whitewash job to me, so I put the info back in. It could be better referenced, but there is a reliable source, and a whole nuther article on the legal matter with lots of references (he removed the link). There is no question that she was convicted and went to jail. Note she was not convicted of insider trading. A third party might want to look into this. Smallbones (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current form of the article might teeter on the edge of a WP:WEIGHT violation, but a much greater concern is that material damaging to a living person seems to be largely unreferenced. I would endorse User:Jkp212's actions until the section is much more thoroughly-sourced than it is now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is almost as much information in the lead as there is in the section about her conviction. That appears place considerable weight placed on her conviction due to the size of the entry in the lead. Also, most of the statements in the insider trading section are unsourced at this time. Jons63 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely undue weight given in the lead, the main section on it looks ok as far as weight in concerned. It needs to be thoroughly referenced, though. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Added appropriate template. It needs considerable paring down in the lead, and references needs to be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not include unreferenced material of this nature. Is this material really that relevant to a LONG TERM article? Maybe a brief mention, in my opinion. Just because the charges got a lot of media attention doesn't mean that they are particularly relevant to her life. I believe it is a pretty meaningless incident (big picture) in her life. Do others agree? I certainly don't feel it's appropriate to mention in the lead.. Further, as user smallbones points out, "insider trading charges" is misnamed, b/c she was not charged with insider trading... Let's work out this type of info on the talk page, and not "experiment" with negative material within the article.--Jkp212 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit I haven't really looked at the article lately but this incident was quite huge and arguably was a major touchstone in her and Omnimedia's development with hundreds of people losing jobs and her comeback path due to the possibly overblown media attention netting her two TV series and relaunching all of her brands. Calling her simply a convicted felon doesn't seem right but neither does watering down the significance of the events and related outcomes. Benjiboi 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that we need to balance things to avoid undue emphasis; but being a convicted felon is a life-defining fact nowadays, even for a rich white woman. I do detect a desire to whitewash her criminal conviction. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, just looked it over and wikipedia looks foolish now. This was a huge event and one of the reasons her name is known to many worldwide. Something certainly should be in the lede and she jokes about her jail time regularly so a non-watered-down section about the jail time, trial and media attention is quite appropriate. Benjiboi 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this should be in there - and not just as a sentence or two, but likely with its own section and a mention in the lead. My concern is that the material that User:Smallbones restored is largely unreferenced; it should stay out until it's referenced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

the material needs to be sourced and in line with the rest of the article but there is no BLP issue with saying that MS is a convicted criminal - she is, that's not "negative" material - that's a statement of fact which be sourced with 100s of A+ reference sources. Her being banged up is a notable event in her life and I'd agree is worthy of it's own section. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon

On editor has been adding his own theories and original research to the article. He is also saying that members of Rev. Moon's church (of which I am one, BTW) shouldn't be allowed to edit the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user is a newbie, just help him to get a clue. If he persist adding unsourced material, use the {{uw-biog1}} templates in his talk page, escalation from 1 to 3 as appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably should not be the one to do that, since it doesn't look like he would be inclined to listen to anything I have to say. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped. I've taken a timeout from the article. However, I still think its assertion that Rev. Moon is planning to take over the United Nations and turn it into a theocratic one-world government is a bit unencyclopedic. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Parenti

Michael Parenti tendentious (sp?) editor assertion

Please see the recent edits on the history page. My contention is that 91.148.159.4 is repeatedly and maliciously reverting the biography to a half-truth state. The aim is to promote a political viewpoint, not to enhance the biography. I think the whole sequence of edits, over maybe a year or more, speaks for itself.

Jbowler (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) John Bowler

Not vandalism, I misspoke on the history page. It's a straightforward edit war, it's been going on since the page originated, on 31 May 2004, and, so far as I can determine.

So here's a challenge for wikipedia. Neither NPOV and nor concensus have happened. What now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowler (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

This person is a daughter of the Prince Albert of Monaco. She was born as a result of a union between the Prince and a woman not married to him. There are sources in the article which seem to document these facts. Nevertheless, an editor has strenuously objected to the use of terms and phrases such as 'born out of wedlock" and "illegitimate." The birth status is apparently important because of laws of royal succession in Monaco. I removed the offending material until it was sourced.It has now been sourced and replaced.

For those with OTRS permissions, a note was received at Ticket #2007122110002539.

Another set of eyes would be useful. We are likely moving to DR but I'd like to have any BLP issues cleared before then. Thanks -JodyB _talk 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of unreferenced stuff and POV editorialising. The girl is only 14, so whilst notable we need extreme care. I invite some sensitive editors to review and watchlist.--Doc 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Monaco's pattern of dynasticizing bastards is history, not POV. But there are 3 real BLP problems:

1. Jazmin's "trustee" objects to any explicit reference in the article to the girl's illegitimacy, yet this is directly relevant to her Notability and is mentioned in virtually all media references to her because Albert II of Monaco has no legitimate children. He does, however, have 2 acknowledged illegitimate children. If Jazmin became legitimate, she would automatically become first in line to her father's throne, not only displacing Albert's sister Caroline, Princess of Hanover as the official heir, but also inheriting that throne the moment Albert dies. Nonetheless, I erred in describing Jazmin as born "out of wedlock", because it appears that her mother was still legally married to David Shumacher at the time of her birth. The relevant point is that Jazmin's parents were not married to each other when she was conceived or born.
2. The "trustee" repeatedly inserts language which is either false or Crystal Balling, i.e. that Prince Albert has the authority as "reigning monarch" to legitimize Jazmin, to change the constitution to make her his heir, to make her his heir by marrying her mother, and claims that if Albert "were to recognize her" as legitimate she would become "HSH Princess Jazmin of Monaco". In fact, none of those assertions is true & therefore can't be sourced. Monaco is a constitutional monarchy whose Head of State can no more alter the constitution than in any other Western democracy.
3. The "trustee" juxtaposes text to suggest that Albert II did not recognize Jazmin as his daughter primarily out of desire to protect her childhood privacy. In fact, her mother's California paternity lawsuit against Albert failed due to Albert's refusal to voluntarily submit to California jurisdiction in the case, and he only acknowldedged paternity following results of DNA testing, which he required. Lethiere (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton

• Greg Felton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article about a controversial journalist had been the subject of editing wars after its recreation in October, including a blanking by the subject of the article. A discussion was able to produce a NPOV stub that remained stable until 21 December when some additions were made including several that violated WP:BLP and WP:OR and were removed. It was previously deleted in July as an attack page and appears bound that way again. It should perhaps be temporarily protected or deleted.

Interested users:

• Voxveritatis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
  75.153.84.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Greg Felton, the subject
• 24.193.194.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - since 22 December repeatedly reverting to adding statements that are contrary to WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The accusation of having written for National Vanguard is sourced to an unreliable opinion article that Felton accuses of libel see Talk:Greg Felton/Archive 1#Wrongful edits.
• Hyperionsteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - began adding statements on 21 December some of which were contrary to WP:BLP but is willing to discuss and make appropriate changes. see Talk:Greg Felton, User talk:DoubleBlue#Greg Felton.

// DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in the past with difficult BLP times with this article in October (see I would like to support DoubleBlue's description of the problem above, as well as his recent actions to clean out OR and material contrary to BLP. However, I still remain concerned about the overall NPOV tone of the article. This despite the fact that the current material is apparently appropriately sourced, and that I strongly disagree with the subject's opinions.--Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it for now. Obviously, if additional protection is needed, it can be applied. My reasoning on this is that semi-protection should allow involved editors to work towards consensus on the article while at least preventing libel being introduced by unregistered or newly registered. Registered users who violate BLP can if necessary be addressed through the warning hierarchies ({{uw-biog1}} or {{uw-npov1}}) to the point where appropriate action can be sought, if necessary, at WP:AIV. --Moonriddengirl 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. As I think about this article, I wonder if others would like to chime about whether referring this article to Articles for deletion might be appropriate. It is not clear to me that he meets notability guidelines from appropriate third party sources. Yes, he has written a book, but I can't find any independent reviews of it. There are a very few references to him online, apart from his own articles/websites etc. In addition, the article seems to be a magnet for editors who are critical of his views who include original research, non-reliable sources etc etc to push their views. The subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested the deletion of a previous version of the page , and the result was it was zapped as an attack page. After it was recreated (by a critic) in October, an IP address associated with Felton blanked the page. The current article seems to be to fall afoul of multiple WP:BLP policies, including too much of the subject's own self-published material given the length of the article, unbalanced etc. Would others suggest that an AFD would be appropriate given the history and current state of the article? Slp1 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I too hope for input from other editors. While there are things Felton has written, there are not any, reliable sources about Felton to be found. Besides the Levant opinion piece, which only calls him a "notorious anti-Semite" him in passing, I can only find an article in the UBC's School of Journalism magazine mentioning his being "silenced" at the Courier. I seriously question if he meets WP:Notability (people) and how can a NPOV article be written about him? The sourced statements in the article now claim to represent his views based upon snippets of what he has written, perhaps not incorrectly, but still awfully close to being WP:OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Debbie Allen bio

Why is Debbie Allen listed as a Native American Actor under categories? Her bio does not mention anything about her being a Native American, no tribe listed, nothing. Those listed under Native American Actors need to meet some sort of qualification besides self-identification. Debbie Allen does not even self identify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bringslight (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it is wrong, simply remove it. If you are in doubt, post to the talk page of the article and ask,--Doc 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohamed_ElMasry

A user who doesn't like Mohamed_ElMasry keeps adding personal opinion and poorly sourced derogatory information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.63.170 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Many elements in that article were copied and pasted from http://www.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca/~icm/aboutFounder.php. I have removed these. I have also cleaned up some parts of the article. It definitively needs a good re-writing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

John M. Bennett

{{Article|John M. Bennett]] - Radical edits by an editor named Seth Tissue have removed any objectivity to this article and crippled the style of the writing. Tisue "likes" Dr. Bennet's work (which he admits on the talk page), which is entirely beside the point, and on closer examination of his on-line resume, once ran PlasterCramp Press, in which he published the poetry of the subject of this article. While Tisue states that much of the commentary is unsourced, an examination of his own Wikipages (Jandek, for instance) shows that he does not appear to work by these rules elsewhere. In addition he continues to point to POV as a reason for his excisions and to appoint himself "judge"--or rather--protector, of the site. And finally, Mr. Tisue took it upon himself to do some apparently "retaliatory" editing on the Jesse Glass Misplaced Pages page. These are not the actions of a responsible, objective Misplaced Pages editor. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately it appears that this website attracts former students or associates of Dr. Bennett who seem to want to "protect" Dr. Bennett and his poetry from what they wrongfully perceive as undue negativity. In fact, this article attempts to give Dr. Bennett his due both as a teacher, a mentor, and as a poet, but this does not appear good enough for Mr. Tisue or the others. Jesse Glass 16:37 12/23/2007 (UT)

First, its a bit odd that the edits you're referring to happened a month ago. None of these edits violates the biography of living persons policy and honestly, I think his edits improved both articles. I'm sorry that you see his edits to your article as retaliatory; the information he removed was clearly unreferenced and didn't appear to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you can provide sources for information you would like to see included in Dr. Bennett's article, feel free to do so, but Misplaced Pages is not the appropriate format for your critique of his work. Shell 07:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah el-Faisal

Some users are adding to this article an image of el-Faisal saying "As for the Jews, you kill them physically".

The above is certainly a very contentious allegation. The source for this allegation is a google video link. According to google video itself, anyone can "instantly" "share" a video by uploading it.

Thus, I believe google video is not a reliable source, and a more reliable source is needed before such allegations are restored. Thoughts?Bless sins (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is another issue: More contentious info is being added to the article. The info being added accuses el-Faisal of calling for the murder of Abu Usamah. The source is this link. First the link appears to be dead. Even if it wasn't, it is to a blog. Blogs aren't a reliable source for accusing a living man of inciting murder.Bless sins (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank Rynne

User:BKLisenbee has added after declining arbitration see and User:FayssalF/JK, a link asserting an illegal act by the subject of page.See Last link in green on right hand side asserts illegal reproduction of photograph. This is a repeated and continuous violation of BLP . This is a continous activity on the part of the user. His last block was for one week perhaps a more robust response is needed Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Williams (radio personality)

The article's subject has been through controversy and scandal. It appears that some of the references in this article are links to blogs. An IP has picked a fight with an established editor over unsourced and POV edits the IP keeps inserting. My schedule does not permit my getting into this one or else I'd handle it myself.

Can someone look into this one? Thanks, --A. B. 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple problems on this article. One is the completely unsourced biased negative information being placed by an IP editor. In addition, there is a WP:UNDUE issue seeing that almost all the information on the page is negative. And much of the information there relies on blog sources, which seems questionable in a BLP. I've posted for comments at Talk:Greg Williams (radio personality)#Appropriate sources for WP:BLP where an editor is asserting that the blog source is not only reliable, but more reliable than the newspaper that the blog is hosted by, which seems doubtful to me. In addition I've posted this at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dallas_Observer_blog_on_BLP. From my perspective all of the info that relies on the blog source should be removed, and BLP guidelines will need to be explained to the other editor. I just wanted to see what others think before I start cleaning this article up, as I anticipate that one or more editors won't be particularly pleased about this. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion under the biographies of living persons policy

• Naftali Tzvi Weisz (AfD discussion)

I have deleted this news report masquerading as a biography. See the AFD closure. As noted therein, this deletion is subject to the requirements for restoration that a deletion under that policy implies. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this summary closure of an AfD 13 hours after it started over the near-unanimous keep votes of several experienced editors and administrators who regularly edit these types of articles, and protested it on the deletion review discussion. I understand that this arbcom case permits administrators to summarily delete articles at any time when in their sole judgment the article violates any aspect of WP:BLP. The claimed BLP basis for summary deletion was WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event The difficulty here is that the article subject is the rebbe of a notable Spinka Hassidic group who has a colorable claim to being independently notable. Uncle G's claim that the subject has no notability independent of a news event was vigorously contested in the AfD. The subject was covered by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times among other sources. This is a very different case from the arbcom case, which involved a minor whose only basis for notability was being the victim of someone else's abuse. As the arbcomm noted, administrators need to take into account the ethical implications of having Misplaced Pages articles, including avoiding harm to people who have no real basis for notability other than a single event. In this case, due both to the impeccable sourcing and the independent claim to notability, there's nothing unethical about having an article. I believe administrators should only intervene in ongoing AfDs when there is no legitimate claim that the article subject is notable and appropriate per policy. Here there was. User:Uncle G may be right or may be wrong, but nothing was served by not permitting Misplaced Pages's resident editors on Hassidic Judaism to weigh in and offer sources and evidence. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• • On a related note, I've brought Gerald Richardson to AfD for similar matters, and would consider similar requirements to hold for restoration as well. --Haemo (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That one should rightly be deleted and after the appropriate discussion. To be fair, there's a world of difference between a non-notable individual whose notoriety comes from crashing his car into a TV station, and a prominent religious leader who is (arguably) notable in his own right and whose notoriety comes from accusations of using his organization to perpetrate a ten-year-long, international, eight-figure charity fraud. Twenty years from now nobody will care who crashed their car. Twenty years from now people may well be interested to know the history of the Hassidic movement in America and its leaders. Wikidemo (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified

This is notification that I have blanked the article Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals in particular, constant edit wars; month old orangeside box. - I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can't exactly work out what is possibly controversial about this version of the history. If people are adding "poorly sourced negative information", why not just (a) protect the page (b) censure/punish them (c) remove the offending content? Lobojo (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Stubbifying went to far. At least half the material, such as the list of publications, was uncontroversial. And now it's protected as a stub so that's not a good outcome at all. All of the material there seemed to be true and well known, i.e. not defamatory, but the article clearly suffered from POV and other issues. When writers contentiously attack an article to make their point I think we ought to deal with the behavioral issue instead of taking it out on the article and it's subject. We further have the issue that often comes up with fringe theories (homeopathy, as popular as it is, suffers from all the usual problems of fringe science) where one has to make a careful distinction between discrediting the person himself, versus reporting the scientific consensus that his theory is discredited. And when we do want to report that a theory is discredited (usually best left for the article on the theory), it's best to report summary information and conclusions of experts, not advocate for one side or the other by picking and choosing among specific studies or incidents, or facts that contradict that theory. The whole "television experiements" section was essentially using fluff that had very little to do with the subject of the article, to try to discredit the entire school of thought to which he belongs. Maybe homeopathy is bunk, but an article about a famous practitioner is not the place to make that point nor is that the way to do it. Wikidemo (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Roy L. Pearson, Jr. email address

Pearson v. Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Someone from IP address 70.143.64.30 posted Pearson's email address on the talk page for this article with the comment "feel free to let him know how you feel!".

Not that I'm a fan of Pearson, but I don't like Misplaced Pages to be used as a harassment tool, which was the apparent aim here. I edited to delete the comment; would it be possible or appropriate for someone with admin rights to take the email address out of the history, as well? -- TJRC (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Try oversight, which really should be used for these things. MER-C 11:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted on the admin board and items have been blocked so only admins can see them but permanent removal apparently does require WP:OVERSITE. Benjiboi 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric Dezenhall

I am requesting that an admin or Wiki-editor familiar with WP:BLP review and correct the Eric Dezenhall entry. In its current state the entry does not adhere to Misplaced Pages’s standards regarding NPOV and verifiability and, in so doing, damages my reputation.

NPOV

The balance of the article is heavily skewed towards the negative. Positive accomplishments etc. are ignored in favor of attacks by my critics. For example, a Business Week article is cited, but only negative comments from the article are used. Not included in the entry is mention of the quote from Chris Lehane, Al Gore’s former spokesperson, stating that my firm “ a very good reputation.” The entry also includes a quote from Kevin McCauley of O’Dwyer’s calling me “the pit bull of public relations” without noting that this statement is in the context that I am “one of the most effective in specialty.”

This overall lack of positive content is conspicuous given the long acknowledgment that my firm is a leader in its field. No small number of sources praise my work and I am often sought out for commentary on crisis management issues. For examples see the following links:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,195307,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2005/09/the_delay_indic.php
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1612698,00.html

Verifiability

The controversy section of the Eric Dezenhall entry claims I “search… opponents garbage.” This is untrue. The source listed in the entry cites a 2003 letter from an environmental activist falsely alleging that searching trash is among the “reported tactics” of my firm. Misplaced Pages’s standard of verifiability is that the material in question has been “published by a reliable source.” No reliable publication has “reported” the letter-writer’s allegation that my firm engages in such conduct. As this allegation is harmful to my reputation, untrue, and not verifiable according to Misplaced Pages’s standards, I ask that it be removed.

This entry is in need of immediate attention because it contains false and defamatory information and is acutely unbalanced. The guiding concept that “Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid” is not being realized. The piece clearly violates two of Misplaced Pages’s BLP guidelines and I fear that it is becoming a platform to proliferate unfounded attacks as truth. I ask that changes be made as soon as possible. Edezenhall (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bushido, german rapper

Someone has edited Bushido's bio to say that he is a gay porn actor: he is NOT, he is a german rapper. That is blatantly false info, please correct, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.200.232 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the heads up. Benjiboi 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

King David Isle of Man

This page is constantly being edit by user Heraldic and a few others logging on under IP addresses ignoring WP NPOV and WP BLP, despite having these issues addressed to them on the article's discussion page. Heraldic has now begun posting comments on the discussion page with links to his self-published website.--Lazydown (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Still big problems on this page. Now editors are attmepting to skew NPOV by removing a standard cited source, style and nature used in many BLPs, Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December.--Lazydown (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As a point of reference the Anna Nicole Smith biography page has been rated a class B. It has at least eight citations for Ancestry.com and cited the same standard way that my citation has been made.--Lazydown (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul Ehrlich

This article is biased in that it includes too much criticism of Ehrlich and almost no defense of his opinions. He is a prominent scientist who writes about and promotes public understanding of the environment. It seems probable that his entry has been edited by people who want to attack the environmental movement for political reasons.

Is this the Paul R. Ehrlich article? --15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by H2g2bob (talk • contribs)

Brant Secunda

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

There are some very serious problems with this article. It is blatantly self-promotional in nature and the notability of Brant Secunda as a subject seems questionable. (Just how notable is Secunda? I can find precious little about him via a Google search beyond his own website and advertisements for his seminars.) It is also full of unsupported claims that Secunda is a "Huichol shaman" and a "respected initiate within the Huichol nation". None of these statements are backed up by citations of any kind.

Additionally, the primary author of the article, User:Nicosec, seems to be a single-purpose account who's main contributions to articles have been promotions of Brant Secunda and his Center for Shamanic Studies.

The only reason I have not nominated this article for an AfD is because it already was kept after a prior AfD a few months back. However, I find this AfD rather dubious – the fact that the AfD was closed after only two votes and the reasoning of the admin who closed the discussion essentially dismissing POV concerns about the article all strike me as rather dubious.

Basically, I think, at the very least, this article needs to be knocked back to stub length until a better-referenced and more neutral article can be written. And if the Secunda's notability can't be better established, I really think another AfD is in order, since the prior one seems to have had very little participation. (Perhaps it wasn't categorized under AfD/Biographies like it should have been?) Peter G Werner (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Crowned: The Mother of All Pageants

Not sure this qualifies as a BLP or not, but it seems to have tons of controversial claims in there about the "actors" of this reality show. VivioFateFan 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Inactive project pages
• Misplaced Pages archives