Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:21, 14 March 2014

• 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.

• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Two-factor authentication for page movers
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Michael Roach

Michael Roach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is virtually a stub article, with very thin detail about why Michael Roach is notable, on top of which a huge controversy section has been added, which seems to be aimed at publicizing the POV of some people who disagree with Michael Roach (full disclosure: I used to study with Michael Roach in Arizona). It would be nice if someone who doesn't have an axe to grind could look at the article and consider whether it is really encyclopedic and gives due weight to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

reviewed Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was certainly a good edit, but it still seems remarkably unbalanced. Do you really think it's just fine the way it is? Abhayakara (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

hiya, yes I do - was his marriage to his student a reported controversy, did the Dalai Lama's people comment as such, was the death on his property a reported controversy, yes, yes. yes, I tried to make the reporting as neutral as I could Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The current controversy section is almost as long as the rest of the article, which covers his entire career up to the time of the controversy, and apparently stops there despite the fact that he continues to do stuff. So apparently that stuff is not notable, which suggests that the stuff he did before the controversy isn't either. If the controversy section is the only thing that's really interesting about him, then arguably we should just delete the article, because that suggests that he's not very interesting. That is, if some random person did what is reported in the controversy section, but was otherwise not notable, we would never have heard about it unless it happened in our town. So do you think the article ought to be deleted, or do you think it has value. And if it has value, can you explain what about Roach is notable? Abhayakara (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, as for the student's death, he died in BLM land, not on the retreat center property (at least according to the cited sources). Abhayakara (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If he "continues ot do stuff" please add to the article the details and reporting sources. "The current controversy section is almost as long as the rest of the article" - there is no longer a controversy section. - " as for the student's death, he died in BLM land, not on the retreat center property" - please correct that as the reports, I do not know about this person previous to reading this report. Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Abhayakara was instructed at COIN not to edit this article; I'm sure he remembers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I do remember, although I think the request was bogus and the Misplaced Pages article is probably actionable. Unfortunately, Buddhist monks take a vow not to engage in legal action, so Misplaced Pages is safe from lawsuit, but since only POV pushers seem to be interested in this article, it makes for a pretty non-encyclopedic article. Abhayakara (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Juan Pablo Galavis

Juan Pablo Galavis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone vandalized the introduction paragraph that you see upon typing in his name (it leads to the Misplaced Pages link). It is filthy and mean spirited and not a biography of him. Someone else's name is in the paragraph and it looks like a cut and paste for a portion of this paragraph. Since Juan Pablo is so controversial at the moment, this is even more demeaning and was put there by someone who obviously dislikes him and is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.26.141 (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Article looks okay to me, don't see any suggestions when typing in his name search on Misplaced Pages (or Google). Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like some vandalism that was reverted already. §FreeRangeFrog 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Message from the article subject of BLP: Rachel Marsden

My name is Rachel Marsden and I am the subject of this Misplaced Pages article. For the past week, this biography of me has been subjected to repeated outright defamation and fallacies by an individual who has waged an online campaign of harassment against me in various online forums, and through direct and indirect contact with my family, associates, employers, and clients, since approximately August 2013, the details of which have been included in at least two police reports and a U.S. civil court filing, and are available to anyone who might be interested in viewing them. The individual in question has posted on this article's talk page under both her IP address (resolving, as expected to Kansas City), and under the username "CammieD". A usercheck will serve to verify that this is indeed the same woman targeting me under different accounts. Moreover, this person has recently posted what she believes to be my home address and personal information on Misplaced Pages, in violation of all privacy laws of the jurisdiction in which I reside. She has made repeated allegations of criminality against a person who has never been convicted of any crime. She has further expressed a desire to obtain financial records related to my privately held company - a fact that should serve to underscore the nature of this individual's bad-faith intentions in targeting this biography. This biography was more or less accurate and complete, and the product of many years of Wikipedian collaboration, prior to this person creating a single-purpose account on February 27th, for the sole and intent purpose of targeting me for yet more of the same kind of ongoing online defamation, stalking and harassment to which she has subjected me, my family, and my employers for several months. Further details and documentation pertaining to this person's activities can be obtained via direct contact with me at rachelmarsden at gmail dot com. I kindly request, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances, that the stable version of this biography which existed prior to this person's targeted and bad-faith involvement please be reinstated and retained. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have any questions. Many thanks (in advance) for your time, effort, and consideration. Kindest regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.58.181 (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, what content does your biography contain that you believe should be removed? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note - ANI regarding this IP user and page for legal threats at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_IP_user_claiming_to_subject_of_an_article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocking was an appropriate response; note also that RachelMarsden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in 2008. I didn't report the situation myself because I wanted to give Marsden an opportunity to identify any specific problems with the article before being blocked. Of course, no reply to my question was forthcoming. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that one of the problems identified by the OP has now been revdeleted with suppression (i.e. oversighted), ashamedly without my involvement even though I did see it yesterday and think it was a problem. The OP's commenting style and lack of diffs doesn't make it easy, but it's always helpful to see if the OP has mentioned anything which sounds problematic. For me, the OP did raise at least one obvious BLP red flag and although it wasn't so easy since the talk page is awfully long and the precise comment not that near the end, I did find it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#Current_events:_Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius

We have various users asking for speculation on the trial of the subject, and others saying what is obviously the case, almost none providing references for their questions, speculation, or answers. Given this is article space, not talk space, it should probably be entirely deleted, although some users seem to have a problem with applying BLP standards to comments regarding a living person. I have hatted it through here, but I am afraid it should probably be entirely removed. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the speculation in that thread? HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The various users seem to be confused that making statements at the ref desks about the supposed criminal actions of living persons don't need very strong support from reliable sources in the form of proper citations and neutral language in every instance. Offering first-person driven "explanations", rather than bare links to reliable resources, is indeed problematic. It's not my place to argue or explain this. WP:RS is our deepest policy. Those who think it so dire we expose WP to liability, moral or legal, for defaming any living person, have the burden on them and themselves alone to show why their comments are so important to the inquirent. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It might not be your job to explain BLP to others, but when you claim a certain page contains a BLP breach, and when are asked now 4 times to point out exactly where the breach was, and you spectacularly fail to do so, then you have not succeeded in satisfying anyone that your claim has any merit at all. -- Jack of Oz 07:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's accusing you of being evul, Jack. You just don't seem to realize all that matters in ref desk space is article space, not talk space, and article space requires strong WP:RS to allow any discussion of defamatory material. Criminal accusations are defamation per se. Defamation per se. Deh-fah-ma-shun per say. I don' t need to prove otherwise--you and others need to prove your unsupported commmentary isn't defamatory. No one has given any relevant refs for the hatted material. μηδείς (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What defamatory material? What criminal accusations? Where did anyone on that thread ever accuse anyone of anything, or defame anybody? We are discussing a case that has been brought by the SA Police; THEY are the ones who have charged Pistorius with murder. He is defending the charge, and he's innocent until and unless proven guilty. We can ASK about details of the case that are on the public record, surely; or is that off limits now? Some ANSWERS provided may well be inappropriate, but a simple QUESTION cannot possibly be, unless it assumes things the questioner is not entitled to assume, and I see no evidence of that from Joseph Spadaro. -- Jack of Oz 08:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you need to know two things:

1. This matter is sub judice, commenting on cases oin progress may amount to contempt of court.
2. A statement can be defamatory even if it is true.

This is nto an appropriate discussion for the refdesk. Please just drop it. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I need to completely revise my understanding of the English word "comment". The OP asked for some factual material, viz. what exactly Pistorius told the police as his reason for doing what he did. That is a million miles from "commentary" in my understanding of the term. If this is still somehow an inappropriate enquiry, can you explain where the line is drawn? How come we can have an article on the case, but nobody seems allowed to ask questions about it? -- Jack of Oz 20:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have now finally tracked down the information I sought, and it demonstrates I was well within my rights to ask for it, and that the original OP, Joseph A. Spadaro was completely entitled to ask the question he did on the Ref Desk, and that this entire thread here at BLPN should never have existed. See User talk:JackofOz#For general information. -- Jack of Oz 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

May I remind people, as I did on WT:RD that hatting WP:BLP violations is generally a dumb idea? The only common reason to hat relating to BLP is if you want to stop further BLP violations. But if a BLP violation has already occured, then there's rarely a good reason to keep it on the RD and hatting definitely doesn't help much with the BLP violation, it may even make it worse. As I also mentioned on WT:RD, I'm not commenting specifically on whether or not a BLP violation occured, simply dealing with silly hats. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, Nil, the entire thread be deleted? Or the currently hatted beginning with its exposition of supposed facts? I have no problem with that. I think it's clear from Guy's comment whatever certain ref desk regulars want, the place is not a free for all in regard to BLP.

I'd like a comment from Guy or someone else here not involved with the ref desk comments themselves to either say it is fine as is with just Nil's restorations and the original hatting or if some or all of the entire discussion should be hatted or removed. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It is beyond ridiculous that on some obscure Ref Desk that almost no randomly picked person will ever have heard about, we would need to censor civil and well conducted discussions while in prominent reputable media like CNN you can have discussions on this very same topic that are less well conducted (like yesterday on Anderson Cooper's 360). Both CNN and we will make sure that no BLP violations occur in the articles or the news reports in case of CNN. Here on Misplaced Pages we do not tolerate gratuitous attacks on living persons on talk pages and other types of unproductive bad behavior. That's good enough and already a lot better than what you see in most news media. Going furhter than that by enforcing some ridiculously broad interpretation of BLP actually makes things worse, because that would bring in selective censorship leading to bias. Count Iblis (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone unfamiliar with Count Iblis, should read the screed at the top of his User talk:

Count Iblis rejects most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Misplaced Pages. Whether such edits violate Misplaced Pages's policies is neither here nor there.

Count Iblis sticks to the guidelines in the essay: Editing scientific articles as if it were official policy.

Count Iblis does not recognize the validity of ArbCom rulings. He calls on all restricted editors to violate their restrictions and on all Admins to unblock editors who are blocked on Arbitration Enforcement grounds.

μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IAR, which also makes your question about the BLP violation moot if the thread in question on the Ref Desk can be argued to not be a problem from any reasonable perspective. WP:IAR really says that we are primarily here to build an encyclopedia and we use the rules to help us do that, not the other way around. My experience in recent years has been that this fundamental idea has been overturned by powerful Admins and Arbs, they have changed this place into their fiefdom imposing their rule by enforcing their authority by enforcing rules even at the expense good productive editors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Relationships of Dale Tryon, Baroness Tryon

This article contains information about living people involved with this woman. The article Charles, Prince of Wales doesn't mention her, and neither does Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I'm still wary about the system being gamed. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

All the "rumoured affair" stuff has to come out as it is completely unsourced - the other alleged party is still alive so BLP applies.--ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Bernard L. Schwartz

An editor wants to add negative information and also remove information about Schwartz having been exonerated by the US Justice Department on Bernard L. Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in a case where Schwarz was exonerated according to multiple reliable sources, including Google books. Relevant discussions are on the article talk and user's talk. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Δρ.Κ.  09:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Any advice from the regulars here? Or have they all gone on March break? Δρ.Κ.  23:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If he was exonerated, then the article should obviously say so. The source used for that claim in the article, though, seems to say that his company was excused from investigation, which I'm not sure is exactly synonymous. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article. Needs a lot of work to flesh it out! The subject text garbled two matters. There was a campaign finance scandal (allegedly Schwartz personally donated so heavily to get approvals to for Loral to do deals in China) and separately, a there was a specific transfer of sensitive data to China by Loral (not Schwartz personally). The campaign finance matter ended in 2000 with Schwartz exonerated as per the sources in the article; the scandal over the data transfer was settled in 2002 and was not discussed at all. I made that more clear in the article and introduced a source. Conflation of those two matters by both sides in the dispute seems to have driven some of the arguments. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to provide your advice. I really appreciate your assistance. I also thank Jytdog for his edit which further clarified matters using a reliable source. As a further request, I would like to ask you if you could just keep an eye for any further developments from the other editor just in case he raises any other issues. However I am perfectly happy with Jytdog's additions and I do not seek any further modifications. Hopefully, this will be the end of it. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding: According to a House Select Committee, Loral under CEO Schwartz provided the Chinese government with advice regarding a guidance system for future PRC road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Defense Technology Security Administration concluded Loral "committed a serious export control violation" and that the "significant benefits derived by China from these activities are likely to lead to improvements in the overall reliability of their launch vehicles and ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems." Loral paid a fine of $20 million, the largest that a company has ever paid under the Arms Export Control Act.

References: http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/app.html

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch6.html

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-13/issue-4/departments/cots-watch/loral-arms-technology-exports-lead-to-20-million-government-fine.html

This is significant information from reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That is discussion for the article Talk page. I will say that a) the article already has one sentence about the settlement of the matter and the fine - which I added only because the editors talking there were conflating that matter with the campaign finance investigation that did personally concern Schwartz; b) the suggested detail about that matter is off-topic as it does not personally concern Schwartz; it would go into an article about Loral or China/US relations. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with all your points Jytdog. Including your point (b) namely: "...that the suggested detail about that matter is off-topic as it does not personally concern Schwartz; it would go into an article about Loral or China/US relations". Δρ.Κ.  17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Since Schwartz was CEO of Loral the technology transfer of course concerns Schwartz!Jimjilin (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please relax. Schwartz is not synonymous with the company. Company details belong in the company article not in Schwartz's biography. It is apparent that you don't have WP:CONSENSUS to add this WP:UNDUE stuff into the BLP article. Δρ.Κ.  19:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

NOT HERE - take it to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I don't see the purpose of taking it to the talkpage since I brought the matter to BLPN to ask for opinions about including the material we are discussing here. Further, since we agree on not including the company material the issue as far as I am concerned is settled and I have nothing further to discuss. Δρ.Κ.  20:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is not for hashing out specific content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this dispute is specific enough and although it has been resolved, we still need more eyes on it for the time being, given the insistence of the other editor. I also think including this material is undue weight and a BLP violation, not to mention original research. The article talk does not have the visibility of this noticeboard and I think moving it there will let it fester for a long time. Δρ.Κ.  00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Now the same editor uses primary sources in the company article to directly attack Schwartz.

According to a House Select Committee, Loral under CEO Schwartz provided the Chinese government with advice regarding a guidance system for future PRC road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I also checked but could not find any support for the information in the primary source. At the same time the same editor renewed the edit-warring adding WP:UNDUE material in the Schwartz BLP. Δρ.Κ.  03:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

María Luisa Piraquive

• María Luisa Piraquive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This bio has landed here before as problematic, with a bunch of IPs and SPAs that have pushed hard to curate wholly negative content, and another set of IPs and SPAs writing flowery praise in the Biography section. Piraquive is a controversial figure in Colombia to be sure - I would liken her to one of those megachurch preacher/pastors in the U.S. who tend to garner unusual amounts of bad press. There were several sourced "controversies" that I removed per WP:BLPCRIME, because she has not been formally charged or otherwise convicted of them. These include allegedly having been involved in the death of her husband (!), ties to organized crime and fraud. I left a comment in the talk page with some more info, I'd appreciate a few more eyes in case the IPs return to add more negative material without appropriate sourcing. §FreeRangeFrog 19:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola

Removed unreferenced, potentially libelous content from the Joseph Mercola page (clearly indicated this was reason for removal) only to find it’s been restored. Specifically, the lede describes Dr. Mercola as an “alternative medicine proponent” with link to wiki page for alternative medicine which states alternative medicine is “not based on evidence” and “not based on scientific method”, while Dr. Mercola is a licensed osteopathic physician and as such would be trained in evidence based medicine/scientific medicine (ie osteopathic medicine does not qualify as alternative medicine) Additionally, the lede states Dr. Mercola is a member of numerous “alternative medicine organizations”. There are references attached to these sentences, but the references do not support either of these claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Mercola&diff=598922034&oldid=598697508

Talk:Joseph Mercola shows concerns that the article does not represent NPOV have been brought up numerous times, yet it appears vigilant editors have maintained a non-NPOV article. Added the unbalanced tag twice but it was repeatedly removed.

Quick summary of the rest of the article shows other concerns such as:

-What appears to be undue weight given to a negative opinion piece editorial from Business Week which is critical of Dr. Mercola.

-Using a source called “QuackWatch” which exaggerates FDA complaint against Dr. Mercola instead of simply factually referencing the actual FDA complaint.

-Using a dead link to a provocatively titled article called “Can AZT and Other “Antiretrovirals” Cause AIDS?” to make it appear Dr. Mercola doesn’t believe the HIV virus causes AIDS. Located an active link for this article and the actual article states Mercola believes antiretroviral medication side effects can include immune suppression with references included for these claims.

http://www.omsj.org/issues/can-azt-and-other-antiretrovirals-cause-aids

Could someone objective please look over this article? It appears not to be NPOV, and even more concerning, it appears it contains unreferenced, potentially libelous, content. Mendaliv, you were very helpful on Jahi McMath page, would you mind taking a look? Thanks.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no contradiction at all in the notion that someone with a proper medical degree might start selling bogus supplements and promoting ridiculous claims (e.g. that HIV is not the cause of AIDS). If the sources don't support the claims, then of course revision is needed, but I don't see a problem with the underlying notion that "alternative medicine" is the right frame here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BoboMeowCat is a relatively new user who is too eager to go to the boards. Jumped right into the Paracetamol article and tried to edit war in (received a block for it) content over-emphasizing side effects there and filed a COIN complaint against editors upholding MEDRS, which was snowball-closed. Now has moved to alt medicine topics and it appears that the same WP:IDHT behavior is happening there. This complaint, like the COIN posting, is without merit. Mercola is a proponent of alt med and much of what he advocates falls within WP:FRINGE; the article is well sourced and abides by BLP and NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BoboMeowCat is absolutely correct. The page seems to have been constructed by people who have negative, personal opinions on Joseph Mercola and his practice, and editors with similar viewpoints have contributed to this article getting away with being biased. The lack of proper sourcing and false information is concerning, and the page needs serious editing. Adamh4 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Adamh4 is also a new user; has been an editor for about 2 weeks and was already complaining about this article on his/her 2nd day as an editor here and here and here and here - already getting into WP:IDHT territory on the Talk page there, and making very strong statements while just getting started. Two new editors going down the warrior path too early :( Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that I am a new user, but I didn't realize any of my comments on any of these pages would be considered disruptive; I thought I was just acting the same as all the other users I was learning from! Maybe I got carried away with my comments, but that doesn't change how I feel about them, although it will change how I voice them. I guess I just believed I have been following the guidelines this whole time, and became over zealous after a certain amount of discussions. I apologize for coming off as I did, like I said, every day is another learning experience! I will be sure to tread more carefully from now on though -- thankfully I have experienced editors to help me out as I go! Adamh4 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

you have not been dispruptive! you are just heading down that road. i characterized you to provide admins and editors reviewing here with some context. everybody is a volunteer here and very busy. (may have been inappropriate - i screw up sometimes) Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I was pinged by Bobo's initial post. I'm really not familiar enough with the source material to respond other than to say I think this is the wrong board; the concern for libel is in my view mere window dressing of what is more of a series of NPOV concerns. But on those grounds, I can't really say much other than I know of Ronz and QuackGuru, and don't believe they're the type to intentionally engage in presenting an unbalanced viewpoint. I should say, further, that I agree with the statements of principles on the talk page, indicating that NPOV does not mean we don't present the opinions of others: we do present other viewpoints, balancing them according to WP:DUE. In fact, one application of WP:DUE would be to conclude that presenting no opinion viewpoints would be to give undue weight to the minority viewpoint. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is the improperly sourced or unsourced content. However, what appears to be NPOV concerns may have a lot to do with how such content got in there in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Mercola&oldid=598922034

For example, the lede states Mercola is an “alternative medicine proponent” referenced by this article –

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-25/news/0305250393_1_food-pyramid-diet-guru-osteopathic

This article does not support such a statement.

The lede also states Mercola is a member of several alternative medicine organizations supported by this reference.

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/apr94.htm

…but this ref only shows Mercola’s membership in the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is not an alternative medicine organization.

That’s only the first 5 lines of text, which is all I’ve had time to go through, but as Adamh4 also points out, there appear to be serious referencing concerns throughout.

Isn’t it WP policy that improperly sourced or unsourced content is to be removed immediately on BLP (especially if potentially libelous)? I could remove again, but I’m fairly sure vigilant editors will restore it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't particularly wise to use BLP bluster to remove things on the basis of a faulty understanding. The reference that supports "alternative medicine" in this context is . Per WP:LEAD, not everything in the lead has to have an in-line source, as long as the source is given in the body. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD “The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.”

Also, the reference provided above is an opinion piece. It seems an opinion piece doesn’t authoritatively support the claim that Dr. Mercola is a proponent of medicine which is not based on research and medicine which is not based on scientific method. (There’s a link to wiki page for alternative medicine in the lead which defines alternative medicine that way). Seems maybe with the reference provided we could reasonably say something like “at least one commentator considers Mercola an alternative medicine proponent”, but it doesn’t seem this should be the opening sentence in the lead. Additionally, that reference doesn’t support the claim that Mercola is a member of several alternative medicine organizations. That statement is still unsupported.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh you can WP:wikilawyer all day long, bobomeowcat. Mercola is way way out there - not part of the medical mainstream. He brags about being out there, opposed to the mainstream. The laundry list of his alternative medicine stances is as long as my arm. (here is one of the many laundry lists you can find about him). As long as you keep refusing to accept that Misplaced Pages is very much mainstream with regard to health information (as you have been pointed to many times, please read WP:MEDRS, all the drama boards in the world are not going to help. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the link on WP:wikilawyer and curious why you think it applies here. Nomoskedasticity brought up WP:LEAD. Quoted WP:LEAD.

Previously read WP:MEDRS and I'm not sure how it defends use of an opinion piece from BusinessWeek. Seems a much better way to comply with WP:MEDRS would be to describe controversial claims made by Dr. Mercola, and then use reliable medical sources to show how Mercola’s views differ from mainstream medical practice. I’m concerned you appear to repeatedly mischaracterized me, but I’d rather just stay on topic.

I agree Mercola is out of the mainstream. A statement regarding Mercola being out of the mainstream seems like it would be a much better statement for the lead than an improperly sourced statement regarding him promoting medicine not based on research or medicine not based on scientific method. Stating Mercola is out of the mainstream or even stating that Dr. Mercola is downright controversial seems like something we could actually support with solid references.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ok... so medicine that is out of the mainstream, is "alternative medicine" on Misplaced Pages - by definition. That is the spirit and letter of MEDRS and FRINGE and NPOV. You can try to Wikilawyer away the content and sources that describe him as such, or you can work to improve the article so that he is described as per Misplaced Pages norms. No article on Misplaced Pages is perfect; all articles can be improved. Either way, this is not a matter for BLPN - this is a matter of you understanding Misplaced Pages norms and working within them. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on Misplaced Pages, according to the linked page for alternative medicine, alt med is medicine not based on evidence and medicine not based on scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alternative_medicine&oldid=598490686

However, I can see why you assumed it meant that because in the popular press, the phrase “alternative medicine” appears to simply mean what you stated above as anything outside of standard or mainstream medical practice. This discrepancy in meaning seems to add additional problems to relying on non-WP:MEDRS sources from the popular press such as the Business Week article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no real BLP issues here, and the matter should be dealt with on the article's talk page, we need a snowball close here. This venue is not the right place to deal with this, especially since possibilities at the talk page have not been exhausted.

I suggest that Bobo also respond to questions on the article's talk page, instead of persisting here. He seems to lack understanding of many of our policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of improperly sourced potentially libelous content is the issue that caused me to post here. Also, which policies do you think I don't understand? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding again to this issue, I think you're jumping the gun at calling the content you removed "potentially libelous", as well as rapidly reporting it to a specialty issue noticeboard. Bobo, with respect, your style of argumentation is a type not well suited to Misplaced Pages. You sound very much like you're trying to wikilawyer a minor balancing issue—and that's what this is at bottom—into a full-blown dispute by claiming that the local consensus at that page, or within the Medicine WikiProject and related projects, directly contravenes WP:BLP. That is not what's happening here, and the sooner you approach this as the basic content issue that it is, the sooner it will be resolved or explained in a manner that at least lets all parties understand the reasoning behind the outcome. The end result of this style of discussion is little more than a trainwreck. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that a lot of Bobo's claims are accurate, but I wouldn't necessarily label the information on the page as "libelous." I think that there are a number of things on this page that could be perceived as one sided or biased, and that should be balanced out with some added information to the page. There is a great amount of negativity of the page, but I think this stems from the negativity that stems from the media's view of Mercola. Nonetheless, I think there could be some balancing done. Adamh4 (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Adamh4, Please note that WP:NPOV does not mean that we avoid calling a spade a spade. Where Mercola holds WP:FRINGE views, and he definitely does on several points, we do not dance around that. We state it clearly. If you have not read WP:FRINGE please do so. Please remember that as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit people come here with all kinds of WP:pseudoscience (that wikilink is to a section of the NPOV policy - please check it out too) and want to claim it is true. This is why we stand very very strongly rooted in mainstream science. Otherwise this place would be a disaster. This means that we will say things that appear "negative" about Mercola, but as Mendaliv wrote just above your post, following our policies on health-related content does not conflict with BLP nor with NPOV. I hope that makes sense to you! Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I just think saying Mercola promotes medicine not based on evidence and medicine not based on scientific method is problematic. There are no solid references to support such a claim and it’s the opening sentence of the lead. As far as I can see, including an improperly sourced statement claiming a doctor promotes medicine not based on evidence and not based on scientific method seems to be a problem that isn’t erased by the fact that Dr. Mercola is clearly out of the mainstream and is controversial. Browsing Mercola’s online articles indicates he seems to base his controversial medical claims on his interpretation of research and he tends to include at least somewhat scientifically plausible explanations. Which I’m not claiming makes him right, but unless we have solid references showng Mercola promotes medicine not based on evidence or promotes medicine not based on scientific method, then calling him an “alternative medicine proponent” (along with wiki page link that defines alt med that way), seems to violate BLP with respect to improperly sourced content, and considering this is being said about a liscenced physician, it seems it could be potentially libelous. which is why I posted here.

As you were at the acetaminophen article, you are fast approaching WP:IDHT with respect to refusing to hear the many explanations that have been offered to you about WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS and how they relate to how we deal within Misplaced Pages with claims made by those, including Mercola, who advocate alternative medicine. What you are saying may or may not be reasonable in a forum outside Misplaced Pages, but not here. We have policies and guidelines that govern how we do things that you are not dealing with. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears Adamh4 is most concerned that the Joseph Mercola article is not balanced and violates NPOV, and I tend to agree that’s also a concern here, but my main concern is improperly sourced content. Maybe our respective arguments are getting confused. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, you think it's "problematic" that we follow the multiple RS which associate the words "alternative medicine" with this man. Maybe you should consider his behavior to be problematic. The FDA certainly does. It's his fault, not ours. If he doesn't want that association, then he should change his behavior. It's our job to follow the sources, so stop the IDHT behavior before you get topic banned or blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Russell Welch

I'd appreciate it if editors could take a look at Russell Welch. There are some extraordinary claims about CIA drug trafficking and anthrax which are unsourced or are sourced to what appear to be fringe publications. GabrielF (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tor (anonymity network)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages says, "Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the U.S. federal government, the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users." This is a non-neutrally phrased misinterpretation of a misquotation of a mailing list post by a poor quality news blog that has been placed in a way that implies a connection between government research grants (attributed to another source) and covert spying (a baseless conclusion) on the part of Mr. Lewman and Roger Dingledine. The misquote by the source is egregious and taints the source enough to render it also unusable as a primary source about Dingledine.

"The parts of the U.S. and Swedish governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future," Lewman wrote. "Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset."

It fails verifiability for that statement so poorly that its claim about what Roger Dingledine told the blogger is suspect. It is synthesis because it combines material on funding from one source with the NSA misquote by another, implying a connection between the two and insinuating that there could be something to it. It's POV because the paraphrase on Misplaced Pages has a different meaning and tone than the source. There is a difference between something not meaning something else and someone "not necessarily" doing something. The sentence has become evasive, self-incriminating doubletalk with the new meaning that his behavior is subject to interpretation, or that he neither confirms nor denies it.

Talk page thread

Archived WP:RSNB thread

Archived WP:BLPNB thread 178.8.154.86 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the super-secret imaginary BLP violation that 94.222.101.42 and 94.222.101.42 alone can see returns!

Once again 94.222.101.42 is talking about RELIABLE SOURCES on the BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PERSONS noticeboard. The reliable sources noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is for discussing violations of Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy (which, I remind you, does not exist in this case other than in 94.222.101.42's fevered imagination). The fact that 94.222.101.42 appears to be unable to understand this basic concept is either a WP:COMPETENCE problem or an WP:IDHT problem.

I recommend closing this and sending it to WP:RSN where it belongs. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, RS, OR(synth), and NPOV. Please comment here if you disagree. Please don't chill discussion; this is important. Anything you want to say to me personally can go on your talk page. 178.8.154.86 (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Guy Macon's comments above, there have already been several threads on this on the article talk page and multiple noticeboards, and in none of them has the IP been able to draw support, nevermind consensus. WP:BLUDGEONing. --— Rhododendrites |  03:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Rhododendrites are the two editors who strongly want to keep the material. I dispute how both of them have characterized the discussion so far, and it's off-topic, biasing, and discourages community comment. Let's get back on topic. 178.8.154.86 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what is in that particular article and I think the existing editors are doing a fine job without me. Make a persuasive argument and get some editors to agree with you, and if you reach the point where there is a clear consensus for the changes you wish to make except for one holdout, and I will tell that fellow that he isn't going to get what he wants. Again, there is no BLP violation and your complaint about (in your own words) "RS, OR(synth), and NPOV" is completely off-topic on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have, but that's still not the topic here. Since you are the one who restored the material, why don't you explain why you think it is usable? 88.75.168.80 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Azam Khan

Azam Khan (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However, Khan was detained at the Boston Airport for questioning, over his Samajwadi Party finances, and its links to Al-Qaeda and D-Company." Above line is not verifiable and seems to be written with malice intention. Needs to be verified and removed, if content is picked from dubious source to spread rumors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.52 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that (a) the sources cited said nothing about Al-Qaeda etc, and (b) what was sourced was largely copy-pasted directly into the article, I've removed the section. If a section on the incident is merited, it needs to properly reflect sources - and avoid POV terms like 'ruckus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Doug Kershaw

I posted this at WT:LOUISIANA in 2011 and again on March 7, but got no answers.

Interesting thing here. I've searched all over and cannot find any proof that his supposed hometown of "Tiel Ridge" ever existed. Literally every hit I found on Google, Gnews and Gbooks mentions him and/or his brother, and I've found no outside mention of the town anywhere. Does anyone have any idea what the origin is of this supposed town, or if maybe it's a typo for something else? Ten Pound Hammer • 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My search has also come up dry, including plausible alternate spellings. Perhaps it is just a region or neighborhood, like American Ridge, Idaho, where my grandfather was born 130+ years ago. But there is plenty of information about that place, including sources describing a cemetery where several of my relatives are buried. Maybe it is the Kershaws pulling our legs. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This article mentions that Tiel Ridge is "a place he says was not a town as such, but was instead a section of coast on a small island where you could tie up your houseboat." Another article says it was in "Cameron Parish, Louisiana, an island just off the Gulf of Mexico". Also, a local type of ridge is the Chenier ridgeGoogle cache. Most have eroded away, so it's likely that it is no longer there. --Auric talk 14:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dov Weissglas

1. I have edited my page but defamatory information is added anew. 2. How can I change the photograph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shila peri (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What might be defamatory here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Georgi Konstantinovski

Georgi Konstantinovski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This completely unsourced BLP was mostly written by Koceva (talk · contribs) who has only worked on this article and has not edited in 1.5 years. What's the best course of action? --Jprg1966  17:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty non-neutral in a lot of places, and, as you say, completely unsourced. Shockingly, it seems to fall within the very narrow constraints of BLPPROD, which will either shake out someone willing to add a reliable source to this article, or not. --j⚛e decker 17:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't too difficult to find at least some sources for Konstantinovski - in particular, this page from the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (in Slovenian, but Google translate seems to make a reasonable job of it) seems to confirm the gist of it. He seems to have attracted international commentary (see ) as well as being a former Dean of the Faculty of Architecture in Skopje, which suggests to me that he probably meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. I'll add the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts reference to the article, and put a note on the talk page regarding other sources I've found, then remove the BLPPROD. Further referencing may need accessing academic material behind paywalls etc, and will probably require knowledge of South Slavic languages, so it is probably beyond my skillset - but at least we'll have a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It would be a shame to waste a lengthy biography, however problematic. --Jprg1966  20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Pat Garofalo

Pat Garofalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an extended stub about a Minnesota politician who recently sent a tweet about basketball that has picked up some controversy. Several editors have turned this article into a coatrack for allegations of racism with poor sourcing. Please watch. Jonathunder (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd not call this particularly poor sourcing. WP:BLP policy isn't intended to protect politicians from legitimate criticism - and it is difficult to see how criticism couldn't be legitimate, given the apology Garofelo later made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

tomas van houtryve

Tomas van Houtryve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- The person is still alive and doesn't want any wikipage. PLEASE delete this page. I'm his assistant. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordicpadawan (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't delete articles on request. And I suggest that you desist from vandalising the article before you are blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Sheherazade

Rachel Sheherazade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is poorly written (as if someone just ran it through Google Translate) and reads like a publicist's piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.20.14 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark Dawidziak

• Mark Dawidziak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've attempted to de-puff this, but grow tired of backing and forthing with WP:SPA users. More eyes on this would be much appreciated. Not sure that the subject meets notability guidelines, or if so, that every publication requires mention. JNW (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC Announcement

A RFC has been opened at WT:BLP regarding adding maintenance categories to mainspace articles based on missing data. Please feel free to review and comment on the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

• Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lukeming (talk · contribs)

Apparent COI, with the intent of adding positive content, while removing sourced negative as well. Account has asked for page protection, claiming vandalism. Perhaps a return to previous version, with a discussion as to the relevance and necessity of content would be best. JNW (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Vivek Murthy

The final sentence of this article attributes a statement regarding gun violence and heart disease to Vivek Murthy, but the article cited has this statement as a quotation from an opponent of Murthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.199.194 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Apurv Gupta

The article on Apurv Gupta seems to have been written to a large extent by Mr Gupta himself, as it contains quite a few peacock terms and references of dubious validity.

Daniel Amen

Daniel Amen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think more eyes should have a look at the radical transformation this article is undergoing. Misplaced Pages seems to be going to great lengths to cast doubt, and discredit any aspect of this man's work. While I agree that addressing perceived claims is important. I feel we may doing some real world harm here as well. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Content about the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions and claims of their efficacy and success must be supported by MEDRS quality sources. Any such claims that contradict the mainstream scientific consensus can only be presented as DUE with proper balance. Theories not broadly supported by scholarship in their field are FRINGE and are treated as such. The article is well sourced. The talk page has extensive discussion to support it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution