Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:33, 13 October 2011

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Zara Phillips

Zara Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

David S. Rose

David S. Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, David S. Rose, has serious neutrality issues, reads like an advertisement, and would require an extensive rewrite to be made encyclopedic (even if the subject is assumed to be notable). Further, the subject does not satisfy Misplaced Pages's standard for notability since David S. Rose has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A laundry list of references is included but they are mostly about other topics with single quotes from himself. The Sun Times reference is a dead link, the Forbes reference is a dead link, etc.. 24.5.68.9 (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the possibly commercial ELs, but honestly this is not the biggest puff bio by a mile. Ceers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please just torch this article? I don't think I've seen this many maintenance tags and in-line citation/clarification/verify needed tags in an article since...ever. Honestly, someone just gut the thing, and then we can start over new. hbdragon88 (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted some overzealous tagging and cleanup, started a discussion explaining some of my rationale for doing so.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but the first reference tagged as a dead link that I tried worked. --Ronz (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Side issue to Sarah Palin controversy (Levi Johnston and his "mayoral campaign")

Multiple editors have presented information in the Sarah Palin/Joe McGinniss controversy likening it to a publicity stunt on the part of McGinniss. I have no quarrel with those arguments. However, it's plainly obvious that due to his association with Palin, editors inserted information into multiple articles referring to Levi Johnston and his announcement about a year ago that he was running for mayor of Wasilla. That very clearly was a publicity stunt; do you see Johnston on this list? I don't. While mentions of this "candidacy" were deleted from certain articles, they remained in other articles, often to the point of overshadowing mentions of the article's titular subject. Unfortunately, that is a favorite Palinista tactic, which was previously brought up in Talk:Sarah Palin WRT Palin herself and duly ignored.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

1. References to "Palinista" are contrary to WP:AGF and other policies. 2. If the reliable sources make factual claims, then such should be included given proper weight. 3. "final lists" of candidates do not mean much when the issue is one of intent to run. 4. Political slly season is here in full bloom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OTOH how is speculation about future events encyclopaedic? Either someone stood for office or they didn't, old news that some one once said that they might stand for office doesn't really cut it. John lilburne (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we speaking of Sarah Palin#Possible 2012 presidential and Senate campaign?   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What articles besides the Johnston article are you guys talking about?Jarhed (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide more background if necessary, though I'm probably going to pressed for time starting at some point this morning. The Anchorage Daily News carried an Associated Press story roughly a year ago, in which they cited a TMZ.com report that Johnston was considering filing for the office in connection with a proposed reality TV show. This was coincidental with Johnston hiring a well-known Anchorage criminal defense lawyer, Rex Lamont Butler, as his entertainment agent. None of which sounds to me like a serious candidacy as opposed to a publicity stunt.

Johnston apparently filed paperwork with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, but that all did was allow him to be considered a candidate under state law for the purposes of raising and spending money. That is different from actually filing for the office, which occurs according to municipal ordinances and during specific filing periods. I didn't fully search the APOC website, but it appears that Johnston filed a disclosure report in June 2011, which was about four months past the deadline.

The relative inactivity of WP:ALASKA predates Sarah Palin's announcement as John McCain's running mate. Since the latter occurrance, I've noticed far too many Alaska-related articles which have been hijacked by gratuitous references to Palin, her family and associated individuals/topics. This specific complaint was triggered by the existence of such in Verne E. Rupright, which I noticed recently is ripe for cleanup/rewriting, especially since he was reelected just the other day without the presence of whatever media circus may have previously existed.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, rather than "Palinista," how about "individuals who demonstrate a willingness to serve as unpaid publicists for Sarah Palin and individuals associated with her?" The clear distinction between being authorized to raise and spend money on a campaign under state law, and actually filing for municipal office under the ordinances of that municipality, is something I began pointing out on here specifically with regard to Johnston roughly 10 months ago. Either I've been flat out ignored, or have seen reversions of my edits when I've attempted to make a more realistic portrayal of the situation, as opposed to the ad infinitum ad nauseum parroting of some media circus which began with a TMZ report. The only reason I can see for this is that it would portray Johnston in a light contrary to the goals of the "unpaid publicists." I've run for elected office before; a few press releases and a half-assed attempt at meeting what little paperwork requirements he faced does not equal a campaign. The lead of the Johnston article states: He considered running for Sarah Palin's former job as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, but withdrew from the race in August 2011. What did he withdraw from? Every indication I've seen is that he did not file a closing report with APOC. Furthremore, he never filed with the City of Wasilla, which is different from any filing requirements he faced with APOC. The recent media report that he wasn't running for the office, near as I can tell, came after the conclusion of the filing period.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon further digging, I was mistaken on one point. The filing deadline was in July, not August. Most municipalities in Alaska hold their filing windows in August. Another check of APOC's website reveals that Johnston filed the bare minimum of paperwork with them, and as of this date did not close out his campaign. Given that the paperwork listed the address of Rex Butler's law firm, I could possibly state without being incorrect that Johnston's actual involvement was limited to affixing his signature to the forms. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman reported the following on July 30: After being the first to file a letter of intent to run for mayor last August, former Bristol Palin beau Levi Johnston did not follow through with his official paperwork with the city. The following paragraphs in the story contain quotes from Tank Jones, not Johnston, and give conflicting information as to Johnston's actual intent during what was the final days of the filing window. In other words, a Frontiersman reporter must have noticed earlier in that week that the deadline was fast approaching and that Johnston still had not filed as a candidate. And that's what's important to this discussion, not whether the celebrity-oriented media declared him to be a candidate, and not whether filing a letter of intent with APOC made him a candidate in the eyes of some. To quote from the letter of intent form: Although I have not yet satisfied the filing requirements as a candidate, I will comply with the requirements of AS 15.13 as though I were already a candidate.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dennis W. Chiu

Dennis W. Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attempts to remove puff are being met with added puff <g>. Might someone with a nicely sharpened pencil visit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a conflict of interest user attempting to promote a living person using wikipedia as a vehicle for said promotion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The relevant s.p.a. is now throwing around terminology like "tort of invasion of privacy" when we try to get said s.p.a. (possibly the subject, or the subject's Significant Other) to flesh out the article and source it more encyclopedically. I'm detecting a bad case of WP:OWN here, as well as our long-term suspicions of COI. --Orangemike (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the COI template on the article as he had removed it and I left him a note on his talkpage. I can't even look through those primary externals. We need better policy to stop such creations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the obvious stuff, removing bare URLs, the stuff about his law review article and the 9th circuit, and other puffery. More work needs to be done, notably in the references. Instead of citing to several separate items, the references are a collection of cites with explanation. Very odd and difficult to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To update .. - the main contributor to the article has replied on my userpage, suggesting an openness to work together/step back a bit to allow others editors to improve the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't that simply be AFD'd? He doesn't seem notable according to the current version of the article. He's done stuff but nobody seem to be writing *about* him. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my view, so I've done that, although the article creator, a single purpose account, is going to be all over me, claiming I removed material that would have established notability - not an accurate claim, but it will probably be made nonetheless.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dennis W. Chiu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anthony Bologna (again again)

The question now is whether there should be a separate section on a 2004 lawsuit that is only now getting publicity, and whether the sourcing, which conflicts, is sufficient to indicate whether there is one or multiple lawsuits. Input from BLP-experienced editors would be appreciated.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it because everything associated with this article irritates me, but there is no real conflict between the Guardian and the NYT. Just because the Guardian identified only one lawsuit doesn't mean there aren't others. And I can tell you, by looking at primary sources that aren't citable, that Bolgona has been sued more than once in the Southern District of New York. I haven't verified - and don't intend to - whether all of the suits arose out fo the 2004 convention and complain of "wrongful arrests" (the usual term, by the way is "false arrest") by Bologna.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning was that the Guaradian would have mentioned any other suits if they were material. I'm interested in that other suit or suits. I know it's OR, but it would be nice to know if Bologna's presence in those suits is ex officio or if he is accused of any specific wrongdoing. If the latter, I'm surprised that either the Guardian or someone else hasn't written it up, hence my concern. I know someone with a Pacer account and may beg her to look him up. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "material" - important enough? Even if you get your friend to look at the list of lawsuits in which Bologna is named, that won't help you much because someone would then have to pore over the docket for each case to understand what has happened in the case and what Bologna's alleged involvement was. It's a major task and, in my view, a waste of time. This is why we have to rely on secondary rather than primary sources. And, in this instance, a throwaway line from the NYT that Bologna was inolved in lawsuits (plural) is absolutely meaningless without context, and the NYT gives almost none. It's a joke and, even putting aside the issue of Bologna's notability, it's a BLP violation to have unsubstantiated bare allegations in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

a throwaway line from the NYT that Bologna was inolved in lawsuits (plural) is absolutely meaningless without context: I agree with you 100%. That's why I raised the issue here. We now have a separate section referring to "lawsuits." ScottyBerg (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, although I'm responding here to your comments, I have stayed out of editing the article and discussing the article on its Talk page until the tumultuous AfD runs its course. And even if the consensus is a keep or there is no consensus (a de facto keep), I'm not sure what, if anything, I will do. Despite my view that it's a very small tempest in a large teapot, that's clearly not the view of many other editors, and I don't feel like fighting with them, particularly now with passions running very high.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So much for my resolve to stay out of it. I just reverted material citing to primary sources in clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY and commented on that Bologna Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article, if it survives, is going to be a major bone of contention for some time to come. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Brad Sherman

Brad Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP vandalism, covered in press: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/brad_sherman_wikipedia_sciento.php

Probably worth semi-protecting, and keeping a close eye on thereafter. --JN466 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That was the work of a single IP user who was blocked and hasn't come back. But I am also concerned about the many edits by a staffer in Sherman's office, BenFishel (talk · contribs) & Benjaminfishel (talk · contribs), who has been busy adding positive material to his boss' bio. He's also mentioned in the same article.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the IP, and your reverts over the past few weeks. It's not a much-watched article, and things would probably have been worse if you hadn't kept an eye on it. As it is, having an unsourced allegation of past alcoholism in the article for more than a week was bad enough. I still think semi-protection might be advisable; you last blocked the IP only a few days ago. --JN466 11:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• - update - the IP vandal came back and I reverted and reported him and User:Salvio giuliano blocked him for a week. - article has also been semi protected by User:AlexiusHoratius for violations of the biographies of living persons policy until 8 November 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000

Repeated issues with User:Mystylplx/User:Griot. User edits without neutral point of view. Edits do little if anything to improve Ralph Nader-related articles. Exclusively posts criticism and negative WP:POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&action=history As a result, the aforementioned articles read very poorly, more like negative op-ed, than as encyclopedia entries. In fact, searching several other entries for the subject biography reflect greater quality of writing with superior neutrality. Taking overall edits into account, I strongly suspect this user is a Democrat who is much more concerned with pushing his own WP:POV than creating a solid article. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on the Ralph Nader talk page. Is he planning on running for president again? If so we can expect lots of action on his articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW his article is supported by "Project Socialism" when socialism is not even mentioned in it. Actually he is one of the most important figures in the development of modern capitalism. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Pilgrim (software developer)

Over at Mark Pilgrim (software developer) we have been working toward a consensus as to how to properly present the fact that he suddenly took everything he had ever done - including some very popular books - off the web. In particular, there were concerns about attempts to use the phrase "Infosuicide" as being a NPOV violation. Now I see that a page called Infosuicide has been created referencing Mark Pilgrim. Is this a problem? Any advice about how to properly handle this situation would be most appreciated - I normally work on engineering/science topics and not BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat on a tangent - is a screenshot of a generic 410 notice really a "copyrighted" webpage and need a fair use rationale? I'd think no copyright could be claimed on it. Just like how someone can't copyright stop sign. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any advice? I am really not comfortable with calling a decision to delete some web pages as "suicide." It feels like a violation of BLP policy. I could really use some input from someone more used to dealing with BLPs. Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, infosuicide seems to be going to be deleted or merged to online privacy - my search returns suggest its not a common expression - Who is calling his actions infosuicide? Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds from here like a classic case of techneologism. Collect (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It look like the Infosuicide page may be going away soon as a non-notable neologism, but I still need an answer about the underlying BLP policy. The semi-protection will be coming off of Mark Pilgrim (software developer) in less that a week, and I would like to have a paragraph in place by then that doesn't violate BLP policy. Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What that article needs is some independent WP:RS. Have his recent actions been mentioned in any? Unless multiple reliable sources are calling his actions infosuicide then imo our article shouldn't either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just expanded the Mark Pilgrim content, and with (for the moment) one ref from Eric Meyer. If it's not your field, then yes, Eric Meyer's blog is WP:RS for web development matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infosuicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am removing this page from my watch list and will make any further comments on the article/afd talk pages. Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Frederick

Jeff Frederick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor, User:Vabio1 is repeatedly edit warring and reverting to ensure that a current political candidate, Jeff Frederick has only favorable material in his article, a violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Vabio1 has previously been sanctioned for violation of the three-revert rule Misplaced Pages policy. In various recent situations, Vabio1 either

• 1) uses either irrelevant citations (a violation of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability), or
• 2) claiming opinions unfavorable to Jeff Frederick are "controversial", without describing favorable opinions in the same biased way (a violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV).

Giving irrelevant citations, Vabio1 has on the Talk:Jeff Frederick page asked other editors do his work for him to identify a suitable references, or 2) to accept his argument that a Misplaced Pages reader should be able to deduce certain conclusions from a reference that doesn't mention Jeff Frederick. The latter would be Misplaced Pages:Original research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." If Vabio1 is correct in his edit text, then he should be able to identify suitable references.

Vabio1 finds it OK to include ratings by various political organizations, which obviously are controversial to their opponents, but describes unfavorable ratings/scores by a business organization as "controversial." Misplaced Pages considers it important that all sides of a controversy be included and stated fairly (see Misplaced Pages:NPOV). Criticism of Virginia Free, as in the last Vabio1 edit, should be in an article on Virginia FREE, not here.

I would like the opinion of other editors on this matter. --Zeamays (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had Frederick on my watchlist for a while, but it became a pain to control as Vabio1's edits are craftier than the usual partisan single purpose accounts. However, I cleaned up his latest round of stuff and reluctantly put it back on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere

How do the BLP guidelines apply in the case of these two articles?

The first article, NXIVM, is a company specializing in personal development seminars led by the referent of the second article, a BLP of Keith Raniere.

Request: That administrators take an interest in this serious but interesting matter, but please not to make any edits to the articles without first familiarizing yourself with the WP:RSs on the discussion page of the article Keith Raniere. At least take a quick overview first.

The problem is, as you will see, the sources call the group a "cult", a "cult-like organization", or otherwise describe him and it negatively.

Therefore, we allow him and it to use their own websites to cite much of the articles to "balance", and we allow them to mis-represent other references, because of BLP and NPOV guidelines: it wouldn't be fair to him and it, the logic goes, to simply faithfully report the main points and information in the articles; they say; because of BLP guidelines, we have to write a NPOV article despite the sources; even though we don't have any WP:RSs other than their own websites and a fact or two cherry-picked here and there out of references; that says positive things about him and it.

Tough case! But very interesting....Chrisrus (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, if we do what I'm planning to do, which is to follow WP:FIRST and so on; if I faithfully report all the notable important facts that we've been able to find about him and it; it's going to be a pretty damning article. This is because the WP:RSs are pretty much a bunch of exposes, spelled with an accent. They are all investigative reports on a pretty creepy cult-like organization with lots of details, with titles like "Ex-NXIVM Insiders Tell All" and "Inner workings of creepy cult exposed" and so on. Don't take my word for it, look at the RSes yourself, they're pretty much all collected on Talk:Keith Raniere. Is there another analogous case somewhere? Will it be enough for WP:BLP if we just quote a bunch of stuff from thier websites? There are a few denials here and there in the sources, but for the most part it's just "refused to comment for this article", mostly. Has anyone ever seen anything like this before? Please advise. They're likely to sue Misplaced Pages or Jimbo or me or you or whoever they can, because that's what they usually do. It's very interesting and all, but it's may turn out not to be fun at all. Want to try and disuade me? This may be your last chance. Chrisrus (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Mundine

He went to Kingsgrove North High School. I went to school with his cousin Michael Mundine at the same school and he was in Year 7 there when we were in Year 10.

I can tell you this though. He was a very quiet kid. Not at all the person he is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.88.219 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages articles can't be based on personal recollections; to add any of this information, we need to know where it has been mentioned in an independent reliable source - book, newspaper, magazine, serious TV documentary, etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

derek goldby

Derek Goldby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The final sentence in Derek Goldby biography is untrue. please delete.

Derek Goldby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.120.249 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was unsourced and somewhat non-neutral, the IP identifying themself as Derek Goldby has gone ahead and removed it, I've watchlisted the article, and all is well with the world. (Probably.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Damien Echols

Damien Echols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, recently a user, fairly fresh from a 3-RR violation ban, (opticks3 (talk · contribs), has been attempting to push unreliable sources, potentially libelous material, and, before being called out for it, this wonderful link about "sacrifices that are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years" on the West Memphis Three article. As his efforts there have been blocked, he has moved on to the personal article for Damien Echols, where he is now trying to push a series of cherry-picked quotes and legal document highlights in an attempt to paint the recently-released Echols in a particular manner that is less than neutral (the previously mentioned external may offer a hint). The objections of Echols himself and his legal team, of course, were not listed besides these cherry-picked "internet gotchas", which are questionable to include under any circumstance. As I have little time to eject such behavior, I request more eyes and hands over at the Damien Echols article. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that user bloodofox also fairly fresh from a 3-RR violation ban, was the reason that both of us were banned due to his repeated reversion/deletes. I made one poor choice in source reference and immediately removed it when it was brought to my attention, which is how it is supposed to work. Please read through the Talk pages on both West Memphis Three and Damien Echols articles for a better understanding of the issues we are trying to resolve. Additionally, please contact the senior editor -- Kim van der Linde as she is the editor who imposed the block and may be able to provide additional information. Thank YouOpticks3 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is a complete disaster - it's a biography that begins with the section "conviction and sentence", as if nothing at all is known about this person's life prior to death row. Later sections then concede that the person might have had an existence before that - the structure is rather like a confusing movie that starts at the end of events and then tells the story by flashbacks. Needs pretty much a complete re-write, sadly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, as any admin can see, I've never been banned for any reason, including 3RR. Presumably Opticks is confusing the editing lock on the West Memphis Three article with some sort of ban, although he himself was recently 3RR period banned. And agreed about the article; like the West Memphis Three article, it's in an abysmal state and needs a total rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne Bremner

Anne Bremner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CaliforniaAlibaba keeps putting information in my Wiki page that is false. And taking out my corrections. Can something be done about this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annne bremner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? This edit, for example, seems to be properly supported with references -- so it's not clear on what basis you assert the information is false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just a brief note to mention that this seems likely to be related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bremner should not be editing her own biography, particularly given her edits. Hopefully, based on one recent comment on the Talk page, she will start suggesting changes there rather than making them herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor who the multiple accounts Anne bremner (talk · contribs) and Annne bremner (talk · contribs) (one with two "n"s, one with three, plus an IP) are complaining about. As far as I can tell she had three objections. The last is still open and could use third opinions.

1. Inclusion of information about a lawsuit against which the firm she works for (unsuccessfully) defended the police department. There was a misunderstanding about whether it was her colleague or herself who worked on that case. She deleted the information without comment, which I reverted. She left an edit summary clarifying the misunderstanding, but unfortunately another editor (either from WP:RCP or WP:COIN) reverted it . After I saw her edit summary I checked another source and removed the information .
2. Inclusion of information about damage to her car in the DUI case, which was referenced to a newspaper whose reporting she apparently disputes. She deleted that information and included her own claim of $34,000 of car damage and an unnamed expert who states she was in a hit-and-run accident . User:Binksternet suggested condensing the section to get past all the confusing he-said/she-said, which we've done . (He also added the information about DUI to the WP:LEDE, which I see User:Bbb23 just removed back.)
3. The edit which Nomoskedasticity points to. Others are welcome to condense that too for WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, etc. if you think its necessary. Or not. As you may have noticed from this summary, I don't sacrifice detail in the name of concision.

Regards, cab (call) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow Item #3. Which section are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Look for the text starting with "whose attorney, Dan K. Webb" (that passage, up to the end of the paragraph --- one of the things that User:Annne bremner was removing before). If you think it should be condensed or rewritten, go ahead. cab (call) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor condensed that section a bit, and I've copy edited it and condensed it just a bit more. The same editor has also severely condensed the DUI section and commented on the article Talk page. I'm not sure I agree with the removal of material from that section, and I certainly don't agree with the conclusion reached by the editor about motive. In my view, the DUI case could have been handled in a couple of sentences (or not at all), IF Bremner hadn't made a stink about it. The stink took more time to explain in the article than the DUI. Another case where the aftermath of an event becomes more of a big deal than the event itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Tramiel

Jack Tramiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also Talk:Jack_Tramiel#Claims_of_"ruined_lives" .

I have already removed a claim diff that "Former employees at Atari Corp. have also stated the work environment was very unpleasant and volatile, with some later complaining that their lives and careers had been ruined by Tramiel and his sons." which appears to be based on a comment reporting second hand information posted in a blog given http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=995 - it appears to be a non-neutral statement given that in the same place others had good things to say.

The article makes some claims that would need referencing in any article - in particular the history of Jack Tramiels's early life and concentration camp experience - the claim that " He was examined by Dr. Mengele and selected for a work party ... his father was reported to have died of Typhus in the work camp; however, Tramiel believes he was killed by an injection of gasoline", others statements in the article fail verification eg "Tramiel is sometimes viewed with disdain for his overall business conduct practices and operations under the Atari brand" (I have removed this pending a reliable source).

Could someone check the article for further neutrality/verifyability issues. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I took out a couple of uncited things that could be negative, including "sparking a price war." The article does not seem so bad, or a problem at this time. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mos Def

Mos Def (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mos Def announced he would be changing his name in 2012. The article says that citing to a reliable source. Since that announcement, there have been a number of editors, mostly IPs but not exclusively, who want to change the article now, even though there's no reliable source that says he's changed his name earlier. One editor said he heard Mos Def say it on a TV show, but I would be troubled by citing to a TV show unless it was crystal clear what Mos Def actually said. It would be better to cite to a news source. In any event, after backing out changes repeatedly, I requested semi-protection of the article (most of the changes were coming from IPs). The admin, however, imposed full protection and suggested "we" reach a consensus on how to fix all this without edit-warring. So, I started a subsection on the Talk page and set forth my views more clearly.

It would be great if other editors would weigh in on the article's Talk page so we can reach a consensus. Otherwise, I fear it will have to go to a higher level of dispute resolution because I'm assuming the admin's warning was directed at everyone, including me, so I'm not going to take the chance and revert changes without a clear consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Hi, could someone look into this image, please? I reckon it WAY wrong, especially since it's linked with the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. In my opinion, it's just as easy as to put a 'Wanted' sign on someones forehead. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Igor_Sayenko.jpg The person on the photo is rather recognisable. The point of blurring is to make someones identity anonymous (especially in a high profile-case). Obviously, this photo could use some work (to say the least). My concern is about the person depicted on the photograph. I don't know him, but obviously, this can't pass wiki's guidelines.「Robster1983」 02:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, if no one cares, then I don't care. I let it go. 「Robster1983」 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Anwar rasheed

Dileep would play the title role in a film called 'My Name is Avarachan', that would be directed by Jose Thomas.

and not Anwar Rasheed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venugopal1234 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I assume that I am correct that the agreement, as it was discussed here, was to omit the "Santorum" definition from the bio article, but another editor considers it to be important information. I do not wish to edit war over it, especially on a page I have recently semiprotected. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. And it is EW for anyone to keep pushing the stuff into the BLP. Collect (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, a "consensus" does not create an exception to policy. The definition is unfortunate and distasteful but for better or for worse it has become a part of Sen. Santorum's legacy. Sen. Santorum is a minor figure in American politics and to have more than one Misplaced Pages page/entry devoted to him and this controversy is not appropriate. It simply is what it is; unfortunate and distasteful but complete and comprehensive. V/R A. Poinçot (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If these are your feelings, then surely you won't be too heartbroken if we follow previous consensus and keep it out of the BLP. Kelly 02:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No feelings hurt. After rereading "neutral point of view" policy WP:NPOV I don't think the definition should be included in the main Santorum bio. V/R A. Poinçot (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Liam Fox

Liam Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The last sentence under "Personal life", suggesting that hois marriage was a cover, strikes thois reader as unsubstantiated and potetially defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.24.237 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have gone. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions may be libelous and defamatory: references to sexual orientation and relationships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.213.88 (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also seems to be toast and the article is now semi-protected. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Le Vell

Michael Le Vell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Basically a request for a few more people to keep an eye on this page.

I fully protected the Michael Le Vell article due to some back-and-forth involving some serious allegations (sourced, but at this point just allegations I think). Since consensus on the talk page seems to be leaning toward inclusion, I'm going to unprotect the page, but it would be good for some other editors to look into the matter. I personally have no opinion of whether it should be included and if other editors and/or admins see a need for action in any direction I won't stand in their way. AlexiusHoratius 15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Amy Childs

Amy Childs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The last few sentances do not seem very appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.111.55.124 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out; I have removed the problematic content and issued a warning to the IP address (unregistered editor) that added it. Note that, in most cases, it is possible to edit articles to remove such material yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition - I've also requested semi-protection for this article at WP:RFPP due to its recent history. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

... declined by User:Fastily, so some more eyes on this article might be helpful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mola Mola (musician) (again)

Jack Hazebroek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have again researched this page and find the content regarding Bill Wyman and Andy fairweather Lowe misleading and disingenuous. The article is written as though the writer had a close working relationship with the artists but there is no record of him working with either person and he certainly did not work with Bill Wymans Rhythm Kings as has been stated. I would treat this page with caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkyboy124 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The continued existence of the article Jack Hazebroek, to which Mola Mola (musician) is a redirect, is under discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jack Hazebroek. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bob rae

Bob Rae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the text his religion is described as Anglican but in his biography to the right he is described as Jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.115.240 (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The sections of the article covering this are sourced to a dead link, so that could do with some more work. My own initial searches haven't found anything to confirm what's written there. Misplaced Pages's article on his wife doesn't mention her religion, even though the article on Rae lists her religion as though it were his. Anyway, I've removed the "religion" item from the Rae article infobox, as being unsourced and contradictory. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rachael Barrett

Rachael Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very poor sourcing for a BLP. Might well be an autobiography - see . Philip Trueman (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubbed and likely to be stubbed further unless RS are presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierce Brosnan

Pierce Brosnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the biography of Pierce Brosnan in Misplaced Pages the following passage appears:

"Brosnan was brought up in a Roman Catholic family and educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy. Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."[3

This a gross lible of the "Christian Brothers". The Irish Christian Brothers never had a school in Navan nor did they ever have Pierce Brosnan as a pupil in any of their schools.

Please have the passage removed immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athgarvan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Where did you find that out? Where does "Navan" factor into this? Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Navan is the town where Brosnan grew up. However, he may easily have been schooled outside of Navan at a boarding school.The Interior (Talk) 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The quotation above is from the referenced article in Cigar Afficianado magazine. It is a pretty strong statement, but the reference seems to support it. Tgeairn (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have found a similar reference here. It specifies Christian Brothers in Navan but is perhaps worded more guardedly. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Athgarvan, please familiarize yourself with our policy against legal threats. Your use of the word "libel" can reasonably be construed as a legal threat. We are not saying anything negative about the Christian Brothers in Misplaced Pages's voice. Instead, we are reporting what Pierce Brosnan has said about his experiences in his youth. We now have two sources quoting Brosnan saying essentially the same thing. Both should be considered reliable sources for direct quotes by Brosnan. As I see it, your dispute is with Pierce Brosnan, not with Misplaced Pages. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yitzchak Ginsburg

Yitzchak Ginsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please remove these utterly ridiculous and libelous comments about Rabbi Ginzburg, he is not an extremist and would never claim that it is fine to kill gentiles for any reason besides pure self defense. Everyone on earth has the right to defend themselves including gentiles. He never implied in any way that it is allowed to kill gentiles for organ harvesting. If this is not removed within 3 days you can expect a libel lawsuit, I am not asking for much, just that there is some semblance of objectivity. It doesnt take a genius to see how speculative these so called sources are. the fact that Inbari is a jewish Israeli does not make him an authority on all jewish people and does prevent him from being a liar.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raishlakish (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure this will get sorted out promptly. However, please don't threaten lawsuits anywhere on Misplaced Pages, as the policy of no legal threats means that you cannot pursue legal action (or threaten to do so) and continue to edit Misplaced Pages at the same time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The material in question is meticulously sourced and has been scrutinized by a number of other editors. Further scrutiny is of course welcome. But in reality there's no problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nomoskedasticity. The sourcing in the article seems to be fine, and the claims in the article don't go further than a large number of reports in reliable places. Inbari is a leading academic researcher of the extreme right in Israel, which Ginsburg is a leading member of. Note that the complainant is yet to write a single word on the article talk page. Zero 07:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

3 persons at Ex-gay movement

Ex-gay movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a list of people associated with the Ex-gay movement, at Ex-gay movement#People associated with the ex-gay movement. There's an open RfC about whether the list should exist, which is not the issue here. The issue is that three people who aren't notable (not notable enough to have an article, anyway) are listed, and their entries are mainly about accusations (with arrests and convictions in two cases) of sexual crimes.

I removed these for BLP considerations, but they were restored and a couple of editors are arguing that this is good material, the discussion being here: Talk:Ex-gay movement#3 removed. Since I've done another revert I've fouled out, so would appreciate another set of eyes taking a look at the matter. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide concrete reasons why you think the Austin and Cook entries violate WP:BLP. Vague and unarticulated "concerns" are no excuse for edit warring.

As for notability, neither Cook or Austin can be described as totally "non-notable". Collin Cook definitely belongs because he was a prominent figure in the movement as the founder of HA. Austin's notability rests on the notability of Renew Ministries and was affiliated with NARTH. If Renew Ministries is a significant force in the movement, or if Austin held a key position at NARTH, he should be included. Notable for inclusion in an article is not the same as notable for one's own article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the crimes in question are directly related to the people's ex-gay efforts; if what was at hand was mention of an ex-gay counselor shoplifting peanut butter or cheating on their taxes or whatever, then it would not be relevant and should not be included. This is a very different situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The lists of people associated with the ex-gay movement should be removed completely. Not just the entries that aren't notable enough to have their own articles (but please note that those clearly should not be on the page). If someone's activities are notably part of a social movement then they should be mentioned in meaningful way in the prose of the entry and not listed with short bio blurbs. Listing non-notable people with short bio blurbs equates to making an end run around WP:N. Last but not least, listing non-notable people with a large portion of their bio blurb being dedicated to the crimes they've been convicted for/arrested for/associated with is quite clearly against the spirit if not the letter of BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo on this. If they are significant players int he movement, then points about their involvement can be included in the body of the article. No need for list. --BweeB (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the list should be removed and replaced with appropriately sourced prose, but pending the resolution of that issue, it's an NPOV violation to include individuals whose "success stories" are sourced to personal blogs and "ex-gay" websites, while removing individuals whose crimes are sourced to RS newspapers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't right one wrong by perpetuating another. Why are there "'success stories' ... sourced to person blogs and 'ex-gay' websites" in the entry in the first place? Remove those too.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's why I started the thread that led to the RFC. ;) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether there should be a list or not is a separate matter, and the subject of an open RfC on the talk page. Comments about that should be made there, not here. The matter here pertains strictly to the exclusion of Austin and Cook from the article (whether in a list or in prose) on the basis of WP:BLP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I proppose we exclude Cook and Austin. --BweeB (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@Dominus. Uhm no it doesn't. The question asked pertained to those entries. The entire list is currently posing a BLP problem. One of the two main concerns of BLP is "privacy," something that non-notable people can reasonably expect us to take seriously, and indeed our BLP policy tells us to do so. This means that the addition of any personal biographical details of non-notable people is a violation of one of the core BLP principles. If someone's activities are notably part of a larger subject matter then those activities can be addressed in the prose content of an article. But listing people "associated" with a subject and listing biographical details even though they fail WP:N is clearly against BLP. So I respectfully disagree with you on that.Griswaldo (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you agree with me. I voted against both reincarnations of the stand-alone list, and am dead set against including the list in the article as well. If it were up to me, I'd cut it in a heartbeat. (And I think I have). I'm definitely against the vague, abuse-inviting title People "associated with" the movement. I agree that it is an end run around notability. However, that RfC is still open, and I'm acting on the basis that the list does exist, not whether it should. I've taken your BLP concerns into serious consideration, and am reading the policy in depth at the moment. My major concern was that the reason given by Herostratus for deleting the items was vague and based on false assumptions, except for the case of Lewis, who I agree doesn't belong. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, and I think we are, I wasn't disagreeing with your view of the article but with the applicability of the conversation to the board. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconding this, basically. I don't think the list belongs and I am/was one of the major players in trying to get it removed, but if/while it stays, it can't contain only positive information, particularly when the negative information is better sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Update - I took the liberty to remove all entries for individuals without Misplaced Pages articles of their own to protect their privacy. Clearly I think the entire list should go, but IMO the temporary measure was needed in the meantime.Griswaldo (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Davenport (property developer)

Edward Davenport (property developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is largely based on a self serving self-authored biography at 33portlandplace.com and davenporttrust.com. The con man is now safely in jail for advance fee fraud and presumably serving the remainder of his term for VAT evasion. But on the way he bought the Lord of the Manor of Giffords, Salop and self-described himself as Lord Edward Davenport. He is entitled to call himself Mr Edward Davenport, Lord of the Manor of Giffords, Salop.. Nobody has picked up on that; reiable sources all say he is a "self-styled Lord (or peer)". Surely this should not be in the lede? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but it is gone now. I wish they would just vote in Parliament to get rid of these nonsensical pseudo-titles, but that isn't NPOV, so I'll just say, I'm glad it's gone from the lede.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't gone! Kittybrewster ☎ 23:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources don't say that. They say self-styled "Lord" Edward Davenport, which is exactly what is in the lede. Everyone knows that when it's in quotes it's not real. It's not lending any authority, rather reflecting the fact of his own self importance. Fmph (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Gordon

Jeff Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are some subsections under the section Cup Series career which have no sources. Three examples are 1994, 2004, and 2005. There are also some subsections that I don't think have enough sources. Three examples are 2008, 2009, and 2011.

I think there are some violations in all of the subsections I mentioned. However, I don't want to delete the subsections which have no sources, and I don't want to delete some of the content in the subsections which I think don't have enough sources. I also don't want to spend what I consider a lot of time looking for enough sources for the content in question to be kept. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the only problem with this article. I put a bunch of tags in the sections asking for refs. If they do not come, then we are at liberty to remove the text from the article. Overall, it needs a lot of trimming and rewriting, but I do not have a big desire to tackle it myself. --BweeB (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

Rick Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Offensive slurs in the religion section on Rick Perry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.17.127 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That was vandalism that was in the article for only a short time. Our apologies that you saw it in that brief (few seconds) period. NW (Talk) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Solyndra loan controversy edit war is brewing

The article Solyndra loan controversy has some major NPOV issues. A lot of the edits to it have come from users new to Misplaced Pages who may be editing with an agenda. The sources cited do not always back the claims and it seems to be cherry picking information in some key places. Maybe some more people can take a look and offer some ideas to improve it. I think a edit war could be brewing. Forgot to add in particle one user Mk2z0h seems to be the one mostly editing the article. Kudos to him for citing sources, albeit not the most reliable ones, and editing it himself, but he appears to be cherrypicking information.

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark McMenamin

Th person who did the most recent edits to the McMenamin biography appears to have been in too much of a hurry to be objective or even to check spellings.

In the sentence "McMenamin has argued that a formation of multiple ichthyosaur fossils placed together at Berlin–Ichthyosaur State Park may represent evidence of a gigantic "kraken" that killed the ichthyosaurs and intentionally arranged their bones in the unusual pattern seen at the site." the word "kraken" would more accurately read "cephalopod, reminiscent of the mythological kraken."

The sentence, "Opponents have dismissed the theory as too far-fetched to be credible." is rather biased. I suggest a change to "The theory is controversial."

Also, in reference , the name of the co-author is misspelled. It should not be "Shulte McMenamin, Dianna L.", but rather "McMenamin, Dianna Schulte". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.195.7 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If the corrections you propose are non-controversial and supported by reliable sources, then you can make the corrections yourself. Misplaced Pages, after all, is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If these matters are in dispute, please discuss them on the article's talk page, and discuss to achieve consensus. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

• Bryan Fischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attack page. causa sui (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see some excessive weight (maybe) given to the SPLC and random Fisher opinions, but I hardly see it as an "attack page". NW (Talk) 15:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite speedyable (though I considered it). But the purpose of the article is to disparage the subject and catalogue all the reasons we should hate him. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I cut a bunch of stuff out. Looks better now. causa sui (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Louise Blouin Media

Louise Blouin Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louise Blouin Media have responded to the negative story in the New York Observer. I'd like to note as well that the quote we have from the Observer story reads more like an editorial opinion column than an objective news story. The series of lawsuits they describe, if true, don't seem to imply anything about "keeping the lights on" either literally nor metaphorically.

Due to a potential conflict of interest (the Observer article discusses a dinner at which I was in attendance), I won't be getting directly involved. I merely post here to bring the issue to wider attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution