Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:35, 27 December 2007 editLazydown (talk | contribs)232 edits King David Isle of Man← Previous edit Revision as of 18:13, 27 December 2007 edit undoAngusmclellan (talk | contribs)64,067 edits King David Isle of Man: yummyNext edit →
Line 751: Line 751:


As a point of reference the ] 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.--] (]) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) As a point of reference the ] 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.--] (]) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

:These days the term ] is deprecated in favour of the less judgmental ], but having read the article you mention, I can see that there's a case for resurrecting it. I could stub the article, but even then a ] effort will portray Howe as at best eccentric and at worst ... well since ] says that we don't worst, that doesn't matter. If we leave the article alone, Howe's detractors, who are numerous and well-informed, will insist on adding rebuttals to his claims. Leaving the article in a pro-Howe form might be seen as endorsing his claims, and thus his "charitable fund-raising efforts". A ] either way. ] ] 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


== Paul Ehrlich == == Paul Ehrlich ==

Revision as of 18:13, 27 December 2007

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

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

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


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

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Chidanand Saraswati (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 23 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

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

    Centralized discussion



    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.

    This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
    The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.


    Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

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

    Unreferenced BLPs

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

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

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

    Unless the policy has morphed again, an {{unreferenced}} BLP that contains no controversial statement is not a violation; many of these probably qualify. {{fact}} is probably more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    This list was updated again recently; as of May 19, 2008, there were 14,679 totally unreferenced biographies and 13,405 biographies with the 'fact' tag. Let's get to work! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. Ty 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

    Just a FYI, BLP's with insufficient sourcing should preferably get the template {{BLPsources}} (Category:BLP articles lacking sources), while completely unsourced BLP's should get {{BLPunsourced}}. The latter is brandnew so the Category:Unreferenced BLPs is nearly empty. I hope these can be of help! Fram (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    I was thinking of some form of triage to look at harm mimimization given the huge number of unreferenced bits and pieces. Would it be helpful to have two extra templates - one which ran along the lines of "This highly controversial material needs to be referenced" and one for "moderately controversial...". The idea being the unreferenced sections within BLPs are then given some form of rank in terms of urgency? Does this already exist? This may make the list somewhat more manageable as editors can find an easy place to figure out what to prioritize. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    Well, the first ("highly controversial") needs to be removed asap, not templated. The second is debatable. I don't think it can do any harm, but I'll focus for now on tagging the completely unsourced BLP's. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
    OK, good point - I was musing on ones where it is/was common knowledge maybe. I will try to think of/look for some. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    sohh.com

    Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain highly questionable tabloid-like articles. Example headline: "Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”" Community input is requested here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    You are indeed looking at an over-sensationalized blog with your example headline. That blog post clearly contains the text . So draw a distinction between blog posts and sohh news articles.
    Special:Linksearch/blogs.sohh.com gives a more manageable 24 cites that probably could stand some scrutiny. 86.44.24.76 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

    Whutdat.com

    I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    NNDB Notable Names Database

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

    No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talkcontribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
    From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Misplaced Pages. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Misplaced Pages: not a valid source for anything in Misplaced Pages. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007

    The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --NellieBly (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    Jewish Virtual Library

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

    I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Misplaced Pages"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Notmyrealname on this, we should not be citing the Jewish Virtual Library for any living person biography. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    Can we also agree that for similar and even stronger reasons citing http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html is deprecated? ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    Oy, vey. Thanks for introducing me to THAT little slice of heaven. :) I agree, it should not be a source for info in any BLP. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    I've now searched for Jewwatch and only found Jew Watch, Google bomb, Steven Weinstock and Zionist Occupation Government, all of which makes sense to me. But I don't think that wiki search finds links such as the one on this page or the one I reverted. Anyone know how to search for Websites being quoted in references? ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    I raised this at the London meetup and have been given a couple of techniques; googling this way gets reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I doubt needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But on Special:linksearch jewwatch.com comes up 69 times including some that I think need checking out. ϢereSpielChequers 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

    f1fanatic

    This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

    WhosDatedWho.com

    Not a lot of links so far, but watch for this site to be used as a reference supporting celebrity relationships. I've started searching for reliable-source verification for the information (some of it is no doubt accurate) and removing the link and any relationships that can't be reliably verified elsewhere. From the editorial policy of the site:

    Information contained on the WhosDatedWho.com website listed has not been independently verified by WhosDatedWho.com. WhosDatedWho.com does not and can not review all materials posted to the WhosDatedWho.com Web Site by users, and WhosDatedWho.com is not responsible for any such materials posted by users.

    --Risker 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    I am a representative of this site and appreciate that wikipedia needs accurate sources for its information. I acknowledge your concerns and will ensure these are taken into account in our future site update. We are working to improve the accuracy of the information posted on our site and are introducing a verification mechanism in the near future. We recently gave editors the ability to post links to sources for every relationship published on the site. I would also like to state that like wikipedia, all of our content is edited by editors, with our senior editors having ultimate control over what is published.

    --Aamair (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    • No matter how reliable the information on the WhosDatedWho.com website is supposedly made, it doesn't change the fact that the website is a tertiary source, like Misplaced Pages. This means it definately can't be used to assert notability, and will probably never be reliable enough to cite content either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    If we still have a representative of the site watching this, is there any way its domain name can be changed to WhosDatedWhom.com? For the impressionable kids out there? :) MastCell 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —Ashley Y 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

    • Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My last edit, and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably The Wrong Version, was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — Black Falcon 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

    Porn actors' birth names

    This discussion has been collapsed.

    The last several days worth of edits at Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star), and the March 14 entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? David in DC (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Misplaced Pages. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    "As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Misplaced Pages should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Misplaced Pages itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the reliable source policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to User:John celona that Misplaced Pages isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. AniMate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that a name attested by a reliable source should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. AniMate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    So let's throw an hypothetical example out to see how this proposed change works... say Savanna Samson comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the New York Times, which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation). So... do we pull the name or not? Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    In that case I would say probably not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. AniMate 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing.
    I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was much thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name must be sourced; I know the the guidelines for WP:P* (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. WP:BLP often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. AniMate 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    (undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. AniMate 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. AniMate 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. David in DC (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about:
    • Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.
    This would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Section break

    Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

    This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? AniMate 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. John celona (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. (Jamesbeat (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))
    It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona ] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Widely disseminated? Here is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two minors who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding WP:BLP and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. AniMate 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.David in DC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    Here's a google search with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read WP:BLP because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. AniMate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

    It is on almost every google hit! John celona (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. AniMate 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Misplaced Pages rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Misplaced Pages distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that John celona (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    I intend to catalog and revert all attempts to remove real names from porn star articles as the removal is blatant violation of WP:POINT. Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. This is not a matter of opinion, since it is necessary to comply with the COPPA law. Anyway, as with any actor or author, when a pseudonym is used it is conventional to give the legal name as well. There is no consensus to change this policy and no rationale other then more hysterical WP:BLP hand-wringing. I will take a stand on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the extremists decimating our biographies. Fix obvious BLP errors, but do not remove verifiable information because you have some personal beliefs on privacy. WP:NOT here to be your privacy battleground, so take it to discussion boards if you want to gripe about it. Again, their choice to become a porn star invalidates their right to keep their real name secret. Accuracy and NPOV always trump WP:BLP; we are here to write informative articles for our readers, not play PR Firm for the subjects of biographies. No harm is done by listing the legal name other then fringe concerns invented by concern trolls. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. And a lot of what you've typed is put pretty incivilly. "hen you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name" is irrelevant. Getting the real name from a COPPA filing is the archetype of the behavior WP:NOR bans. And, as noted above, WP:BLP gives us pretty clear instructions on what to do if someone has purposely obsured their name, porn star or not. I think we're wise to be guided by the folks from the WP porn project, who have stated a pretty convincing case above, in my opinion, for removing porn actors' birth names unless they are known for something outside of porn.David in DC (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I was rude, but my frustration is borne from seeing well intentioned fans of WP:BLP go to extremes to reduce our biographies to crappy stubs. Somebody has to stop this nonsense. WP:BLP is not a be all and end all to this project. The point of this project is write accurate, verifiable articles. Including the legal name is part of the accurate part and poses very minimal privacy concerns for those who have chosen to become actors. What industry they act in is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    "I intend to catalog" is very different from "I am unilaterally reverting". The recent edits to Tim Hamilton's page are a disruption. Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

    Dragon says "fix obvious BLP errors"...One such obvious BLP error is including a poorly sourced name, the way Celona did above (source was a porn site)....You have encouraged him to engage in this type of behavior, which is not according to WP policy. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Fine, I will locate more reliable sources, including COPPA filings, and then re-insert the name. I will refrain from reverting any removals where the source was not reliable. But I reject this absurd notion that we must remove all legal names of actors because of privacy concerns. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    No, I am WP:IAR because 3 or 4 biased editors do not get to reinterpret policy. Citing reliable sources, such as a COPPA filing, is not WP:OR. This is SOP for all actors, we list the pseudonym and the legal name. We do not make exceptions for pornographic actors. Again, WP:BLP is not part of the WP:FIVE and it does not trump reporting accurate, verifiable information where there are no REASONABLE privacy concerns. A legal name is not a valid privacy concern for an actor; their decision to be an actor disqualifies them from this right. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" John celona (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    1. You are not correct in stating that WP:BLP does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Jkp12 is correct. WP:BLP does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have WP:BLP rejected by the community, Dragon695. AniMate 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    I totally agree on this. WP:BLP is fully respected here and violation of WP:POINT is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like John celona and now Dragon695 spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
    Care to make a point that is actually valid? WP:BLP is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. WP:NPOV does trump WP:BLP in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like Marilyn Manson, you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    Absolutely. And irregardless of BLP, I fail to see how adding the real names of people who are notable for their work in pornography under another name helps create a good article based on notable information about (their work in pornography under another name). If someone was notable for acting in pornography in the past and had now become an activist under another name and was engaging in activities that might become notable, then perhaps that other name would be suitable for inclusion to add research. But for the majority of these articles? Hell no. John Nevard (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry John, but we have plenty of pointless information. All actors using pseudonyms also have their real names listed. This is the default for just about every biography. The reason you and others want it removed is why? Why should porn actors get special treatment? WP:NPOV is very clear, we do not play favorites. There are no privacy concerns, if the information is reliably sourced, in it goes. It's a matter of consistency and accuracy. I'm sorry if the person is ashamed of being a porn actor, but perhaps they should have thought of that before they willingly chose to enter that profession. In light of that, I have already been busy making requests for COPPA documentation where only non-reliable sources document the real name. As these are official, government mandated documents, their accuracy cannot be disputed. Lastly, if you want to see just one of hundreds of biographies where the real name of actors with stage names are listed, please see Marilyn Manson. Note, nobody calls him by his real name in the media, but it is still a very factually relevent part of a biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    Can you inform the rest of us what a COPPA filing is and how does one go about requesting this information? I mean is it a government document or database that's publicly available? Can you also explain to me how and why pornographic actors must disclose their real names to the public under COPPA when the law is aimed to protect the privacy of children when they surf the internet? I'm asking these questions because I believe you are advocating a point based on a misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps you're thinking of another law? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    No BLP says:
    Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
    — WP:BLP, Privacy of Names
    I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example court cases, is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. WP:NPOV demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating WP:NPOV, I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Consensus?

    Does this represent a consensus now?:

    Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

    It looks to me like it does. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I need clarification on the "notable activities" outside of pornography. Like say a family law dispute that makes the papers like the Racquel Darrian example . It's clear even from the newspaper article that she is trying to protect her privacy. What if the actor willingly discloses his/her name in a porn publication like Dana DeArmond? Vinh1313 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well I can't see the Dana DeArmond example as being an issue as her actions make it clear she is voluntarily forgoing her privacy by deliberately and publicly using her real name. It's when the porn star is not acting to reveal their real name that's the crux of the issue here, such as the Raquel Darrian example, and I honestly can't imagine a messier situtation to use to try and figure out how the new policy works than the Darrian example. Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

    No David you do not have a consensus. My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name. You may have had a consensus a day ago but now you don't. I reserve the right to proceed without the consent of some extremely small group on some Wiki noticeboard. Please take note that Answers.com does not give out Brandy Alexandres real name. All of these cases must be taken on a case by case basis. You do not have consensus here. Sorry David but your interpretation of Blp and wiki is redolent of that of someone who has an agenda. These cases must be decided on a case by case basis or not at all. Albion moonlight (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I'm afraid answers.com is a Misplaced Pages content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose. Like I said above, WP:NPOV demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a stage name. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of Marilyn Manson, we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, WP:NPOV demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find Marilyn Manson's real name in a reliable source, or Tom Cruise. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. AniMate 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

    Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. AniMate 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see ]. John celona (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Misplaced Pages. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Misplaced Pages with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. AniMate 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    The case that I referenced above is here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Misplaced Pages. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    It does mirror Misplaced Pages, but unlike Misplaced Pages, it's not a Wiki that evolves in real time. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Misplaced Pages version. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. Ty Fox has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. AniMate 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. Here, is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Related case Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and oversighted. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    Not including in articles the real name of porn actors is in full compliance with WP:BLP and the other cited rules. It is utter nonsense to argue it is censorship. Censorship would be to delete those articles. It definitely makes a difference if people are acting in mainstream movies or in the porn business. Adding the real name of porn actors does not make a better article but is doing stalker's business like the Johan Paulik case has proofen. An encyclopedia has to be responsible and not to be like a tabloid. Therefore it should respect the privacy of people and not serve ill minded people like John celona, who use unreliable and bad sources to add real names. As the consensus above shows there is no arguing about publishing the names when the criteria are met. Again it is just spinning words and rules that have been agreed upon by the community to make editors appear as victims of censorship when in fact these editors are trying to 'vandalizing' established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
    Washington Post or a mainstream US Tv station are "unreliable and bad sources" only for self-appointed censors like you. John celona (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    Dear John, you neither gave Washington Post nor a mainstream TV station as source in the two cases that led to this discussion. Both I certainly would not have questioned as unreliable and bad sources and we would have argued about ethics and not about sources. What made the difference was that your sources then were a gay guide and a gay porn blog.

    Well James, you seem to misunderstand what wiki means by consensus I will assume good faith and remind you that consensus does not exist until everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That is clearly not the case here. Second of all you should really avoid making personal attacks by calling people ill minded or vandals. That kind of behavior can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I am not an ill minded person James nor am I a vandal. So please take it easy on the insults. OK ?? They are not helpful. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I don't believe I used the word "censorship" in discussing this situation, but as long as you bring up that politically charged buzzword, I would point out the Misplaced Pages is not censored. There is a process in place on a case-by-case basis for dealing with the real name of anyone, porn performer or not, appearing in the article and that is to delete the edits and oversight them. I have not followed the alleged Johan Paulik "stalking" case but since Misplaced Pages requires reliable secondary sources the notion that his name not having been included in a Misplaced Pages article would have prevented a stalker or anyone else from finding his name is ludicrous, since to be in a Misplaced Pages article it needs to be available elsewhere already. There is no consensus that I see here that including real names of porn stars (or anyone else) is acceptable only if they are notable for something other than being a porn star. The requirement of reliable sourcing proposed here is redundant to existing policies and the proposed requirement that they be notable for something outside of pornography is stupid and I cannot support any suggestion that there is consensus for this requirement. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    It would not have prevented a stalker from finding the name. But it makes a BIG difference if you have to search the net on your own or you just go to Misplaced Pages as your primary source. Again. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed as in certain court cases, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". The real names of porn actors have intentionally been concealed AND omitting them does not result in a significant loss of context. Both these WP criterias are met when dealing with this issue. But to avoid significant loss of context it was proposed that when these persons are notable for something outside of pornography the name couild be added if properly sourced, of course. So this requirement is anything but stupid. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC))
    By the way, is there a single reliable source that Johan was stalked by someone because his real name was on Misplaced Pages? How can you stalk someone without their address or phone number neither of which appear (or should appear) on Misplaced Pages?John celona (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I was wondering that myself. I did some looking around and couldn't find any indication that Johan has ever been stalked, either based on his Misplaced Pages article or otherwise. Even if he had been, the notion that Misplaced Pages is responsible for protecting people against stalkers is ludicrous. Anyone could decide to stalk any living person; should we remove all biographical information from all living people out of the fear that someone somewhere might stalk them? I completely support the notion that on a case-by-case basis, where the person (regardless of his or her occupation) can demonstrate that having their birth name in a Misplaced Pages article is causing them actual harm, then Misplaced Pages should restrict the inclusion of their birth name. "Someone might do something mean to me" is not a legitimate excuse for omitting encyclopedic and verifiable information. The notion that Misplaced Pages is responsible for the consequences of being a one-click stop for biographical information as opposed to forcing a hypothetical stalker to do a little extra work is silly. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    Amen to that. I think IDMB is a good enough source for birth names but perhaps not for gossip. But that does not mean I think any of us have the right to try and vilfy those who disagree with us. Wikilawyering can be very disruptive. All Blp cases need to be regarded on a case by case basis. It is not up to us to declare IDMB or any other source as unreliable for the whole of wikipedia. Jimbo and a few others have that right but we don't. :Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    For sourcing BLPs, all sources in an article must be proven to be reliable for the information they represent. If there's doubt, leave it out. That's what our policy says. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    Welcome to Misplaced Pages and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the welcome. As a longstanding Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to most areas of Misplaced Pages policy, I'm surprised to find that I'm still considered a newcomer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well to be fair, unless someone knows to look for the link to your previous username, then you do appear to be relatively new. Still, the idea of using shoddy sources for controversial BLp issues is appalling. AniMate 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Above, a couple of folks questioned whether Johan Paulik has, in fact been stalked. One has called trying to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook a silly endeavor.

    But there is a Slovak ice hockey player with the same name that is alleged to be Johan Paulik's birth name. He plays on an Irish ice hockey team and is listed here on WP. I can find no online source that indicates this ice hockey player has been stalked on the assumption that he is Johan Paulik. But it's not hard to believe. And Jamesbeat has reported to us that Johan Paulik HAS been stalked. There's no good reason to think JB made this up.

    First, do no harm. Not Silly. Err on the side of caution. Not Silly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Very Not Silly.

    Irish soccer hooligans can be pretty vicious. It's hard to imagine that Irish ice hockey fans would be less so.David in DC (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    I understand what you are saying David but I don't think wiki is responsible for the actions of soccer fans or hockey fans. I do not believe that JB made it up I just think his or her rationale is not all that compelling. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. On another note, thank you for the chuckle. Your greeting to the new editor above made me laugh out loud when I followed the link to his talk page and understood your joke. David in DC (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    There is no reason not to assume the "stalking" was made up. When asked for a RS the user dissapeared from the discussion. John celona (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, no reason except for WP:AGF anyway. But assuming JB's good faith is pretty important.David in DC (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry for having 'disappeared'. But sometimes unexpected things happen and WP becomes the least important concern. The Johan Paulik stalking happened about ten years ago. It was reported over here at the time in a TV feature about the Prague gay scene. During a short interview Johan Paulik mentioned having been victim to a stalker because his real name had been published. The incident was also shortly discussed on a forum. The forum went offline around 2000. So there is no trace to be found any more, which leaves me of course with no real evidence to proof this story. But it was not made up.

    What I was trying to say about "to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook" is that contrary to the IMDb the real names are available on WP to everyone sometimes even accompanied by a picture for easy identification whereas the IMDb has no head shots. The IMDb even requires additional steps to view adult content. The name is also not on the first page. Call it nit-picking but it makes a big difference. For the reliability of the IMDb and the use of real names you should give this a try ]. Although adding data to the IMDb is monitored and has some restrictions for contributing a fair amount of unreliable and unsourced data gets published.

    Regarding COPPA filings. These are confidential documents mandated by the government but not intended to be published. So using them is a violation of BLP. (Jamesbeat (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

    Re COPPA filings. Using them as a source is pretty much the archetype of what WP:NOR prohibits.David in DC (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    It does not really matter what any of us think about IDMB or any other source unless we have a consensus. And even then consensus can change at the drop of a hat. The link provided by Jamesbeat that declares that IDMB is is unreliable for real names provides no proof of its allegations and still would not be binding even if it did provide such proof. But now that I know that thus may be the case I would be more inclined to look for additional internet sources that provide the same name that IDMB does. Arguing about the reliability of sources is all too often used as a way to promote ones agenda. Each Blp must be taken on a case by case basis. It is as simple as that. The Ignore all rules pillar is a very powerful rule. :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    Unless a source is known to be reliable, we don't use it for biographical information. imdb is far from being known to be reliable, and we should never use it for biographical information that is at all sensitive. For such purposes we must demand unimpeachable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    IMDb is not a reliable source for one reason: It uses user-submitted, unverified content. That is the definition of a non-reliable source. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    The story ends when a consensus says it ends. If someone wants to contest a sources reliabity they are allowed to do so by making a complaint to the Blp noticeboard. There is also a mediation committee but neither they or the arbitration committee decides content disputes. So here we are stuck in conundrum. There is no sense in Wikilawyering. Wiklawyering is disruptive. 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC): Albion moonlight (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    There is no "consensus" about it - IMDb is not a reliable source for the purposes of sensitive and personal information. FCYTravis (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    FCYTravis is an administrator. What I now reccomend is that anyone who wants to use IDMB as a source should first check with another administrator before they do so. I just reread the section on Blps and realized that admins are given too much power in dealing with sources. So in cases where admins insist that a source can not be used one would be foolish to use it without checking with another admin first. Albion moonlight (talk)
    It's not about whether I'm an admin or not :) It's about the simple fact that IMDb is composed of user-submitted content which is not necessarily verified or fact-checked. That means the information it contains is not necessarily accurate and there is no system of editing and supervision that works to ensure only truthful information is published. It would be like using Misplaced Pages as a source for a Misplaced Pages article. For biographies in particular, we need to take our information only from reliable sources, such as newspapers, reputable magazines and television programs, edited and fact-checked Web sites, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    Could you please tell us where you get your information about IDMB ?
    One way to get the birth name information in without ultimately needing the permission of admin('s) is to simply say something like,it is widely believed that such and such's real name is, and use several references to back it up. I have seen this done when referring to hate groups as hate groups. The fact that a member of the arbitration committee was actively involved in that case, suggests to me that it it is OK to do that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    The case that I referenced above can be found here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

    What is acceptable for an organization, is not necessarily acceptable for a living person. It is not acceptable to use such unverified speculation in biographies. FCYTravis (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    This is awful. You're actively trying to figure out ways to skirt policy. Policy isn't in place to hamper editors, it's here to help editors and protect the encyclopedia. I think you should re-read BLP and attempt to explain your understanding of it, since you and John celona both seem to have any idea why the policy is there and what it actually means. AniMate 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am pointing out ways to get around what I and others view as a too narrow an interpretation of Blp policy. If Jimbo or one of those people in the upper most echelons want to keep the real names of pornstars a secret they have the power and the right to do so. The rest of us are stuck with business as usual. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    If BLP disallows something, the solution isn't to try and find a back door way to sneak around the policy - it's to leave the material out. Trying to Wikilawyer BLP is not a smart idea. FCYTravis (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's definitely not a good idea to try to circumvent our policies. Although I've no doubt you don't intend anything underhanded, it's difficult for an administrator viewing your edits to work out whether or not you are engaging in a disruptive form of editing known as Gaming the system. Even if an administrator doesn't take action, other editors may begin to lose trust in you and, ultimately, in Misplaced Pages. Readers will see the weasel words in an article and lose faith. It's better to search for solid, unimpeachable information, if it exists, and cite it when you find it, being prepared to change your mind if your judgement is overruled. We all submit to this standard, nobody is asking you to do something that isn't expected of all of us. --Jenny 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    NB: Until recently I edited Misplaced Pages using the account "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The" --Jenny 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    Section break, again

    I must agree with Jenny (at least that's the current signature). Why you think this is such necessary information, I don't know, but you do. Again, WP:BLP is here to protect not only the subjects of articles, but it's also here to protect us. When it comes to real people, we have to be careful, thoughftul, and patient. It's really all summed up by this:

    I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
    –Jimmy Wales

    Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? AniMate 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    I don't particularly like the idea of censoring real names of actors commonly known by their stage names based on what type of film they perform in. That doesn't follow me as particularly logical, and it seems to me like a gross violation of the principle of a neutral point of view toward which we are supposed to be striving toward.

    Naturally, if there's only sketchy information available (like citations on blogs), then it should be removed, just like any information that can't be reliably sourced should be; but the idea of removing information that can be reliably sourced simply because someone doesn't like it and tried to hide it really rubs me the wrong way. This isn't a case like Genie (where I also argued for the inclusion of the real name), where the subject at least didn't have a choice about the things that made her notable; this is a case where someone has intentionally sought notability and has had to suffer the consequences of living life that way. Having your identity known widely can be one of the prices of that, and it isn't our place to be unnecessarily sympathetic towards peoples' problems at the expense of the usefulness of the project. Celarnor 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

    You're right people make choices and have to live with the consequences. If someone chooses a career and tries to hide their name but it comes out in multiple reliable secondary sources, then so be it. But the question is, should we at wikipedia be spreading information that isn't already widely available? The answer IMHO is no. And actually I for one don't care whether they are porn actors, scientists or internet celebrities. It is not our job to dig out information from primary sources and tell the world because information wants to be free (or whatever). It does get a little more complicated when we have a person who has been widely covered but who's name is only sourced to one albeit reliable secondary source and I won't discuss this sort of case for now. And definitely if the information is widely covered in secondary sources, then I would have no problem with the information being included, whatever the wishes of the subject. But using primary sources to uncover information not already cited in secondary sources reaks of OR and a privacy violation to me. P.S. I agree the Genie case, which I argued against inclusion of the real name is different in character and doesn't add much to this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    How then to square that with the part of WP:BLP that says this, and especially this:
    "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."?
    And how to square it with this, and most especially this:
    "Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."? David in DC (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    I'd much rather see something referenced by primary sources than something by secondary sources, especially with regards to things that may be controversial; using a primary source allows us to look just at the facts; not at the biases, the prose of people another layer disconnected from the facts, but just the relevant facts. Primary sources are fine for simple, descriptive claims; i.e, some presidents have made their tax returns publicly available, "This person claimed this on their taxes"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a publicly-available tax return for that; I think it would be preferable to do that than to cite a secondary report on it, since we're closer to the information that way and less open to re-reporting bias, which should always be avoided. It's only a problem when you have to use synthesis to get an article out of it.
    If something is available in a database and it straight-out tells you what someone's name is with zero or near-zero doubt, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a trademark application or an article in the New York Times; they both serve the same function. Celarnor 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    But then the database has to be reliably sourced, hasn't it? The IMDb for instance is anything but a reliable database when it comes to adult films. Wrong data and stage names on movie pages, actors incorrectly listed in films they don't appear in, wrong ID connections as well as no source given where the biographical data originates from. So why should this information be accepted when it is in fact based on the same sketchy information that is not regarded as a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards? (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
    I don't think that using Imdb is what Celanor is talking about but I do know that there are ways of covering wiki's butt and still using IMDb and or other such sources. The question then becomes should we do so? I think that each case should be taken on its own merits. But there are others here that strongly disagree. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    That's not what I was referring to. First, the IMDB isn't a reliable source; it accepts user-generated content. Second, it isn't a primary source. With regards to film, a primary source would be the film itself (i.e, using the film's ending credits as a source for who was in the film or something else that is very, very obvious restatement of fact). I was talking about public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information, like lists of non-profit charities, trademark applications, and the like. Celarnor 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    Dragon 695 is right in one way. We should not have a special policy for porn stars. WP should not reveal the real names of any persons who use pseudonyms to conceal their identity. The pornstar case should be cited merely as an particular example of this policy.

    My proposed wording: Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal their identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Misplaced Pages should respect their privacy and not reveal their real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal - possibly slanderous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included.

    Note that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons such as another actor already using that name or chosing a name that sounds more macho, more American or whatever.Filceolaire (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

    ==Talk: John Michell (writer) 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. Thanks for your time. SageMab (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

    Section break, one more

    Once a performer gives up a pseudonym in an interview, or even writes something like an autobiography to sell in mass media ads, one could argue that there is no point in concealing the birth name on Misplaced Pages. However that is the sole exception. How many "Jenna Jamesons" with pop star status are there in porn valley? I think AIM health care tests more than 1,200 actors monthly. Sure not everyone reaches the notability to be included on Misplaced Pages (although with 300 AVN advert nominations a year many will find their article stub pop up here sooner or later) Anyway, how many of them do you think will want to get another job maybe two years later on? The long careers are pretty much a thing of the past as many rush through the biz in months. With XXX web content on the rise most production companies don't build up stars anymore. So does it have any real world consequences to have your name revealed on Misplaced Pages by some asshole best boy or webmaster who makes a copy of your passport and later adds cast lists at imdb? You bet!

    "that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons" as stated by Filceolaire couldn’t be farther from reality.

    (Sorry. I wasn't clear.This sentence refers to non-porn actors, many of whom have pseudonyms. I added this sentence to my post to show that the policy I proposed would not stop us revealing that John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

    There's a usually respected codex not under any circumstances to reveal the civil identity of another performer even if you are friends with. The story of a fan "who just tries to help" out Misplaced Pages by adding some alleged birth name found somewhere on the net, on any kind of blog, online forum, social network where people sign up with stolen identities etc. or even completely unsourced is just too hard to believe. In my opinion you can entirely forget about the assume good faith policy in such cases.

    Pseudonyms are used to partly escape the social stigmata any sex worker will experience, unless s/hes already a trademark in pop culture. That's just one side to this story there's another. Misplaced Pages lists many performers from European countries, and what Jkp212 said about "Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do." pretty much hits the nail in the coffin.

    Take for example France or Germany. In these countries you not only do you have a right of informational self-determination, you can even sue people over it. While every foreign language version of Misplaced Pages may have it's own set of rules the Misplaced Pages editors living in these countries can't escape their law system pointing to some "that's how we do it on Misplaced Pages" babble.

    So with the purposed policy change you not only protect Misplaced Pages but also editors in these foreign countries who won't believe they will be traced and fined until it's too late.

    The analogy with some politicians(!) public charity or tax returns used as primary sources for birth names just doesn't cut it. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. This would be a given in case you run for major in some town, however with some regular porn star performer an European court would always let the right to conceal your identity outweigh public interest. It's pretty much a no brainer even some one without legal education should get just based on ethical values alone. This holds true for the majority of performers in the adult biz! Of course in such discussions people often cherry pick the few(!) super stars, some of which even released autobiographies featuring their real name.

    Then this notion about how Misplaced Pages does not contain telephone numbers and addresses, hence no risk for a performer to be stalked. Heck, if an anonymous editor posts something like "today Madam Kristyna Zmrznlina lives in..." some random American village" . Now how many Zrmzlinas might live there? This is not Bel Air. I think you get the idea.

    There seems to be a terrible bias among some admins in foreign wikis that it has to rain OTRS tickets before a performer gets what is basically a fundamental right.

    How about whoever adds a real name to porn stars biography gets banned immediately? No I'm serious, I mean such a zero tolerance policy would be way simpler than trying to explain most porn fans how to balance private interests versus public interests. To handle such thing on a case-by-case basis binds unnecessary human resources and frankly most editors don't have what it takes to make such decisions on a level a real world judge would do it in a court.

    and even in the few(!) cases where the birth name has been sourced with consent by the talent in question (e.g. autobiograhpy, interview) it wouldn't affect the article quality in my eyes.

    "My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name" Albion moonlight

    As stated above answers.com is just one of many commercialized mirrors of Misplaced Pages. They just seem to have some time delay on the updates, and sometimes articles are editorially edited, most often not. Before making your own guideline try to think about where your freedom to make any such guideline ends. It sounds easy but it ain't, since we're not just talking sources here but personality rights. You might be able to generate thousands of Google hits for some source and it's worth nothing if you infringe the personality rights of a performer. In worst case scenario they might engage a lawyer and rightfully shred you to pieces.

    " I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson" Dragon695

    Marilyn Manson is a world famous rock star, he doesn't need to work anymore, it's nothing like the plain Jane 30 year old ex performer who just ended her valley career in favor for a little family. The word pornSTAR is pretty much misleading, they don't play in the same league, it's not even the same sport dude ;)

    Who pays for the kids to visit a private school just because some clown thought it was a good idea to publicly spread real names of their parents via Misplaced Pages?

    NEVER reveal any real names of adult actors unless they have disclosed these names themselves in autobiographies, interviews or other activities outside porn they became notable for.

    So once again:

    Everyone has a right of informational self-determination, in many European countries this is written law.
    Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. For example a porn actor becoming a politician (think Ilona Staller) or some mega success outside the biz (like pulling a Hilton, as you can't have it both ways) or releasing an autobiography and cruising through talk shows in mass media, or becoming a mainstream actor using your real name.
    The majority of porn actors uses stage names for the sole reason to conceal their civil identity, this should be reflected by the policy change. Further all references to birth names have to be wiped from the article history as well as all entry fields in the adult actors info box. Consistently all links to databases using unverified user submitted information which might infringe personality rights of the articles subject have to be removed too.

    It makes no sense to remove a name from the article and then backlink to it later on. Just as an aside there have been cases where even mainstream Hollywood actors have fought with imdb, however it goes without saying that most people in porn just can not afford such legal battles. My advices for adult actors is to enter a wrong name at imdb yourself. Sooner or later some creepy fan will import such names to Misplaced Pages anyway. Pretty much the same goes for birth dates...

    One of the worst arguments brought up is "they" can't stop anyone from finding whatever questionable source was used to put in a birth name first place. It just doesn't matter, since Misplaced Pages is one primary source of information for many people and it's content is copied in hundreds of smaller special interest databases all over the internet. So there definitely is a reason for some one who wants to conceal an identity to remove any such data from Misplaced Pages.

    In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm", so now act accordingly and act consequent. A little note for European performers: You should get that you don't live at the mercy of some honorable OTRS helpers, in many European countries it's entirely possible to take Misplaced Pages down with a preliminary injunction, until Misplaced Pages starts to protect personality rights with some special peer group of members (a legal education background would be great) that can react to such edits in time.

    If such a thing can not be organized Misplaced Pages will have to adapt, like freezing all biographies and let every edit by an anyonymous editor be watched over by some other experienced editor BEFORE becoming visible in the article or the article history, by treating biographies on living persons like that, such articles would loose the possibility to be updated in real time in favor for protecting the personality rights of the subject.

    For this idea to become reality it would only need a small change to the review system which gets currently tested on the German language Misplaced Pages. Those of you regulary patrolling porn star bios for vandalism might even agree with me that such a thing could save them huge amounts of time. Mean-spirited people would loose interest in adding crap to biographies real quick with such a system in place.

    In the overwhelming majority of cases you will not be able to source that a name has been released with consent of the subject in question. Why is this consent important at all? You can derive that from the right of informational self-determination which preempts and limits the rights of any public interest group. As to why a porn star has to be treated much differently from some mainstream actor living a sheltered, bodyguarded Hollywood media life should be obvious. Such persons get listed in the credits of blockbusters with their real name. Whenever Hollywood stars would decline to get credited with their real name and sign the contracts accordingly from the very start of their professional career, they had to be treated in the same way as porn stars on Misplaced Pages.

    That holds also true in the Savanna Samson case brought up by Tabercil, where there was an article in the NYT featuring her birth name. There is no "the cat is out of the bag thing", if the NYT would publish a name without consent they would be liable. Get a decent lawyer and you could be looking at big $$$.

    Conclusion: Although I much favor a zero tolerance policy I could live with what was purposed above. But you absolutely need to change this "other activities outside porn" sentence to something like "other activities outside porn they became notable with" to make any sense at all. Otherwise you might get adds in the likes of Madam X ranked second in the ice skating finals in junior high, her real name is blah blah and she entered porn in...

    "There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so" Jamesbeat Exactly. Of course there is a real benefit in NOT publishing the birth names of adult performers, apart from the fact that such a decision should be left to the performer first place and this fundamental right of informational self-determination is protected in many countries ;)

    "Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly" proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors."

    David in DC

    Now this is something I can truly rally behind. xoxo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    Whoo-boy, this is the most cogent and thorough treatment of this topic I have seen and it warms my heart. I hope it becomes the basis for real, consistently enforced, definitive policy on this topic. (Except that quote from that David in DC guy. He sometimes comes across as awfully self-righteous.) David in DC (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    Aww, *blush* thank you so much for starting my morning off with a laugh! :)
    I'm no native English speaker, but I do hope I could give those of you who struggle to find some arguments to bring what common sense should tell you in line with the Misplaced Pages policies a helping hand - either legally or ethically. I think it can't hurt the wiki-community to take a look at those European countries with some of the more advanced privacy and publicity right laws. We can learn something from it by trying to understand their intention and looking at the long history of OTRS tickets on porn star bios.
    I am convinced that ultimately the pornography portal would gain from such a strict enforcement on porn stars biographies when it comes to birth names and vandalism. Once news about such a policy change goes out, some actors might even be less hesitant to supply pictures of themselves ;)
    C'mon every talent really interested in having their picture on Misplaced Pages could supply one, it doesn't come as a surprise almost no one wants to do it when anonymous posters are allowed to use their namespace as a piece of jotting paper for their mental blackouts and you can be almost sure some so-called fan adds a birth name every month to update the article history no matter the endless efforts of the guys currently trying to enforce WP:BLP. Let's put an end to this. Give names only with sourced consent of the actor unless the real name was used with notable activities outside porn, just like we do it for copyright stuff on Commons.
    We should also establish a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons just like it's done on the German Misplaced Pages, maybe with a twist that is no publication without oversight of an experienced editor (registered user with an X amount of edits, who's account is then responsible for the approval, that should put an end to anonymous WP:BLP violations). As for a nicer wording I'd humbly like to request the help of a native English speaker. ;) 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Proposal for a vote

    There appear to be two views here. One that porn stars' real names can and should be added to all articles, the other that they should not be added except in specific circumstances.

    I am of the second opinion, however I believe this is a particular case of a more general issue and I believe we should draft a policy for the general issue of when to reveal the real name of a person notable under a pseudonym.

    My proposal is to add the following section to the BLP page, after the Well known public figure section and before the People who are relatively unknown section.

    It should read as follows:

    Pseudonyms

    Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal his or her identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Misplaced Pages should respect privacy and not reveal the real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal — possibly libellous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included where it will add to an article.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Oppose on the grounds that all WP material must be wp:verifiable, so the person's real name is actually on the public record already. If the WP editor could find it, then so could anybody else. Also, generally, it is unwise to stifle information. As an aside, the definition could be edited to be more accurate — e.g., his or her identity, not their identity, and libelous, not slanderous. Yours in rather spirited defense of freely available information, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    Edited to incorporate these changes. Thanks. Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This provision is already covered by verifiability and BLP, since any "outing" would have to be sourced to strong reliable sources, in which case the person has been outed anyway. I don't think it hurts to emphasize that compromising BLP information must be extremely well sourced, but I can see some being concerned about instruction creep. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    The issue arose where WP editors were getting real names from minor blogs and from legal documents (such as age declarations and trademark registrations) to out pornstars real names. This change to BLP would make it clear that even if the person has been outed before on some obscure source that does not make it appropriate to out them on WP.Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)\
    Those editors were blatantly violating reliable source standards for BLPs and conducting original research then. The issue of using legal documents is a good point. Perhaps a statement indicating that compromising information, such as true identity, may not be tied to original sources, but instead must appear in a reliable, synthetic source like a magazine or newspaper. Misplaced Pages editors should leave the investigative journalism to the professionals. Gimme danger (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose... respecting their privacy should not be our concern. The only thing that should concern us is that it has been reported in a reliable, verifiable source. Perhaps the wording in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP needs to be strengthened in that respect, however the fundamental problem is inevitable. People think "ZOMG1!1 I can edit this, guess what I just heard... everyone needs to hear this." What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more of a strict application of current policy in excising information that cannot be reliably sourced. Maybe add a section to WP:BLP stating that a person's connection to their pseudonym needs an inline reliable source, and it should be removed without one (as opposed to adding {{fact}} to it). --Storkk (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose - If their real name can be verified by strong independent sources (not forums and blogs) and is already publicly known then it should be added. However, if they are only notable under their pseudonym and their real name cannot be verified then it should not be added. Ғїяеѕкатея 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Extremely strong oppose - If information can be verified, it should be included. Misplaced Pages is not a PR agency. We need to drop this self-important sense of being mighty gate-keepers of knowledge and only letting the little people know what it is appropriate for the little people to know. If it can be verified, it can be included! We're certainly not "outing" anyone if the information has already appeared in something we consider a reliable source. How is it even possible to make that argument? We are an encyclopedia, not a private security service. Mr. IP Defender of Open Editing 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

    Hello Filceolaire :) Let me say, first, that I do like your idea of a more general approach, however I'm afraid your wording in the second part ("Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known then it can be included where it will add to an article") doesn't help much, it might make things even worse. Look, you at no point have the right to make such a decision for a perfomer.

    Not you, not Jimmy Wales ;), not even a hundred Misplaced Pages editors who might vote here can decide about whether or not a certain adult actors privacy rights should be abrogated.

    Just look at Katja Kassin's case, some German admin made a Google search and said voilà a thousand hits for her birth name, so it's widely known and the name should be restored. What this particular editor overlooked was that he never was in the position to decide such matters according to the law of his country. Apart from the fact that neither IMDb nor any of the other fan databases are reputable sources and a birth name often adds nothing to a porn stars biography at all, since they are usually not known by their birth names.

    What some people try to do here is transfer the privacy right of an individual to the community, that won't fly with me ;)

    It doesn't matter whether a name has been concealed somewhere nor if it's widely known according to Google or similar search engines (anyone can spread such a thing all over the internet in no time - in hours even) given that Misplaced Pages is one primary source of information for many people.

    The one thing that does matter is whether or not a birth name has been spread with the permission of the adult actor and that's about it. (as long as the birth name wasn't used in other notable activities outside the porn industry, as you can't have it both ways, see, e.g. Sibel Kekilli).

    So even if the New York Times or any other paper or online zine for that matter would publish such a name without permission and the case goes to court, Misplaced Pages would not be allowed to cite the source as soon as it becomes clear that the name wasn't cleared. To prevent any such scenario right from the start it would be best to have a zero tolerance policy on porn star bios and work on the proposed changes to the Misplaced Pages editing system. Such a special treatment to biographies of living persons would make sense anyway, whenever dealing with articles at high risk of vandalism (porn stars, politicians during a campaign,...).

    I do get a feeling though that article histories and back links to birth names are deliberately neglected all across the Misplaced Pages project (no matter the language), as if some people would think the actors are somewhat not technical savvy enough to realize how they are taken for a fool.

    So to push this policy change, ALL article histories (including discussion sites) which contained birth names at some point of their revision history that got removed due to WP:BLP or OTRS tickets, should be flagged and then wiped by a bot. Same goes for the birth name field in the adult actors template. The links to filmographies should be checked on a case-by-case basis, sometimes people try to include birth names as pseudonyms. You could even organize a team in the pornography portal that flags articles. 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

    Absolutely not. There has been enough creep in BLP. BLP is intended to prevent unverifiable or poorly sourced information from going into BLPs. This is a good goal. This should be its only goal. It should not, ever, be used to suppress information which is verifiable from reliable sources. That's an editorial decision to be made on an article-by-article basis. BLP is a powerful tool. It needs to be strictly limited in scope and under no circumstances allowed to expand. Considerations of "privacy" and the like, when information can be verified through reliable sources, should be considered article-by-article. Legal concerns should be addressed by this guy here, not by armchair lawyers. And BLP should stay within scope. Period. It may not be our job to "out", but it is similarly not our job to "preserve privacy" of information already available in reliable sources. The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public? And if unsourced or poorly sourced, BLP already covers immediate removal. Seraphimblade 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - why vote for something that doesn't reflect anything from the discussion above? - first read up on the discussion before posting a one liner in here
    • Comment That was a rather rude comment. I read enough of it to know that I completely reject the notion of "consent" when it comes to the publication of people's real names. The fact that Misplaced Pages fails to publish real names in certain cases (a la Star Wars Kid) in the name of sensitivity undermines its credibility. Admittedly, there are bigger fish to fry first, but that's a separate matter. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, I didn't meant to be rude, in fact this sentence was there before I even read your post. ;) I thought a moment about moving your post under mine, but decided against it because I was too lazy. I'm still not really fond of polling before there is at least some kind of stub with the input of as many as possible editors that joined the discussion. Voting like I've seen it on Misplaced Pages often attracts people with blanket statements and discourages consensus between those who value arguments. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    Guys! You can still cite reliable sources to include a birth name where consent is implied. A published autobiography? A publication in the NYT and no one complaining -> consent implied. No biggy.

    But a TV reportage coverage immediately followed up by a verified OTRS ticket? -> NO consent, name has to be removed by LAW in many European countries and (at least) by ethics in the States on the grounds of Misplaced Pages's own "do no harm" policy. Responsibility is a keyword here for any OTRS helper, as Misplaced Pages demands little or no responsibility from those who are given the power of publishing information on perhaps the world's largest reference source. To dismiss any calls for responsibility and restraint as censorship or solely focus on a publication though there is a justified objection from the subject in question doesn't do biographies of living people justice. Most large publications (just don't count private TV stations in here) are restrained by journalistic codes of ethics in addition to legal advisers. I fail to see how this one guy has any influence on some anonymous editor messing up article histories of porn stars with unsourced stuff. We should work on a policy that doesn't rely on complaints (by the way the complaint email address is really well hidden from a casual Misplaced Pages visitor who has no starting point).

    "The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public?" Seraphimblade

    As stated above Misplaced Pages content is automatically spread all over the internet, therefore it's perfectly reasonable (but not nice! should be the last resort) to enjoin Misplaced Pages from including personal data that infringes personal rights of an actor.

    To give you an (rather simplified) example. Say an European newspaper publishes a birth name without consent and some judge issues an injunction to prohibt the newspaper to publish the name on their online websites or print media because it might infringe personal rights of the complainant.(there is also a possibility for monetary compensations in some countries but such things are usually taken care of later on due to exigent circumstances)

    Let's say a fellow Wikipedian has cited the accused newspaper as source for the birth name of the actor in question, so that e.g. the German language Misplaced Pages also gets a notice of distringas. Would the involved Misplaced Pages editors now say "we don't care - yadda yadda" and not comply with the request, then the German language Misplaced Pages servers in Europe would be cut off with an injunction. Such things already happened in the past. You can read about it here. Misplaced Pages.de access gone for a whole country just because of one "possible" privacy right violation. So you can see how they take these rights serious and this poor guy was already dead. A postmortem personality right. Nifty :) While it still might be possible to visit Misplaced Pages under a different domain, this wouldn't help someone who uses the leaked name in some other publication in this country nor would it help the persons who added or restored the private data as they would be legally liable.

    Seraphimblade, in my previous posts I've tried to address a lot more than just BLP issues, but of course it's entirely up to you how much time you spent to read up on the discussion.

    Nevertheless, according to your own logic, you might want to explain us on which grounds birth names that have been identified as unsourced BLP violations should be kept in the article's history rather then being flagged for a bot?

    As for creep? in BLP, one could summarize my proposal regarding porn stars in one or two sentences (just not not the argumentation). However this might not be the best place to propose the introduction of flagged revisions, as we're still on the BLP noticeboard, and such a change would be quite substantial. I do admit, though, that I have no idea where to go with the later proposal.

    By the way, one thing you learn pretty early at law school :P is that even if for example a "right of public interest" is argued, every right is limited when it infringes upon the rights of others, as there are no absolute rights. At Misplaced Pages we have no "laws" but we use policies. However we do follow the same principle, as every policy established by consent might find it's limits in other policies that we then weigh against each other. Of course every foreign language Wiki tries to not act against the law of it's country though some editors fall for the trap of privileging wiki-norms over real-norms. Don't.

    Here we often find a conflict between personality rights versus public interest, and aside from WP:BLP also WP:HARM. In my humble opinion the complications an adult actor or their families might experience with stalkers or even finding a future job outside porn, clearly outweigh any information gain a real name has to an adult actors article. Luckily in most European countries we don't need this discussion at all as people have a right of informational self-determination and it is enforced. Thanks to the insight and intellectual rigor of many OTRS helpers in most cases NOT by order of a court. ;)

    With my proposed (need work!) changes no one would have fun adding WP:BLP violations anymore as they either never appear (editorially-reviewed articles) or get wiped from the articles history anyway (preferably by a bot once an article gets flagged, just like we do it with pictures). -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

    So you think Misplaced Pages should favor the possible future reputation of porn stars ahead of telling reliably-sourced truth? You might want to go reread WP:5 and go find a project which has core values more in line with your goals. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose We don't need to set a precedent of imposing 'consent' determination steps on BLPs. It isn't our job to out anyone, but it isn't our job to protect people from the internet, either. BLP means keep defamatory material off and nn-bios OUT. It does not mean roll back the clock to a point where pseudoynms obscured identity from all but the most determined searchers. The information will be concatenated somewhere. We can't stop that. We should not author a policy that makes us act as though that transparency doesn't exist. (Oh, and for the eventual comment that A: votes don't substitute for discussion or B: I'm just doing a drive by I have two things to say. Enough discussion has occured that it won't hurt to get a straw poll and just because I haven't opened my mouth above doesn't mean I haven't read it). Protonk (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose Fortunately consensus will never be reached on this matter and Misplaced Pages will remain an experimental encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

    Albion moonlight (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Huh? It take then that this prior post is no longer operative:

    So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    David in DC (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Reply. No David my offer still stands. If I am the only one blocking consensus then I will agree to disagree and thus allow the vast majority to have there way. This offer was and is a rhetorical gesture in the sense that such a consensus is highly unlikely. I do intend to participate in the discussion from time to time and vote in these proposals but I do not value my opinions enough to block consensus over them. Be well. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose Personality rights as granted in Europe protect the personal life of an adut model better

    than even this first proposal as worded by Filceolaire

    Since these are basically privacy rights mandated by law, they are not up to discussion for Misplaced Pages editors living in Europe.

    We can and should assume consent in cases where we have publications in reliable sources

    (questionable or vanity press sources do not qualify (->IMDb, fan databases)),

    consent is usually implied when citing sources like autobiograhpies, big name newspapers or verifiable interviews

    (unverifiable podcasts on low profile fan sites migt be problematic though, also material from third-party primary sources should not be used

    unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source).

    Should a subject wish to have a birth name removed and a complaint is received, we will comply following the "do no harm" policy

    (see, e.g. -> Katja Kassin, Katsuni, Brandy Alexandre, even Star Wars kid)

    as long as it can't be sourced that the subject in question voluntarily used a birth name in other notable projects outside porn.

    (-> Sibel Kekilli, Ilona Staller, Michaela Schaffrath) -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Oppose. Whether or not the legal names of pseudonymous actors should be included in their biographies has to be based on a better standard than whether their work is "pornographic" or not. That's obviously a matter of moral and artistic judgment that no editors should be making. To set up these special rules for pornstars gives them privacy protection that isn't being automatically offered to others. What about writers, for instance? Some authors may publish under pen-names because they don't want to be mistaken for someone else or because they want a sexier-sounding name, but most do it solely to conceal their identity. Their reasons for not wanting to be identified as the author of a particular work may be very real and every bit as personally important as those of any pornstar. The same could be true of artists (e.g. Banksy), political activists, musicians or anyone else who chooses to assume an alternate public identity. We can't make assumptions about the person's reasons for using a pseudonym, how much money they make, nor what the consequences might be of including their birth name or not. Editors' squeamishness about the porn business has already already led to a lot of what Jenny rightly calls "weasel words". For example, Ryan Idol has Idol describes himself as "the creation of Marc Anthony Donais." Apart from being embarrassingly coy, this is a smokescreen that wouldn't be offered to a non-porn celebrity like Kid Rock. The policy has to be consistent for all BLPs, and obviously never identifying a pseudonymous person under any circumstances isn't going to make the encyclopedia more useful to its readers. The only policy that can be consistently applied as a guide here is WP:RS– if a person has been identified by a reliable source, then that name is public information about them which shouldn't be denied from Misplaced Pages on the basis of an editor's moral judgment. --Proptology (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I think you're missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording. Comparing it to Kid Rock is fairly pointless. In Marc Anthony Donais's opinion, Ryan Idol is a character he created and plays. Ryan Idol is therefore not a pseudonym but the name of a character. I see no reason to presume this is because Marc is somehow embarassed by his creation or wishes to distance himself from the character, it's simply the way he has chosen to potray Ryan Idol. One excellent example of this is Dame Edna Everage. I don't think anyone is going to resonably suggest Barry Humphries is embarassed by Dame Edna Everage. However Edna is clearly intended to be a character rather then a pseudonym of Barry and confusing the two makes absolutely no sense. It's as silly as calling Lord British in the Ultima universe a pseudonym of Richard Garriot. Or heck evem Princess Leia Organa as a pseudonym of Carrie Fisher Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    No, I don't think I'm missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording, and trying to argue that black is white doesn't change anything. We all understand the difference between an on-screen character (eg. Brenda Walsh), an actor's pseudonym (eg. Woody Allen and a stage persona (eg. Larry "Bud" Melman). But it doesn't matter because all of their WP bios list their birth names anyway, while Idol's does not. --Proptology (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Than you for proving my point. Ryan Idol is considered an, as you say, on-screen character or persona. Therefore the article is worded appropriately. And his article also mentions the name of the person who plays that character/persona "Marc Anthony Donais. So really, I have no idea what your complaining about Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose The birth name of a notable public figure is considered encyclopedic information and is included in traditional encyclopedias' biographies, and it is equally encyclopedic in Misplaced Pages. Someone who launches a career as a movie actor is inherently seeking to be a public figure, and their life story (where and when born, birth name, education, life experiences) are as relevant to their story as those of Marilyn Monroe being born as "Norma Jean" was when she was alive. But any information about a living person must be verifiable via reliable sources. A blog generally does not qualify and IMDB does not qualify. Misplaced Pages is not an "outing" site to make public that which is not easily obtainable public knowledge. If the actor's birth name is published in Newsweek or the New York Times, it is readily available public knowledge, and no one can undo the ringing of the bell. It should be added to the article, unless there are unusual and compelling reasons not to. I can't think of any, except legal process. If someone claims to have found it from an adoption record, an obscure court document, a baptism record in a church. a real estate transaction, a property tax record, or similar records which are not widely available, and which are original research, it should not be included. We should not act as amateur private detectives, rooting out obscure information and publishing it, and we should not mirror little known blogs which do the same thing. Many such associations have been found to be incorrect, and are as dubious as much genealogical research. This falls under the "do no harm" notion, while adding a New York Times reference in fact does no harm beyond any done when the name was published there. There is no general policy of allowing the subject of an article to edit it, so as to leave in text which increases video sales or pay for appearing in films, but leave out text which includes reliably referenced biographical details in what purports to be a biography. That sounds more like a vanity biography site where people pay to have the desired biographical details published. I have questioned the notability of porn actors in several AFDs, and see many of the "bio" articles as unjustified efforts by the actors or the video producers to use Misplaced Pages as a promotional medium. If someone leaves the porn actor trade and requests deletion of their article, I would in some cases favor the deletion in AFD, unless they are truly notable as is Harry Reems. Their notability in some field outside their porn actor career seems totally irrelevant as a deciding factor for whether their birth name should be included. Edison (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • oppose as written Among other issues it isn't at all clear to me that all porn stars use pseudonyms to keep their real names hidden. I imagine a name like Bertha Bergensteinshwaltz just wouldn't go over well in porn (I just made that name up, I really hope no one has that name). Moreover, when a name is given in many easily accessible reliable sources there's no good reason for us to cover it up. There may be occasional situations where there is some obscure reliable source for the real name. Those cases can be dealt with in a case by case basis. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

    Can we refocus the discussion?

    • Comment I don't believe a 'vote' is helpful here and in any case the issue seems to be distracting from the original point. This discussion original arose (I believe) and definitely it was resurrected for a second time because several edits, including me, are against the use of primary sources, particularly stuff like trademark documents & unreliable secondary sources like blogs, to identify the real name of someone (for me at least, I don't care whether they are pornographic actors or politicians or whoever) when that real name has not already been published in reliable secondary sources. To me, this reeks of OR and is likely a privacy violation and therefore a violation of BLP. While I think we have consensus on the blog part, several people in particular Celarnor and Albion moonlight feel that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources of this sort ("public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information") to identify the real names of people who's real name has not yet been published in a reliable secondary source. While I appreciate what Filceolaire & 3vil-Lyn are trying to do and in fact I'm mildly supportive of the idea I've never advocated it since I've suspected and this discussion confirms that there is unlikely to be much support of the idea (in any case, I"m not sure if this is the best place to discuss a BLP policy change). I suggest we get back to the original point. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    Feel free to lead the way. I'm just here for the popcorn. and the occasional chat Albion moonlight (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    Hi Nil and Albion. I saw this discussion link at the community portal. This says that "any material challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". So it seems you just need to challenge the material to cause the need for a reliable source. This talks about reliable sources and says they are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The section does not list trademark documents or blogs. I think you need only (1) challenge the real name to cause a requirement for a reliable source and (2) if the source provided does not fall into this, then you should be able to keep the name out. Suntag (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    This discussion bears directly on recent edits at Clyda Rosen and Suzy Mandel. In both cases, I deleted birth names whose only source was IMDB. My edits were reverted, with no edit summary. (At Mary Millington the same editor called my editing pointless and possible vandalism, so he/she may not have felt compelled to elaborate.) What do y'all think? David in DC (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

    I’ve answered your query regarding Millington at her talk page, but to summarize in her case there are several sources beyond the IMDB that verify both her birth and married names, there is also no sigma attached to these names being revealed in public and therefore no reason why wikipedia should be denied this information. The same is also true of Clyda and Suzy, and I can also elaborate on their cases if need be. --Gavcrimson (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

    Well David considering the fact that Jimbo wrote you a note your talk page to laudit your good sense and patience pursuant to this discussion. I quite honestly do not know what to think. I know that you definitely are not a vandal. Your edits are also not pointless but merely at variance with the view of many other wikipedians. Perhaps mediation is the answer. There are many wikipedians who agree with you. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    Jimbo's note to me was reassuring. But more compelling still is his comment on his own talk page, archived here. The most significant quote, it seems to me, is this:

    ...In this particular case, I think it quite clear that the names in question should not be in Misplaced Pages. I wonder what agenda is being pushed by the desire to include them, because it's a hell of an obscure thing to fight for, for no reason..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    David in DC (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    Jimbo.s opinion holds a lot of weight with me, but his opinion does not outweigh consensus or lack of consensus until he explicitly says it does. That is to say that I will continue to vote as I choose to vote unless I am the only one blocking consensus. At that point I would remind people to go ahead and have their consensus. Consensus is very unlikely at this point but perhaps Jimbo's opinion will cause others to rethink their position . Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Clyda-Rosen A reliable source ?

    It looks like one to me, but let us hear from some of the others before I add it to the article Albion moonlight (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) It has recieved laudits from The NY Times. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    Isn't that a Misplaced Pages mirror? AniMate 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, yes it is. From approximately this verson. Dragons flight (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    I will take your word for it. If there is a version of it that is not a wiki mirror then perhaps it could be used. I am not going to get my hopes up on that one. I was doing a google search when I found it. Thanks for the info. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

    IMDB and Luke Ford's blog

    Suzy Mandel's article has two sources for her birth name: Luke Ford's blog and IMDb. Neither is a WP:RS. I've reverted her birth name on that basis. Even if we can't agree that intentionally obscured birth names should not be posted, surely we can agree that, if they are to be posted, they must be reliably sourced. David in DC (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed (unsurprisingly). Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source. AniMate 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    And then again, what if this claim is true. It will be interesting to see how Jimbo and on the other elites handle that one. Perhaps Ms Mandell will know of a source that will satisfy eveyone. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    Primary sources, such as trademark documents and COPPA filings, are WP:RS

    We are not here to protect the potential future of adult actors nor are we here to take a position of whether one should be ashamed of being one. They, like any other live performer, will have their real names in addition to pseudonyms if WP:RS are available. That includes official legal documentation. Period, end of discussion. As to Jimbo's question, well it is a matter of consistency and a matter of correctness. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor. We are not here to make such determinations, therefore we will publish the facts as best can be determined through proper sourcing. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Read WP:PRIMARY please. AniMate 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Please re-read WP:PRIMARY; especially the second set of bulleted points. There's absolutely nothing wrong wrong with taking primary sources at face value. Using a primary source as a source for the existence of itself (i.e, citing a primary source as evidence of the existence of said primary source) is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as is using a primary source to make descriptive claims of the information found therein (i.e, "So and so filed whatever document whenever"). This isn't a sourcing issue; we can and do use this practice elsewhere for other purposes. This is a morality and privacy issue. Celarnor 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    We are not here to reveal information that people have taken pains to conceal. This is not a judgment about someone's line of work. WP:BLP includes a presumption in favor of personal privacy when dealing with obscure facts, regardless of the reason that it has been obscured. If the only source for a personal detail, such as a person's true name, is a poorly known primary source then it should be omitted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    Is this really an issue? Is Dragon695 really going to find the COPPA filings and enter them into an article? Likely, he will not, as he almost never actually edits articles, and tends to focus on the drama of the day according to his edit history. Secondly, if someone is actually able to obtain the COPPA filings, how can we verify that they are accurate? If the information hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source we have to take the word of a contributor that the document they have is legitimate and that isn't enough to satisfy WP:BLP. AniMate 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Investigative journalism is a very good description of filing FOIA's to get birth names out of COPPA filings. It is original research and it is prohibited. If you want to do that, go work for a newspaper, not as a voluteer trying to build an encyclopedia. Other, secondary and teritiary reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to putting something in a Misplaced Pages article. After you've gotten over the hurdles of reliability of sources and notability, you're still faced with all of the editorial judgment that must attend decisions about what details to include. That's editorial judgment, gang, not censorship. Things like WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and WP:WEIGHT, to name a few.

    This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor....--Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Way to assume good faith big guy! For the record, I'm not aligned with any forces of chastity or prudery. I am aligned, I hope, with forces of editorial discretion. Forces for adult judgment. Forces of perspective. In the face of Misplaced Pages's uncomplicated-to-understand presumption of privacy where personal data has been purposely obscured, especially in the case of biographies of living people, it must take a near-infinite personal reservoir of what Steely Dan used to call Pretzel Logic to sustain fervant crusading to out living porn actors' birth names. This next is not an original observation, but still: it's one hell of an obscure cause. What agenda fuels it? David in DC (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    For the agenda maybe this statement might help:
    Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Although written out of frustration this does not need further comment. But of course I still do assume good faith.
    And just for the record. A few weeks ago the German wikipedia has resolved the „Katja Kassin“ case mentioned above. The real name has been removed from the article as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. The name has even been deleted from the history in this particular case and the page has now been semi-protected because of repeated tries to insert the name again. (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
    It's good to hear about how this has been dealt with by our German cousins. It sounds to me like the right result. David in DC (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Not only is using their employment records to find birth names Original Research, it's incredibly unethical. I'm pretty sure fraudulently obtaining their 2257 for publication is also a good way to enjoy a stay at Club Fed. I don't like the idea of requiring OPRS action to resolve birth name disclosure, because wikipedia is used to fill in background by reporters. Usually without attribution it seems, but mistakes in articles do seem to show up elsewhere and we do put ourselves in the position of outing people by not mandating the higher standard. So far we've had driver's licenses, high school yearbooks, and falsified references used by cyberstalkers to get people's birth names into articles. Most were quickly removed but the falsified reference managed to stay in for about 8 months because nobody ever read the entire reference to find out the name wasn't there. Once we're used for background by a WP:RS, it's really hard to resolve the damage we've caused. I don't see what we lose by bumping the standard up to "widely reported" before violating people's pseudonymous privacy attempts. Horrorshowj (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    Dragon I think your completely missing the point. I don't care whether someone is a porn star, a normal actor who plays in family films, a carpenter, a scientist, a politician or a whatever. If they are known by a pseudonym and their real name is not published in a reliable secondary sources then you should not be using primary sources to disclose that real name. Period. This has nothing to do with prudity or whatever you want to come up with but wikipedia policy and respect for LPs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    Saying that living people are former terrorists

    A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    We wouldn't want to recklessly toss epithets as if they were mere bombs used to make a political point, would we? Edison (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources

    At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    To give you more info, here is the situation: a noted and respected masonic appologist website (masonicinfo.com) has stated that the website of a particular breakaway Masonic group contains statements that "are extraordinarily misleading and, we believe, fraudulent". As this accusation goes directly to the notability of the breakaway group, I wish to report this opinion in the article on the group, using those same words (clearly and neutraly attributed as being the opinion of the author, in quotes and fully cited). JASpencer seems to want to remove the word "fraudulent", saying that to quote the author is a BLP violation. Please note that the article does not say that the group has committed fraud as a statement of fact... it simply quotes the author's opinion. The author has stated that he believes that the group's website contains statements that are "extraordinarily misleading" and "fraudulent". Is it wrong to quote him? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    The word fraudulent is only mentioned in the original source once, and there is no explicit link with the founders. This is not the case in the original Misplaced Pages wording which did single out the founders, did mention the word fraudulent twice, including in the heading. It has toned down, by why is there such an insistence on using this term? I have no link with either side of this fight, but I find the use of this word ugly and needing a very high level of sourcing which is simply lacking. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? JASpencer (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to WP:3O to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. AniMate 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, here is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues here. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage... So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. JASpencer (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. AniMate 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Disappeared versus dead

    Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    templates for new editors?

    Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

    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 (talkcontribs) 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

    Resolved

    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

    Resolved

    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:

    (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

    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

    Resolved

    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

    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)

    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)

    Chad Douglas – Article deleted – 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.
    The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

    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

    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. Ψνnu 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 (talkcontribs) 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...

    Ψνnu 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

    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 (talkcontribs) 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

    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 (talkcontribs) 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:

    // 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 (talkcontribs) 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

    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

    Resolved

    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)

    These days the term vanispamcruftisement is deprecated in favour of the less judgmental conflict of interest, but having read the article you mention, I can see that there's a case for resurrecting it. I could stub the article, but even then a neutral effort will portray Howe as at best eccentric and at worst ... well since WP:BLP says that we don't worst, that doesn't matter. If we leave the article alone, Howe's detractors, who are numerous and well-informed, will insist on adding rebuttals to his claims. Leaving the article in a pro-Howe form might be seen as endorsing his claims, and thus his "charitable fund-raising efforts". A coatrack problem either way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 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 (talkcontribs)

    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)

    Categories: