Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 31 January 2015

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

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

Steven Emerson

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(See Steven Emerson part 2 below for continued discussion.)

There is a discussion on the Steven Emerson talk page on if we should include the following to the lede:

Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, New York Times reviewer Adrienne Edgar, investigative reporter Robert Friedman, Eric Boehlert, and was directly contradicted by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, leading Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, National Security Council, FBI, Justice Department, Congress and intelligence agencies".

References

1. Steinbeck, Robert (August 26, 2011). "New Report Details Funding Sources Behind Anti-Muslim Fearmongers". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved January 19, 2015. The five key misinformation experts identified by the report Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key "grassroots" activists
2. Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, pp. 5–6, retrieved January 14, 2015, Emerson's lack of precision leads him to conflate legitimate organizations that can help America and secure the homeland with others that are neither genuinely American nor transparent. ... Emerson's decade-long investigation of the American Muslim community is discredited by deliberate distortions, questionable sources and shoddy research techniques. ... His work ... is plagued by anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric.
3. Edgar, Adrienne (May 19, 1991). ""A Defector's Story: A Review of Terrorist by Steven A. Emerson and Cristina Del Sesto". The New York Times Book Review. p. 714.
4. Friedman, Robert (May 15, 1995). "One Man's Jihad". The Nation. pp. 656–57. Cited in Counterproductive terrorism, Muslim Public Affairs Council, December 31, 2004, p. 7, retrieved January 14, 2015
5. Boehlert, Eric (March 5, 2002). "Terrorists under the bed". Salon. Retrieved January 14, 2015. Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson's at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... dismisses Emerson's entire thesis. ... 'He doesn't know what he's talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word "terrorist" the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word "communist."
6. ^ Seitz-Wald, Alex (April 18, 2013). "GOP Rep. embraces Boston conspiracy theory". Salon. Retrieved January 18, 2015. Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on Sean Hannity's show that unnamed "sources" told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. Jeff Duncan grilled Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the rumor at a hearing this morning. ... "I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions that it's just not worthy of an answer," the Homeland Security secretary shot back ... Duncan's willingness to embrace Emerson's charge highlights how quickly theories can go from the fringe to the mainstream in an environment when the political opposition is desperate to score political points against the president, and less concerned about getting facts right.
7. Champion, Matthew (January 12, 2015). "That Steve Emerson #foxnewsfacts interview is even worse than you think". i100 from The Independent. Retrieved January 18, 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
8. "About The Investigative Project on Terrorism". Investigative Project on Terrorism. Retrieved January 18, 2015.

This section is supposed to reference Steven Emerson#Controversies and Steven Emerson#Media and testimony sections of the article according to WP:LEDE, and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of WP:BLP violations. we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a WP:BLP violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE (my highlight): The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. So, providing that the sources are reliable and the controversy significant, such material could be included in the lede, but you have to take into account also WP:UNDUE. A much shorter summary of the controversy may be a good compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. There is no WP:BLP violation in reporting the controversies surrounding Emerson's claims - they are basically all that makes him notable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that is not very nice. The section is not neutral, poorly sourced, and last two sentences are synthesis and a violation of BLP. The proposed addition sets up a negative characterization of Emerson and then says despite he being a liar he is STILL used as a resource. This is synthed using Emerson's website to back up the statement. Two of the main sources for attacking Emerson are MPAC and "The Nation" which are clearly biased and simply not usable or reliable for anything factual. The book review is from 1991 from an obscure reviewer. Just because a couple of people are pissed at him does not entail that their opposition be given prominent position in the article. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't negate that there is significant controversy. WP:ENEMY may be a good way for you to address this. Just find a way to report the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It says 'inaccurate'. It does not call him a liar. And given that he has admitted that his latest example of 'anti-Islamic rhetoric' was inaccurate, I can't see any particular problem with us describing it as such. Maybe the wording needs work, but there is no reason whatsoever why the lede should not fully reflect the matter that brought him to international attention. Few outside the U.S. will have heard of him before his latest gaffe, and any article needs to explain why he gained such attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My problem with the proposed text is that it's not really on point. It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson. While this is undoubtedly true on some level, it's rather besides the point. The notable issue is that Emerson says things in his purported field of expertise which are not true. In fact, some of his commentary is so not-true that he's been called out by reliable sources (e.g. , , ) and even provoked the (conservative) Prime Minister of the UK to opine that Emerson is "clearly an idiot" (). That's the notable aspect here, and the aspect that's had significant coverage in independent reliable sources—not the fact that a number of (mostly progressive) commentators have criticized him over the years. MastCell  18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Unaware of this conversation I have just made this point on SE Talk page: In the last census Birmingham had more children registered as Muslim (97,099) than Christian (93,828). David Cameron has previously apologised for getting his facts wrong on Islamic issues. So has Steven Emerson. To repeat the former's comments that the latter is "clearly a complete idiot", without any perspective, is a clear violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV).Stacie Croquet (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Made an edit summarizing the controversy in a few words. The rest can be expanded in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson." When the British Conservative PM said what he did and even Fox News says Emerson is wrong, it goes a bit beyond what progressives don't like. Those of us who don't watch Fox News would never have heard of the guy if it weren't for his wildly incorrect statements. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification on how I am interpreting MastCell's comments. The notable aspect isn't simply the Fox News Gaff, but rather that he has been criticized by multiple sources for his inaccuracies for a while, and the Fox News Gaff is simply another example of that. I don't think he is notable for simply one event, but rather that he has a history of controversy. If I'm incorrect MastCell, please correct me.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator attention please? This BLP is being attacked with both unsourced blanket criticism, and poorly sourced contentious statements, including an accusation of prejudice - - in the lead which is totally unacceptable. I realize residents in the UK would like to lynch this guy - he made a huge blunder - but it doesn't justify the personal attacks. Atsme☯ 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is The Washington Post, which reports that ""Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past." - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many books, including one from Cambridge University Press (now included in the article), that mentions Emerson in the context of Islamophobia: - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your contentious statements are poorly sourced and are based on questionable allegations at best. Using poorly sourced contentious material to discredit a BLP is clearly a violation as I've tried to explain to you. Emerson may be a goofus, but he is not an Islamophobe. To call him that isn't any different from calling a civil rights activist a Crackerphobe, or other biased label. Contentious statements must be well-sourced, the partisan Washington Post made an allegation based on other allegations. The book you cited was co-written by Omid Safi, "whose writings on Islam have been criticized as faulty and “utopic” by other scholars." . The sources you cited do not pass per WP:RS. Atsme☯ 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Without comment on the underlying, saying that someone is engaging in BLP violations and then using the freebeacon as a source to call someones work faulty should really consider taking my username and spelling it right. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme is actually right there is issues with the article and the fact there is a "Controversy" and a "Reception" section which splits out "praise/mixed/criticism" sub-sections is a bright red flag. The praise is unsourced and out of context from circa 2000. Much of the attention was paid to a minor gaff and the recent gaff. Sources like Salon and such are pretty poor and the whole "what other people think" is already veering into the weeds for a BLP. It is a problem to see editors prop up/tear down Emerson (or any person) by what other people said about him. None of it goes towards advancing a disinterested and neutral portrayal of a person. There is a huge misconception that "if it exists" it can be included or is worth including. Misplaced Pages should not be using low grade sources or filling up a page's content on what amounts to gossip and dirt. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't being hypocritical, I was being bi-partisan. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point. Well, except maybe for this one: . I think it's fascinating how things appear depending on the angle of bias. We all just need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Atsme☯ 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In short -WP:BLPGOSSIP. Though it should not really need to exist, but a reception section for a BLP is a bad idea and is nothing more than a lowering of the BLP bar to get otherwise unacceptable material into the BLP. Often this is a "wikilawyer" backed approach to slip a source of questionable nature into the article by attributing the material to the source as justification per policy. This results in gossip being included because it exists instead of whether or not it is appropriate at all. This is aided by not being a major BLP issue, but more of a WP:DIRT issue. This makes attempts to correct or rectify the problem (requiring the removal as the only suitable option) appear to be damaging instead of beneficial. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Tip: Criticism/praise is not gossip. --NeilN 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Tip: Hate speech and bigotry accusations are BLP violations not criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

really? because when the addition that stated he was accused of Islamophobia was made it was vetted through this board. Perhaps you are accusing the BLP Noticeboard of not understanding BLP?Coffeepusher (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And again, BLP does not say what you want it to say. Please copy the exact sentence in BLP the prohibits adding well-publicized, well-sourced attributed assessments to biographies. --NeilN 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN - Think Progress and/or Salon are not a high quality reliable sources. If it is not a proper high-quality reliable source it cannot be used to make contentious assertions against living persons per BLP. Also you are completely off base because being accused of inciting Islamophobia is completely different from being a bigot (Islamophobe). This is not "one sentence of BLP" it is entire sections of BLP and IRS. Stop wikilawyering and stop trying to label a living person as a bigot to such weak sources. It a BLP attack and is unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

But the Cambridge University Press and Washington Post are high quality sources. and they say the same thing. So since you just asserted that this is a sourcing matter and we can make those claims as long as we have quality sources, we can consider it closed unless someone at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard agrees with your interpretation of sources. Unless of course you are WP:POV pushing and going to shift your argument again. Cheers Mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you'll just move the goalposts again to your preferred version of BLP - no analysis no matter what the source (Supreme Court clerk, LA Times, New Yorker legal analyst - were all not good enough for the other article). --NeilN 04:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly covered by WP:WELLKNOWN: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. There are multiple reliable sources (including the Washington Post and the Cambridge University Press book) documenting the allegations of Islamophobia, so it is appropriate (and consistent with WP:BLP) to mention the allegation. Of course, the allegation should be presented with appropriate in-text attribution, rather than as a "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. MastCell  04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many RS that have labeled civil rights activists as racists and race baiters, or that have expressed views of anti-Semitism or whatever. Such labels and contentious material is not included in the leads of WP:BLPs. Using the term Islamophobia, or fomenting Islamophobia applies equally - it is hate speech, and it doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP. WP is neither a tabloid nor a partisan (mis)information source - we don't hang labels on people. Reliance on what pundits claim in partisan media, and then writing about it as "encyclopedic" is terrible authorship - embarrassing, in fact - especially knowing the media has been known to screw-up the facts at one time or another. WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability is of the utmost importance. Please pay heed.

Read WP:Verifiability,_not_truth, If it's written in a book, it must be true!":

• Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Misplaced Pages editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Misplaced Pages's voice; this is one reason Misplaced Pages's voice should be neutral.
• The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
• It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
• In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.

The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. Atsme☯ 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme and Arzel keep making the same points here as they've made on Talk:Steven Emerson and refuse to accept that criticism of someone is not a violation of WP:NPOV or of WP:BLP and are repeatedly objecting to reliably-sourced words like Islamophobia. I've made these arguments repeatedly on the Talk: page and they have failed to answer at any point why the sentences I wrote (which Coffeepusher helpfully brought over here) is not appropriate for the lead. In particular, their objections seem to centre on "biased sources", despite WP:NPOVFAQ explicitly stating:

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

To be honest, I would suggest that their objections have gone beyond the point of being a reasoned discussion and are now Disruptive. Frankly, big arguments like this are why I — and many others — avoid editing topics around politics. It's just not worth the stress and hassle; I've spent hours crafting and defending reliably-sourced and carefully-balanced wording that I could have been spent actually improving the encyclopædia. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator's attention needed please?

There are a few editors insisting on maintaining BLP violations in Emerson. For example, the lead currently reads (and is properly sourced and cited):

Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged for inaccuracies, including a recent statement he made during a television interview wherein he incorrectly stated "there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." Emerson retracted his statement, and extended a public apology.

The few editors who are edit warring want that paragraph to read:

Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia, and for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe.

I have already pointed out that the cited sources used for including contentious statements such as "fomenting Islamophobia" cannot be verified per WP:VERIFIABLE and "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". Other editors have tried numerous times to help the three disruptive editors to understand the problem, but to no avail. The liability for stating in Wiki voice what just is not true and/or inaccurately stated was also demonstrated in a link posted at the TP: . The same few editors insist on the inclusion of the "fomenting Islamophobia" statement and "inaccuracies related to Muslims" in the lead, ignoring verification, and BLP policy. They cannot see past what they perceive as RS. I went to the effort of pointing out the problems source by source , but Cwobeel (now retired), Coffeepusher, OwenBlacker, and Nomoskedasticity keep reverting. Atsme☯ 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Translation: ChrisGualtieri and I can't force our interpretation of BLP on other experienced editors so I want admins to restore my preferred version. Instead of threatening everyone else with BLP blocks, why not avail yourself of dispute mechanisms like RFC? --NeilN 16:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Experienced editors...hmm...the Birmingham Post, a reliable source, has the WP:Verified translation: "Steven Emerson attacked by digital lynch mob of anonymous pseudo-journos in dingy rooms" Stacie Croquet (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Stacie Croquet, any reason why you're linking to a site which seems to consist of copyright violations? --NeilN 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just found this edit which states "Pour the liberal koolaid down the drain" by User:Atsme which is one of many that shows them editing to defend this article against a perceived partisan ideology rather than using wikipedia's guidelines to evaluate the edit. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And if you actually read the source, the 'no-go areas' in question (in the English example) were actually areas where Muslim youth felt threatened. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

An edited volume from a major academic press certainly appears to be a BLP-appropriate source for contentious claims. And there are multiple high-quality sources here. I don't see how there's a problem beyond WP:IDHT. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason it is not appropriate is because it failed verifiability when checked against the actual source cited by the author to justify his use of such a contentious statement - "If it's written in a book, it must be true!". It flies in the face of WP:BLP and WP:V. To include such bias in the lead of a BLP would be spreading prejudicial and (borderline ethnic/racist) slurs used by an author who incorrectly attributed another source that did not make such a statement. Furthermore, none of the tertiary sources verify the contentious statements as they were used. Liken it to what happened to Emerson in reverse - a source gave him the wrong information. WP should not be spreading such misinformation. The lead I wrote which was constantly reverted actually had the proper amount of criticism, balance and was properly attributed with inline citations to reliable sources, and verified. Atsme☯ 03:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per WP:CRITS and Featured articles on persons like Barack Obama do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. Verifiability does not mean inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Atsme, I don't understand what you mean when you say "failed verifiability when checked against the actual source". Are you saying that Hammer and Safi failed verification when they were checked against their "actual source"? Who did this checking? Where's the source that undercuts Hammer and Safi? I'm confused. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving this into a new discussion below since we have gone so far from what the original post is, and if I was not involved in the ongoing discussion, I would have no idea what User:ChrisGualtieri was talking about. So Chris, I'm going to paste your above comment in the section below, if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position feel free to modify it or delete it as you choose. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mmm.. if you misrepresent it then I made a poor argument! I'd prefer a new section, but this has gotten far from the original point and I do worry of Atsme's position as one of support instead of the creation of a disinterested biography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to worry about my position. Neutrality, fact-checking, and verifying sources has never been an issue for me throughout my 30+ year career as a writer/publisher. I'm ok with the lead as it is now, but if it is ever expanded, I believe it should be done with the same adherence to policy, and with the consistency, care and careful consideration that was given to Anthony Weiner, Tony Blair, Anjem Choudary, Jesse Jackson, and Eric Holder.

In response to Guettarda's question, yes Hammer and Safi failed verifiability because they said things that were not in the source they cited. The Cambridge statement, "Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh), etc. was attributed in the book with an inline citation to an article written by Think Progress which states, "Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.” <---- Where in that statement do you see Muslim? Where do you see Islamopobes? Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"? The use of "Islamophobe" is a biased slur and the opinion of the author(s). Emerson actually works to help Muslim groups protect against terrorism . I have not read anything to date in a RS that validates or justifies Islamophobe or Islamophobia labels on Emerson, and certainly not in Wiki voice. I listed a similar breakdown at the TP for all the other sources that were used to justify the contentious material in the lead. Atsme☯ 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I believe you have misread the sources. The scholars did not cite "an article written by Think Progress"; that's merely a website. That article was actually written by Eli Clifton, a national security reporter with The Nation Institute and former bureau chief at Inter Press Service, and that article further cited several more sources, which in turn cited numerous sources from two decades ago. I was easily able to locate validation and justification for those labels, but my personal research and synthesis is not citable. Remember that we Misplaced Pages editors cannot use sources of lesser or unknown quality, so we depend on these higher quality academic sources to sift through all relevant information resources (even articles in Think Progress, primary sources, personal interviews, website data, etc.), rigorously research and vet it, and submit it for review and publication in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy — only then can we assert the information in Misplaced Pages's voice as factual. These requirements have indeed been met by the sources listed above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SQS much? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong words based on weak sources. I don't see any reason to continue spinning this out. It does not belong in the lede and any mention in the body needs proper context and attribution. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Factual words based on high quality and academic sources, and apparent absence of reliably sourced information to the contrary. Trying to 'attribute' fact as if it were opinion would be a violation of NPOV policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(Discussion continued below under new header: Steven Emerson part 2.)

Robert Kagan

Robert Kagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Wixifixer, who is the subject of the article, is attempting to remove ethnicity information from this page. I've had conflicts with him in the past and would rather defer the case to other administrators. Owen (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Labelling people as Jewish etc. falls into the topic of WP:BLPCAT where unless the person self-identifies as Jewish, we do not do so. Collect (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the page in question, self-identification seems to be required for religion, but not for ethnicity. Or is this guideline given elsewhere? Owen (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the Robert Kagan article, the disputed statement was entirely unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell ya what - look at the prior discussions about "Jewish" on all the noticeboards - and note that categorizing a person as "Jewish" invariably is viewed as contentious where no self-identification is made. Trying to assert that "Jewish" merely is an ethnicity has not flown here before, and is unlikely to fly now. Collect (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per Collect's argument - labeling persons without self-identification or other high quality sources is not acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see this is already here. Article has no sources regarding Kagan being Jewish; no mention of being Jewish at all. Agree with Collect. Must be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Jewishness, in the final analysis, is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are discussing is whether or not unsourced material should be removed from a WP:BLP. As we read at WP:V: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." I disagree with those who might say that this material is "contentious". It is merely unsourced. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussions all reached a different conclusion than that, however. Collect (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Any time the subject of an article indicates in good faith that they do not wish to be labelled with a given ethnicity, we should respect that. It's a matter of courtesy and logic before we even get round to considering WP policy. Same goes for religion and sexual orientation. (Caveat: I have no idea if Wikifixer actually is the article subject in this case, and I have done nothing to check). Formerip (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cannot somebody stop the Jew-labeling, about which the subject has complained since 2008 with more patience than anybody should expect. is a 19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Also, an editor currently appealing sanctions for repeatedly removing Jews from a list of indigenous peoples has plastered the talk page with his thoughts about the Kagan and alleged relations to "the Israeli lobby", alleged "double loyalty" (Israel and US), etc. Shouldn't such BLP violations be removed immediately? is a 20:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To benchmark the high standards for categorizing by religion, consider George Benson and whether or not he should be categorized as a Jehovah's Witness. He is not because we have yet no statement by him stating that he is a Jehovah's Witness---although we have statements praising the name of Jehovah and stating that he donates money to Watchtower Society, etc. is a 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The article again had problems with misrepresentation of sources, which were reliable but rather mediocre quality---a short book review/notice in Foreign Affairs and a profile in The Guardian. Nonetheless, these sources state that he is often called "neoconservative" but that he prefers to call himself "liberal and progressive". His books are concerned with liberal civilization and use a realistic perspective, rather than "neoconservative theology", in the words of Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, I have classified him as a political realist and as an American social-liberal. The liberal category has 2 subcategories, classical and social: There seems to be no evidence that he is a classical liberal; in American politics, a progressive (liberal) is a social liberal. is a 10:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH. Stick to the sources, which by and large demonstrate that the mainstream reportage of Kagan characterizes him as a neoconservative.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

SYNTH refers to edits made in articles (Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research) - not to comments on noticeboards. So far you seem hell-benthighly interested on labelling Kagan as neoconservative when your sources should only be used for opinions cited as opinions - which I believe I have stated a number of times in a number of places about a number of people of all political persuasions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement addresses adding/deleting of categories to the article that are outside of the scope of this thread. The basis for that was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, apparently.

The "hell-bent" comment is out of line, because the issue related to how to characterize Kagan had been somewhat stable until recently, with the statements being attributed (as opinion) only under the "Ideas and Career" section of the article. It was not me that started deleting sourced material and adding/deleting categories without support in RS.

Though the sources are strong enough and plentiful enough to characterize him as a neoconservative, that was a compromise based on his shunning of the label. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is clear that it doesn't matter if he doesn't like the label as long as RS apply it to him, however.

The categorizations are unsupported and need to be restored to their previous status.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH apply only to articles, not to noticeboards or discussion pages of any ilk. "Highly interested" seems fair as you, indeed, added Frederick Kagan to the List of Neoconservatives, and reverted removal of the other names. , , . Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You left out the part that Robert Kagan was removed along with Victoria Nuland. When I searched for more sources, I found two one for Frederick as well. And one of the sources is a recent scholarly source published by an academic press, and pertains to both Robert and Frederick, as mentioned in a thread below. I am of the opinion that all three individuals are described as neoconservatives in RS in a manner compliant with Misplaced Pages policy, as Mr.X has indicated as well.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And the others agree that opinions must be cited as opinions. I fear you missed that part. Also look at your "sources" for categorizing a person: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/ Neocons and the Ukraine Coup, Robert Parry,February 23, 2014 - self-published by the only employee of a non-profit. And opinion piece to boot. Your "source" for Nuland is http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4f13052-18ca-11e4-80da-00144feabdc0.html She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.. and you use it as a source to call her "neoconservative! Sorry - this is getting very old very fast. Collect (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Zero sources on "awards" pages about BLPs

1. List of awards and nominations received by Susan Sarandon
2. List of awards and nominations received by Nicolas Cage
3. List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler

• "Awards" pages about WP:BLPs, each had zero sources, none cited, whatsoever.
• I've removed the wholly unsourced info about WP:BLPs.
• Please don't add back unsourced info unless properly cited to sources that conform to site policy, including WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary, add {{cn}} where needed or {{refimprove}}. The BLP exception applies to contentious claims only. Do the work or let others do it if you are not interested. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

First, Cwobeel, WP:BURDEN applies to all material, whether it is about a living person or not. Second, "contentious" doesn't mean "disparaging" or "unpleasant", it only means that someone may disagree about it. While removing it in the first place may not have been the best choice, once it has been challenged, it can only be restored with a citation to a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is Cirt disagreeing with the content? --NeilN 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

He's been pretty clear that he objects to it because it is inadequately supported by sources, i.e., it may not be true. If it matches up with my experience on similarly unsourced awards articles, his suspicions are well justified: they tend to be exaggerated and inaccurate. I've warned him not to go on a spree of these removals, despite any suspicions he might have.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal per Cirt's citation of applicable and relevant policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I recall one BLP where one editor wanted to include a Nobel Peace Prize "nomination" for a person as being important <g> so yes - awards can be contentious in the sense that other editors find the claim dubious. Collect (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is one of those instances where WP:IAR would apply, as these awards are very easily sourced. But I will not fight for this, I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, please stop attacking other editors. This is a good faith claim and the material is contentious and unsourced, policy states it should be removed until it can be re-included with a proper source. This is a key fact of WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations to Cirt for playing a straight bat and posting for third party review, this is wholly uncontroversial. Unsourced material has no right to exist, regardless of how notable some related article subject may be. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Cwobeel restored all three articles and sourced the entirety to IMDb. They were promptly redirected as IMDb is not a reliable source, much less a BLP source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong is using IMDb for a an innocuous list of awards. That material is not contentious. WP:IAR exists for a reason. Use your common sense, and think of the reader. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed something wrong. The same person who creates the Misplaced Pages article could create the IMDB content, and we'd never even know. It's not an acceptable site to be the sole or primary source of an article. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Make the BLP day and also redirect Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing them is always better than removing them. In my opinion the lists should be as comprehensive and well sourced as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Result of WP:AE request: "Cwobeel: Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists.". — Cirt (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunate but self-inflicted. Ho hum Guy (Help!) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlo Greene

Charlo Greene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure if this is a BLP/N thing or maybe an issue for another forum. Long story short, I've had someone make a few comments on the talk page saying that Greene doesn't pass notability guidelines (she passed an AfD) and making statements that come across like they're saying that there's a bias on the page because it doesn't contain this or that content. I'll be honest: it really comes across like the editor in question has a genuine strong dislike of the person because of how they've phrased everything. I've told them that if anything is missing or seems overly puffy that they can make edits if they think that they can do it in a neutral fashion, but I'm fairly concerned that any edits by them would be done with the specific goal of stripping sources from the article and editing to reflect their point of view, which is that she's non notable and the article should be deleted. I would like someone to come in to the article and help with edits and also with mediation with the editor in question. It just feels like unless some other people step in this is just going to be a pattern where the editor comes back, makes more POINTy comments about Greene and the article (stating how there's a bias and that it's missing information that they don't seem to want to add), and then takes off to do other things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also, should the recent eviction be mentioned? I've added it, but it doesn't seem to have been as widely covered as some of the other stuff like the other recent legal issues (misusing campaign funds) and it just feels a little minor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: Did the AfD address if she was covered by BLP1E? I have watchlisted the article and commented on the eviction issue back at the article talk page JBH (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

..."and then takes off to do other things." Uh, you mean such as paying work out in the real world? How dare I give that a higher priority than fucking around on Misplaced Pages! This has been the quintessential BLP1E from Minute One. As I recall, the AFD began with the nominator referencing BLP1E and using it as justification for deletion, which obviously fell on deaf ears. I also recall that it was taken to AFD after it was PRODed and her supporters removed the PROD tag with no rationale or discussion whatsoever. Perhaps all that helps to explain why sensible people have stayed far the fuck away from this. I attempted to offer comments prior to and during the AFD, but abandoned them. My real-world obligations took a sharp turn in a different direction about eight months ago, which means that I truly did have better things to do with my life at the time.

In my eyes, this is one of far too many examples of giving undue weight to something because it was "trending" on one particular day, considerations such as WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM (among others) be damned. The rationale was given during AFD that this received "significant coverage". What others may view as "significant coverage", I view as a result of a media environment in which an endless number of media outlets endlessly rehash the same content over and over in an attempt to appear "competitive" or "relevant". I'm sure some won't understand that statement, but I'm merely looking at the bigger picture here. I came here to help build an encyclopedia, not a portal to CNN and The Huffington Post.

There has been "continuing coverage", but that's mostly on account of the Anchorage-based corporate media deeming her to be the next "homegrown media darling" a la Sarah Palin. The only thing I see in common between Charlo Greene and Sarah Palin is that they both had a cup of coffee at KTVA, and that Wikipedians seem all too eager to bludgeon readers with their respective fleeting associations with the station, all the while deleting sourced content pertaining to individuals who actually had something to do with putting KTVA on the map. Is there an essay which spells out the difference between "notability" and "celebrity" and outlines how not to confuse or intertwine the two, or have I just given someone an idea for their next big Misplaced Pages project? Anyway, I'm totally puzzled as to why any media executive would view Greene as a logical successor to Sarah Palin in terms of the similarities in coverage. I don't think I have to explain Palin's accomplishments. Greene, in comparison, is just a pitiful bottom-feeder. This has been reflected in "social media commentary", with multiple instances of readers asking media outlets why they insist on wasting readers' time with this bullshit, giving such excessive coverage to her eviction proceedings and other non-events while "even Ray Charles can see" that she had already jumped the shark by that point.

As to the issue of omission of content: hopefully, we're all at least familiar with the circumstances surrounding this individual. There was a larger issue, Ballot Measure 2, to decriminalize cannabis in Alaska, which was successful. One of the primary figures on the side of opposing this ballot measure was Deborah Williams, the top Alaska-based official of the United States Department of the Interior during the Clinton administration and a politically powerful person in Alaska in general. The simple fact of the matter is that Charlo Greene outed herself because Deborah Williams went to KTVA's management and complained about the tone of her reporting. This fact was reported by reliable sources. That Wikipedians somehow didn't find this to be very important boils down to one of three things: someone was afraid of possibly offending Deborah Williams, someone felt that mentioning Williams would detract from the important task of procuring enough turd polish to make this appear legit in the eyes of the uninitiated, or providing proper context would detract from continuing to promulgate the sort of BizarroThink which permeates Misplaced Pages and further lends to the laughingstock image many people have of the encyclopedia.

As with "social media commentors", I feel enough of my life has been wasted reading about Charlo Greene (there's a James A. Michener quote to the effect of "Nothing in your life matters before age 45, but once you reach that age, you better make everything in your life matter" – well, that's me, plus it also partially explains why I've had a whole lot less time lately for Misplaced Pages than I used to), so don't necessarily count on any replies from me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Paying bills and real life are important- I'm not denying that. My issue is that you come on, make statements about how awful the article is, how it shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages, how it should include this or how not having that is a sign of bias, yet you never actually do anything. Rather than just complain about how much you think that Greene is a bottom feeder, why not actually help improve the article? As far as I can see with the article you just mostly complain about how Greene and the article exists, but without actively doing anything to improve the article or even re-nominate it for deletion. At some point it seems like you're more using the talk page as a forum to complain about Greene's existence and her tactics on self-promotion. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox to be used to further a specific viewpoint. You don't like what Greene did or that she got media attention. That's duly noted but again, Misplaced Pages is not here to be used as a platform to either promote a person in a positive or negative manner. Even if you feel that someone got media attention for something stupid or sleazy and you don't personally agree that they should have gained that attention, that doesn't automatically mean that they aren't notable per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. There have been times that I've had to vote to keep an article for topics I really didn't want to have an article and there have been times that I've had to delete articles for topics that I genuinely wanted to keep. At this point I can't help but wonder if you really can make any neutral edits concerning Greene. You clearly have a very strong negative viewpoint about her and you also clearly want the page gone from Misplaced Pages. Will the world end if the page got deleted tomorrow? No, but we should not delete pages based upon our personal convictions and if you don't think that you can be neutral about the page, then odds are you should probably keep from editing or suggesting edits. No matter what I do to the page, you complain and at one point on the talk page you made blanket statements that I personally inferred as me having a positive bias towards Greene. (IE, statements about this being a puff piece, about how "desperate some of you are to give free publicity", and so on.) You don't like Greene and you don't like the page. Duly noted, but each time you come on to the page you get nastier and nastier about everything. At some point you really do need to step back and just sort of distance yourself from the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the reason that she even survived deletion was the award from High Times and the Elle recognition. If I hadn't found those then I'd have voted to delete the article myself, but High Times doesn't give out many awards and it was enough to warrant a weak keep from my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, in case you haven't already perused the history, I haven't made a single edit to the article. I also really could care less about the person. My main concern is that the existence of content such as this makes Misplaced Pages out to be a reflection of all that's wrong with the web rather than a reflection of human knowledge. "Misplaced Pages is not here to be used as a platform to either promote a person in a positive or negative manner". Hmmm, from my perspective, I've seen too many instances of WP:BLP or even the threat of such being used to turn articles into promotional puff pieces. In one case, an editor was so quick to whitewash the placement of {{Advert}} on a BLP with no real discussion, I began to wonder if that editor even knew the difference between an advertisement and an encyclopedia entry. It's understandable, really. People are just aping the rest of the web, which since about 1996 or so has existed more to advertise and promote and further corporate agendas than it has to inform.

Three years ago, I expressed concerns on here about Levi Johnston and the coverage of his so-called "mayoral campaign". The cherry-picked sources used were little removed from Johnston's own press releases, which emerged not long after the announcement that he had hired a publicist. Later, around the time of the actual filing period for the office, when other sources emerged showing that Johnston didn't actually file for the office and had no comment as to whether he was going to file, those sources were ignored. The response to that posting was similarly cherry-picked, basically another blow-off. Is anyone expected to believe that Us Weekly has anything credible to say about an election in Alaska, yet when the same Us Weekly has something negative to say about Johnston, suddenly it's not a reliable source? Go look at the history of that article if you doubt me on this.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: the appropriate response only came to mind a few hours ago while looking at coverage of Joe Franklin's death. Like I said, I came here to help build an encyclopedia, not a portal to corporate media. Is this article evidence of the notion that notability is gauged by how many media outlets pick up the same story? By the standards used to judge this as notable, everyone ever mentioned by Nancy Grace deserves their own article. As for the High Times award? Cannabis as a political issue in Alaska goes back to 1972, not Charlo saying "Fuck it" on a live television broadcast. I suppose the reason why Irwin Ravin doesn't have an article is because dead people aren't in a position to craft a social media strategy. There's numerous other things, such as the notable events of the 1990 cannabis-related ballot initiative not being covered (because they occurred in 1990 and therefore Google is not going to make tons of sources automatically fall into one's lap, never mind that it leaves the impression that those events are somehow not notable because they occurred in 1990 rather than 2014), the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE issues in the KTVA article being made worse by this episode and so forth, but I'll save my breath. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understand your frustration to a degree, but you have to understand that just because you personally think that someone is undeserving of an article does not mean that they don't pass notability guidelines in some form or fashion. Just because they achieved the necessary coverage through a completely engineered media stunt doesn't mean that they would fail notability guidelines at this point in time. Let me stress that - at this point in time. Guidelines are always changing and unless they grow more strict to be more selective of coverage amounts, odds are that articles like this one would remain on Misplaced Pages. You can petition to have the guidelines strengthened, but the thing to remember is that while she doesn't appear to be noteworthy enough per your view of the guidelines does not mean that she doesn't pass via other people's view of the guidelines and an AfD closed with this consensus. In these circumstances the right way to achieve change is to address the issues at one of the boards about the particular notability guidelines and to discuss it in a calm manner. Addressing it in a section entitled "This exemplifies "Bitch please"" and "Pissing my pants laughing at this one...", bringing up the lack of other articles, commenting that it all seems like a scam, doesn't come across like you want to address policy changes- it comes across like you want to complain about her because you don't like her and that no matter what, you are absolutely 200% behind the idea of deleting the article and are not really open to conversation or compromise. Not only that, but you brought up an article in the draftspace when there was no reason to bring it up on the article page since it doesn't pertain to the article in the mainspace at all. Just because a poorly written draft article exists does not mean that it will replace the mainspace article or that it should really be mentioned at all. Just mark it for speedy and move on as far as the draft article goes. I'm sorry, but your posts on the article's talk page came across as more of you using the talk page as a forum and a soapbox for your viewpoints against Greene specifically. This may not have been your intent and you've said that it wasn't, but that's genuinely how it came across. Even though you said you've not posted on the article, I don't see where your comments on the talk page have really been that overly helpful in the slightest since again, you seem to be using it as a forum/soapbox and you're not actually doing anything to really address the problems with the notability guidelines. Complaining is all fine and well, but it should be done in a manner that actually accomplishes positive results. I don't see where you're doing anything on that specific article's talk page that would actually contribute to Misplaced Pages. If you're not going to edit the article or try to push for changes in notability guidelines, then why comment on the page? And if you're trying to make changes, then why post on that page in that manner? It just comes across like you're angry and you want a place to complain without actually having to do anything. You don't like the page. Duly noted. Now actually do something about it in an effective manner or just leave the page alone. There are several pages on Misplaced Pages that I don't particularly think merit a page, but unless I'm going to improve the page or try to change guidelines, I leave the pages alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The entry on my watchlist showed this last response was 3,616 characters. What you said could have been summed up as "Consensus has already been determined, so time to move on". I have no problem with that, especially since I think we're straying from BLPN territory here. There is a bigger picture which is being ignored wholesale, but evidently you don't view it that way. Oh well, nothing new for Misplaced Pages. Just a few more things, though. I already tagged the draft for speedy, and it was deleted, as part of a sweep of draftspace for Alaska-related articles once I realized that Draft-Class was enabled for WP:ALASKA. That problem solved. I didn't even get into the part about her stage name being a portmanteau of her given name and CeeLo Green. Ugh. Another example of her hurting the cause she claims to be helping, as no one is going to believe that cannabis stimulates creativity after realizing THAT. That's about as bad as the WWE naming one of their wrestlers John Morrison because he looks just like Jim Morrison. Anyway, there just may be some hope for Charlo after all. The Alaska Dispatch News is far more to blame for this than Misplaced Pages, as they continue to ignore reader complaints and indifference while they keep strapping rockets to her back one after another. She was the headline story yet again just the other day, with an announcement that she would open a medical dispensary, "accepting voluntary donations" for rather than selling cannabis, on the day that Ballot Measure 2 becomes law, in spite of the cloudy legal status of such an enterprise. Keeping WP:CRYSTAL in mind, we still have a little ways to go before we find out whether this is yet another cheap publicity stunt or a sincere legal test a la Ravin. There's also the possibility of the feds intervening before anything actually happens, at which point she would receive enough serious media coverage to perhaps change my mind about her notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson part 2

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some serious controversy at the Steven Emerson page over the following sentence:

Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia,

References

1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
2. "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
3. Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083.
4. Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest. 13 (2). Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

It appears that one group of users believes that because this sentence documents the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, it is a violation of WP:BLP. The most recent position against it posted above is as follows:

There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per WP:CRITS and Featured articles on persons like Barack Obama do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. Verifiability does not mean inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please advise. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

on a completely related note, the article itself has been locked until we get a consensus and both positions appear to be willing to listen to what you have to say on this matter. Input would be appreciated so that we could get the article unlocked and back to normalish operations. Thank you and Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The first and third sources appear to be reliable secondary sources which would support mentioning that Emerson has been criticized for his views and inaccurate statements about Muslims/Islam. The second source is a little weak, but somewhat supports the fact that Emerson has been criticized. I can't access the full text of the fourth source, but would note that it has been cited elsewhere . Generally, I don't agree with ChrisGualtieri's above statement. WP:NPOV would mandate that Emerson's biography acknowledge that his views on Islam have been criticized and discredited. It's not a fringe view and it is well-sourced, as far as I can tell. Comparison to Obama is not apt.- MrX 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also mentioned elsewhere that cherry-picking the Obama article is not apt as criticisms are present in articles spun off to keep the length of the main article manageable. --NeilN 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This source adds perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs)

• The first source verges on WP:SYN, since it does not mention islamophobia. The second fails to identify who made the accusation - was it agenda-driven extremists? Some people will denounce as islamophobic anyone who dares to mention the association between militant Islam and terrorism (domestic and international). The quoted text also does not accuse him of fomenting islamophobia. You give no text extract for the third. The fourth has the same problem of WP:SYN. So on the face of ot none of the sources support the statement and two of them fall a long way short of even a direct accusation agaisnt him, let alone one of fomenting. If, after this much effort, you have not managed to find a single slam-dunk reliable independent source that openly and in as many words accuses him of fomenting islamophobia, then you had probably better drop it. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The first source, Guy? I'm confused - it specifically uses the adjective "Islamophobe" to describe Emerson. Guettarda (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The first source says "Congressman King cited Islamaphobes Steven Emerdon ...". No synth required. The author is making the assertion. The only thing that may be debatable here is the specific wording proposed by Coffeepusher. - MrX 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The text the source purports to support is: "Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia". It does not mention fomenting, and I don't see any such mention in the others either. The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial. You seem determined to go much further. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not determined to go anywhere. I'm not editing this article. I am curious though: Are there sources that state that "he has been accused of islamophobia by islamists"?- MrX 00:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- reading all the sources one would suggest the most encyclopedic claim to be ascribed to them following Misplaced Pages policies is:

Some people, including A, B and C, have called his positions Islamophobic in their opinion.

as covering the material without getting close to any BLP violation, and making clear that this is a matter of opinion which is then properly cited as opinion. I am sure any claim of a person being a (pejorative) is generally a matter of opinion rather than a statement of objective fact. Collect (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to be quite so jejune with our prose. We can simply state that "Distinguished professor of Islamic studies Carl W. Ernst, __credentialed person B__, and __credentialed person C__ has characterized Emerson as Islamaphobic, in part due to his discredited claims about Muslims." Or something along those lines.- MrX 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually - no. Misplaced Pages does not suggest adding honorifics and parenthetical praise about persons where the intent is to present a claim in any non-neutral manner. Or we could have, by your suggestion "Nobel prize winner A thinks George Gnarph is a Loon" We must present opinions as opinions, and not imply that a particular opinion is fact because a specific credential is shown. Also note that you seem to forget that "discredited claims about Muslims" is in itself opinion, and you appear to strongly state it as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It was widely circulated that it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was quoted as identifying it has having the hallmarks - not being "Muslim". Muslim is not Islamic terrorism. For additional context on this please see this source (ctrl-f to Oklahoma if you wish) Emerson is not discredited but the man needs to stop being "in the moment" and making gaffs on TV - which is definitely accurate and certainly indisputable fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Attribution is best served by acknowledging the expertise of the person being attributed. Actually, at least some of Emerson's claims have been discredited. That is a documented fact.- MrX 21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would make sure that the source is the correct "discredited claim" in the first place. A strawman was made and attacked - Emerson was still wrong, but wrong for a different reason than the one the source provides. The best sources (1000+ words) all refer to it and provide context that these trivial mentions don't. Use Fear Inc. (in article already), Right Web, Middle East Quarterly, and Gale Research (HighBeam required). Each one of these sources are much longer, more detailed and more suitable to properly apply criticism and context than all four of the sources combined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked the "more suitable" RightWeb link you provided, and it says of Emerson right in the third sentence of their profile of him:

Although he has been repeatedly criticized for producing faulty analyses and having a distinctly anti-Islamic agenda, Emerson is a frequent guest commentator on news programs, particularly right-wing outlets like Fox News, and he has been invited to give testimony to Congress.

Should our article lead be worded similarly? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, Xenophrenic the Fear Inc. report by CAP is problematic because (1) CAP is a think tank not unlike Emerson's IPT, therefore COI and bias comes into play, (2) the report condemns Zudhi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy because he “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim-American organizations as subversive.” which is off the charts, and (3) it is a self-published source, and BLP policy clearly states: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person. It can be used as a "referred to" in the body of the article but doesn't pass the smell test to get past UNDUE to cite a contentious statement. Atsme☯ 22:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) No. Being a 'think tank' does not disqualify use as a source, nor does being WP:BIASED. (2) You'll have to explain what "off the charts means. (And no, I will never click a link to the anti-Reliable Source frontpagemag.com, as I have weak virus protection enabled. (3) No. The Fear, Inc. report isn't self-published; it's published by the Center for American Progress. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fear Inc was a CAP report, and the fact you didn't know that ends this discussion. I consult you to read the information before you insist on its inclusion, particularly when you don't even know who wrote it or what it contains. VERIFIABILITY . --Atsme☯ 01:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Me: Fear, Inc. report isn't self-published; it's published by the Center for American Progress.

You: Fear Inc was a CAP report, and the fact you didn't know that...

I tell you the Fear, Inc. report is from CAP, and you immediately accuse me of not knowing that the Fear, Inc. report is from CAP? So, surely you jest. Reading is fundamental, Atsme. That's some weird Wikijitsu right there. If you wish to back out of a lost argument, just say so. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dividing this discussion into 2 parts is confusing and diluting. You could have simply performed an arbitrary break or hatted some of the discussion (repetition and irrelevant) so it would have been easily accessed. There is important information in Part 1 that should not be dismissed, including the reasons the sources that were used to add contentious material fail the RS test. Now I am reading suggestions that fictionally support a contentious label, so if that's the procedure now, how about this - hypothetical article in Breitbart about Muslim Professor A who was denounced by Jewish Rabi B who said Professor A teaches anti-Semitism and is trying to make Islam dominant over other religions at his university. Professor A also supported building a mosque at Ground Zero in the wake of 9-11 and was widely criticized for his views on Islamic terrorism. Next you find a book written by a Christian author who calls Muslim Professor A an anti-Christian because he supports Islam and denounces Christianity. You cite those two sources for the following statement in Wiki voice: Professor A has been widely criticized for being anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, and for fomenting Islamic terrorism. That isn't far from what has been proposed for Emerson which was clearly spurred on by his blunder about Birmingham. Have you seen the articles about PM Cameron's mistakes about Islam and Muslims? And while you're at it, read the following local news report dating back to 2009 - Don't you think that article is a RS because it actually presents both sides of the issue without UNDUE. VERIFIABILITY. NO SYNTH. NPOV. BLP. The following 2nd paragraph for the lead is policy compliant:

Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged for inaccuracies, including a recent statement he made during a television interview wherein he incorrectly stated "there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." Emerson retracted his statement, and extended a public apology.

Statements that Emerson's critics have referred to him as an Islamophobe should be interwoven in the article, WP:MOS, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and not included in the lead because it represents a minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. For example, you can use the Oklahoma bombing incident wherein Emerson (and lots of other news outlets) theorized it as having a Middle Eastern trait. That would be a good place to include criticism wherein Professor A, an expert in Islamic studies, referred to him as an "Islamophobe" (with the inline citation). Simple. Balanced. NPOV. Dispassionate tone. There are already criticisms in the Birmingham section. Readers will get the point. Thank you for taking the time to read my proposal. Atsme☯ 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would steer clear of describing any living person as an anythingphobe in the lead of any Misplaced Pages article.- MrX 01:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to it on principle if that is what they are known for (to take an extreme example, Fred Phelps was known almost exclusively as a raving bigot), but int his case the claim relies on some rather obscure and obviously pro-Islamic sources that make an allegation of islamophobia, and that is then proposed to be presented in Misplaced Pages's voice as a statement that he has fomented islamophobia, which is not even in the sources. I don't have a lot of time for bigots, but we have to be fair and accurate. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JzG because what he said is verifiable. page 25 under A Current Topic - UNC-CH has been the site of debate over Islam before. In 2002, it chose for its summer reading book a text about the Quran - Islam's holy book. The choice prompted lawsuits and some public outcry at what some felt was the university's attempt to indoctrinate students to the Muslim point of view. It relates to an AP article published March 14, 2011 in news observer.com, titled Imam's UNC talk to draw opposing voices by Eric Ferreri. A subsection titled One view of Abdul Rauf quotes Omid Safi, co-author of the book that contentiously labels Emerson an Islamophobe. Safi's quote states, Connecting Abdul Rauf and all of Islam to the 9/11 attacks is a vast, inaccurate misstep done to stoke fires and create division. Hmmm, sounds exactly like what he's doing by connecting Emerson to Islamophobia and calling him an Islamophobe which is also a "vast, inaccurate misstep done to stoke fires and create division." Just look what it has done to Emerson's BLP. Sorry, but the sources are biased, the support a fringe notion, and the contentious labels are unverifiable, UNDUE, and POV. Safi's own book cites sources that are equally as biased and/or partisan, and don't pass the smell test for Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources which requires multiple mainstream sources. Atsme☯ 19:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. X, but I also agree with JzG that there should not be objection to accurately describing Emerson in the lede if quality reliable sources convey that information. I do not agree, however, with the assertion made by JzG and Atsme that the reliable sources produced thus far are in any way "obscure", "obviously pro-Islamic" or "biased". And I say that after having carefully reviewed the cited sources, the AP story in NewsObserver.com and RightWeb.com piece linked just above, etc. As clearly demonstrated in part 1 of this discussion above, and in the related Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion on the same matter, the Cambridge University source is exactly the high quality reliable source required for factually stated descriptions of a living person. I remain open to hearing any substantive reasoning behind any claim to the contrary (something other than "Hmmm, sounds exactly like..." personal commentary, please). Xenophrenic (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, it is a minority view, a biased slur, unsubstatianted, unverifiable, contentious, undue, and I could go on repeating the same reasons that I and numerous other editors have already provided. It's unsubstantiated defamatory name calling. For your convenience, I will again recite one of the sections in WP:VERIFIABILITY -

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Cherrypicking contentious labels from a single sentence in a book co-authored by a controversial paid advocate of Islamic studies for the purpose of denigrating a BLP is not policy compliant. I explained above how such criticism could be included in a BLP in order to be policy compliant. Atsme☯ 06:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"For our convenience" -- priceless... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

... and I could go on repeating the same reasons...

Please do. Start with just one, if you'd like. Unsupported bluster and hand-waving ≠ reason. I'm sure you can understand why I'm left scratching my head when you throw a volley of words like "unsubstantiated!" or "unverifiable!" after high-quality reliable sources have been produced, or "minority view!" when it is actually an assertion of fact that we are discussing. So please, could you point me to the actual reasoning behind your position (or briefly repeat it here)?

As for your recital of the fringe theory section of WP:V, the assertion of fact and the corresponding reliable sources are in 100% compliance with all four of those "Red flag" bullet-points. Do you disagree, and if so, specifically why? And just so we are on the same page, would you be so kind as to specify which author you refer to as "a controversial paid advocate of Islamic studies" (I see multiple books and several authors), and where I can review that description of him/her? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll repost what an admin explained to me over a very similar argument (me in your shoes) at RSN - I struck thru the reference to MEDRS because it doesn't apply here: A second misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) If you can't understand the explanations, and why two biased sources are not acceptable for hanging a contentious label on a BLP, or for inclusion in the lead because you and a few biased sources think it is justified, then perhaps someone else can do a better job explaining it. Atsme☯ 19:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with xenophrenic on this one. Unless you can actually say why (and back up with evidence) a source shouldnt be used, if its passes as a reliable source it can be used. Placing of the info from the source within the article is another matter, but hand-wavy 'biased!' shouts are not good enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand your explanations if you don't give them, Atsme. I'm not a mind reader. I've checked both discussions above, and the Emerson Talk page, and the discussion at RS/N, and your assertions have come up completely unsupported. It is unfortunate that you have now decided to defer to other editors to explain your assertions for you. Perhaps they can also answer the direct questions recently asked of you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the issue is "fomenting Islamophobia" none of the four sources state this - it fails WP:V. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a valid argument for that specific wording (which appears to fail WP:SYNTH), but I never addressed that. My response was to the assertions that descriptions of Emerson's penchant for misinformation and anti-Islamic stance were not backed by high-quality reliable sources, which they are. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how they are high quality sources when none even provides a single argument and Emerson has had personally sued and been involved in the government's investigation and ruling against the largest entity? Context is a funny thing because there has never been an argument - an in fact strong evidence against - Emerson being Islamophobic or discredited when he has served on the US Congress committee, been an expert and source of information in federal cases - more specifically against CAIR. Emerson may make mistakes, but I do not see why we need to include false information as per Atsme's evidence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't and should not ignore the sources, per WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The ""fomenting Islamophobia" was my attempt to summarize the sources. Of course we can use a different wording and stay closer to the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Again with the "testified before Congress" thing (and no, he was never on a US Congressional Committee)? I hate to break it to you, but so have Seth Rogan and Steven Colbert. As I explained to you at the RSNoticeboard:

::@ChrisGualtieri: I just checked each of those linked URLs you provided; it appears you have seriously misunderstood that information when you concluded "Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress...". In reality, anyone can offer to appear or be called as a witness at a hearing by contacting a committee holding a relevant hearing, and Emerson wasn't "cited by the United States Congress", his statements were simply recorded in the Congressional Record as required by procedural law. He's not a "recognized expert by the United States Government"; he is simply whatever he claims to be, as the Committee asks him how he should be described in the record -- and much of the flowery descriptions of him in your links are word-for-word copies from his personal website profile. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you could provide for me a single diff to "false information as per Atsme's evidence", I would VERY much appreciate it. I asked Atsme for this information, but he's leaving it to other editors to provide it to me. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your insistence to include contentious material to discredit a BLP in the lead is what needs validation, not the validation already provided to you by several editors for why it is not policy compliant. Atsme☯ 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Provided to me by several editors? Really? Then why is it so difficult for you to provide a link to just one? (That is my 4th request; still waiting.) Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay on track and Atsme is grating on my patience. The "fomenting Islamophobia" is false because it is not in the source. Make a new discussion if you want to accuse someone of bigotry because these four sources that were used to support the statement in the lead failed V and thus became a BLP issue. Removal was warranted and three other editors agreed. Let's not change the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Staying on track: The "fomenting Islamophobia" verbiage may be synthesized from the cited sources, but those sources certainly do not convey that it is "false". As for Atsme "wanting to accuse someone of bigotry", I don't believe he has stated that he wants to do that, so I would suggest that you refrain from making comments about your fellow editor's motivations and stick to discussing article improvement. The BLP issue I've been commenting on is from the opening post in this section: It appears that one group of users believes that because this sentence documents the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, it is a violation of WP:BLP. — so I agree, let's not change the subject. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding: Atsme isn't calling Emerson a bigot or advocating that insertion - Atsme is against calling Emerson an Islamophobe using Misplaced Pages's voice and seems to be against even including such a claim in the first place. Atsme stands a different point than me on the matter. This section with this inclusion has consensus to not be used - another discussion on the accusations of Islamophobia has some significant push-back from multiple editors, but let's take things in stride and stay as narrow in scope on this contentious issue.

Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia.

has no consensus because it violates WP:V. Let's move to the next iteration, where I do support the attributed and in-context attribution of the prominent claims with actual supporting arguments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has been accused of being an Islamophobe, or as belonging to the Islamophobia movement,

References

1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
2. "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
3. Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083. Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, New Ginrich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney — many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse
4. Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest. 13 (2). Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Women and video games

• Women and video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Electronic sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to two editors, my (proposed) edits of two articles might violates the biographies of living persons policies. Scarlett is mentioned as an example of a female gamer, and I would like to add that she is a transgender woman. In my opinion it's relevant given the context. The related discussion is here. Input is welcome. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is that IP 82 wants to imply that Scarlett isn't a "regular female" and therefore has an unfair advantage when playing against women. Reliable sources do not state this, and they wouldn't state it because it's bunk. Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed Scarlett has any kind of "unfair advantage", nor did I imply this in any way. WP:GF please. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why she's mentioned at all. If she's notable, then perhaps there should be an article on her -- and then the name wouldn't be redlinked. As for saying "transgender", I think this would have to be significant as per a reliable source (not just mentioned in passing) (and perhaps a matter of self-identification as per WP:BLPCAT). I can imagine sources getting into the general issue -- it wouldn't surprise me if trans topics were indeed covered in analyses of sport/gaming. It's less obvious for video-games, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• The proposed text seems awkward and inappropriate. I'm referring to: "Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett), a transgender, first gained notoriety in the open qualifiers of IGN ProLeague 4". If we're going to mention this, seems wording it something like "Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett), a trans woman from Canada, first gained notoriety...." would be less awkward than saying she's "a transgender". However, it's notable that the source used to cite that she's transgender says she does not self identify as a trans woman gamer and that in fact she thinks that her trans status is irrelevant to her gaming:The response ot her success from the gaming world was was mixed. Many people celebrated her wins. But a loud minority of fans attacked her gender identity at every opportunity. Hostyn herself rarely talks about this aspect of her life, even going so far as to say it’s disrespectful to even acknowledge the fact in online encyclopedia entries about her. “I have always tried to make it a complete non-issue,” she wrote, “and including this is subverting that and akin to mentioning someone is the best gay/black/etc player; something that has absolutely no relevance on how they play.”.

Considering the subject's stance on this, I'm not sure we should include it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If Scarlett was born a man, then this is a simple fact. As I wrote before, this is all about context. Both the sections in question are about women and video games, not about gays or blacks in video games. And, on top of that, the text mentions Scarlett in comparison with males, not with for example heterosexuals. If the subject does not like the word "transgender" we can use something else, but the subject's stance does not change reality. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Born a man" is actually not a simple fact, just because one has certain genitals does not mean that there is not cause to believe that they were born with the brain of another gender. Sex and gender are complex issues with more than one way of looking at things. Which is why I don't see the likelihood of finding a comfortable solution here; the WP:BLP concerns are valid, but to simply say that here's this woman who did thus well competing against men or that well competing among women is to take a point of view that self-identification is the only lens through which gender can be legitimately viewed. There are certainly people who hold to that, and understandably so, but it is not a universal belief. If we're dealing with how well she did specifically in gendered realms, it's hard to say that complexities in the view of her gender do not matter to what we're saying. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this is a sensitive topic. All I wanted is for the articles to say something more than 'Scarlett as a woman who; the end'. But I don't care enough about this topic or Misplaced Pages to continue this discussion. Thanks for the input though. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I read everything here and at the Women and video games Talk page, also Googled her name and read a few articles about her that mention she's transgendered. The German Misplaced Pages article did not mention she's transgendered -- they discussed it on the Talk page. If this wasn't a sports thing or gender-competitive or an article about "Women in video games" it probably should not be mentioned. If she's not mentioned in the article, many readers may wonder why. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's unbelievable that the German article does not mention she's a transgender - or however it should be formulated. Apparently we're so politically correct that we're too afraid to mention this about Scarlett. This is an encyclopedia, but if the subject prefers not to talk about it, neither should we. Got it. Anyway, as I mentioned above, I'm leaving this discussion. Thanks for the input though. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that there's an article about her Sasha Hostyn and the article mentions that she's a trans woman, I don't think it's necessary to say anything about her transition in the two articles in this BLP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article on the subject should be the only place it is covered and I think the neutral single sentence is all that is warranted. -Thibbs (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Things were so much simpler in 2005. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me that the very fact that she has repeatedly said to several interviewers that she doesn't want her gender status discussed or associated with her gaming, but they've asked because either they, their editors or their audience felt it was relevant makes it noteable for an article on Sasha. The fact that she's being discussed in a section related to gender "Women in video games" makes it relevant. Also she does identify as MTF transgender

Okay, to stop all this speculation — it is true I am MtF transgender, and I kind of expected this reaction. I have never tried to bring attention to myself for anything other than my play, so I don't feel like this should be a big deal

— Sasha "Scarlet" Hoysten, Global Post 16 July 2012

Also note that the article the above is from is entitled Starcraft 2: Transgender gamer quietly wins, in more ways than one

I don't think it's a BLP violation to note something which is context relevant which the subject freely describes themselves as to the press in expectation of publication.SPACKlick (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And as a matter of concern here, on the BLP board - your suggested edit is also saying that the subject gained "notoriety", which is not a term you want to use unless it's really well sourced, and I don't think it's the term you mean. It doesn't mean just "famous", but famous in a bad way. The adjective form of notoriety isn't notable... it's notorious. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that's still true, certainly in EN-UK. The web gives me

The definition, in modern english, is quite distinct from Notorious which (i believe but am not certain) still holds almost entirely negative connotations.SPACKlick (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're saying that it is "quite distinct from Notorious" when both definitions you give include "notorious"; in any case, even if it has gotten loosened up, it is best avoided because it can reasonably be read as having the negative connotation, and when there are so many words to use without that (she could have gained fame, attention, notability.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they are distinct. Notoriety could come to mean mango without the definition of notorious changing one bit. By distinct I meant independent. Anyway, point being Notoriety as a good thing is almost as common as Notoriety for a bad thing. I agree there's no need to confuse the issue in this article which is why it was a small aside for future reference. SPACKlick (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why the fact she is transgender should be mentioned. The sentence which might be supposed to make it relevant in the Women and... article is "She is well known for being one of the few non-Korean players who can play at the same skill level as male Korean players", but this wording isn't supported by the source, which mentions that she has beaten a number of highly regarded Korean players, but does not specify their gender. Formerip (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Because it's in a gendered article. If dividing gamers by gender and sex is a relevant consideration then the specific gender/sex and gender/sex history of the individuals is relevant.SPACKlick (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't tell us that the Korean players were male, though. So it is an unsupported fact. It also doesn't appear to be an important fact, or else the source would mention it. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The sense I get from reading over the RSes, though, is that the only group for whom this is an issue are anonymous critics, trolls, and the transphobic. Obviously if a transgendered person is the target of this kind of criticism/abuse and it's reflected in the RSes then an argument can be made that it should be covered in the article on the person. But none of the sources are supporting the legitimacy of that line of criticism. Unless RSes can be furnished showing that this is actually an issue for eSports performance rather than just an issue for transphobic fans I think we should hold off on spreading it to articles that are only tangentially related to Hostyn herself. -Thibbs (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Among certain StarCraft fans, her being a transgender woman is shorthand for having an unfair advantage against other women competitors. It would be like updating List of African-American inventors and scientists with information about multiracial ancestry: it may be reliably sourced and factually true, but it's an insidious POV and (potentially) BLP issue. Woodroar (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it can be included but the sentences need to be rewritten so it expresses what is verified by the sources. Excerpts from The Daily Dot article "But then there's the curious case of Sasha “Scarlett” Hostyn, one of the best players in the world, who breaks the mold completely. She’s a 20-year-old Canadian transgendered female with injury-prone wrists and a penchant for beating Koreans at their own game. Known alternatively as “Korean Kryptonite” and “The Queen of Blades,” she’s built up an enormous fanbase that rivals any StarCraft player in the world." and "Hostyn’s impressive StarCraft talent combined with her singular personal story as a pioneer make her one of the most important people in eSports today." Whether that is notable enough to be listed, or whether more RS are needed can be debated. E-sports Earnings mentions that Hostyn has played in the women's leagues. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced, its not a BLP violation. The mere fact of being transgender, though, is unlikely to be WP:DUE. Her statements against the importance of being transgender may be relevant to a page about gender in gaming, though. That would be for the talk page consensus to determine. Rhoark (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Randy Quaid

is an iterated edit made sans any sourcing. Actually his edit summary gives a source: There is a source. The source is life, general knowledge. Read a newspaper. Wake up, sheeple which I did not think quite meets WP:RS. And looking carefully in all the usual celebrity gossip sites, I did not find the claim substantiated, but I am tired of dealing with the all-knowing IP. Someone - please look. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted and watchlisted. The IP needs to be warned, if they haven't been already.- MrX 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Level 4 warning just added. This edit summary probably explains what is going on. Actually , I've long thought this would be a small revenue stream for a sports bar. MarnetteD|Talk 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

IP now blocked for 31 hours. They could return so everyone's vigilance is appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Chuck_Bryant

Hello - this page contains personal, mundane details about the life of Charles Bryant that fail to follow the guidelines for living persons. The "facts" are culled from the podcast that Charles Bryant hosts and are not true in all cases because the show features comedy and exaggeration that was taken as fact. If anyone can help correct this page it would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.183.88 (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Archie Roach

Archie Roach, Not sure who they are referring to in the sentence below": "Roach and his family subsequently moved to Framlingham, where his mother was born."

But if it is referring to Archie Roach his mother can not be born in a place that her son moves to…? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.236.161 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- why not?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it´s not wrong, but one could write it differently, like "the birthplace of his mother". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammatically, the proper verb tense should have been "had been". Fixed. Collect (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Is scoping an article like this allowed under BLP? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We have far too many such articles already and this is simply an example of people using a controversy of whatever weight and stretching it into a separate article. Most BLPs with such sections would be well-served by substantial surgery without anaesthesia, and most such sub-articles would be well-served by actual deletion. The problem is that some editors are so determined to make sure the encyclopedia clearly makes readers aware of the intrinsic evilness of the person (yes - this includes scores of political silly season "issues" which are, in my opinion, of nil encyclopedic value except for the fact that people can source them to what are invariably non-neutral sources) and Misplaced Pages seems entirely too tolerant of such. Collect (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? No. It's impossible to do that job without controversy, but paring down the trivial and leaving only the genuinely significant is what makes an article encyclopaedic rather than just a random collection of facts. There must be a Wikinews category we could link to that would serve the same purpose without immortalising every instance on which a newspaper wagged its finger at him. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not clearly-enough defined to answer the question posed. The question reads: "Is scoping an article like this allowed under BLP?" But what does "like this" mean? And what does WP:BLP have to say about whatever "like this" means? Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot legislate clue. Hence we don't try. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see it was just renamed. I would suggest a further title refinement to Public image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which would then be in line with generally accepted practice. See Perception of... vs. Public image of.... Tarc (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the existence of the article is a BLP issue. The old title may have been, but that's improved already. I do think its a PoV fork consisting of a mix of things that may belong on Ahmadinejad's main page, the pages of the controversies that are notable enough to have their own, or in the deletion pile. Rhoark (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Riki_Rachtman

Riki graduated high school in 1979 or 1980. Which would make him born a few years before 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.246.254 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Carl Bildt

The article reads like an attack article. I removed a paragraph based on Nyheter Idag, a forum linked ot Sverigedemokraterna, puffed up with OR citing Expo.

I need help with first removing BLP violations and sections built on unreliable sources. Then there needs to be some effort at WP:NPOV and WP:Due Weight. For example, it is strange that Aftonbladets notorious Kultursida is used as the basis for a discussion of Bildt on Ukraine, and high quality reliable sources ignored. is a 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Controversies and criticisms" section is very large, that hints that all is not well here.

Did some trimming -- but Ukraine on needs much trimming. Details of ancestry are trivia, and the extended list of quotes from critics hits UNDUE by a mile. Also a rumour that he is/was a "spy" is clearly a problem in a BLP. Someone finish the trimming, please. Collect (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The spy libel distorted what was reported. He apparently talked to an American diplomat about Swedish parties's positions in negotiations. The allegation is that he may have relayed confidential information, something he denies, stating that what he said was merely what was reported already in (major) Swedish newspapers. The questions by the reporter indicate how Swedish tabloids operate, and suggest that caution should be used with them. Another tabloid, Expressen, reported that Wikileaks planned a dirt-casting campaign against Bildt, motivated by Sweden's proceedings against Assange, according to SvD. The article's link to Expressen looks funny, as though it is in bad archive. is a 16:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me that attack-article problems are so severe that WP should just remove all but the lede and the sections just vetted by Collect from the article, putting them on the talk page, with the instructions that they should not be restored (in policy-compliant forms) until there is consensus.

Given the the attack sections on Eastern European topics in this BLP, maybe administrators can make some rule encouraging strict enforcement of policies (especially BLP and NPOV and RS)? I think such rules have cleaned up other pages on Eastern European topics.

I can try to clean up the article over the next months, but I need help. I don't have the energy to deal with serial reversions of all the reforms.

is a 15:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Norah Vincent

Norah Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the subject of this page. It contains information that in many cases--as in the second sentence about the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies--that is more than a decade out of date and not relevant to the work I currently do as a novelist. Many of the sources cited are likewise to articles that I wrote in some cases almost two decades ago, and which do not accurately reflect my current work. My two latest novels are not mentioned at all, for example. I would be happy to provide the relevant information, as well as information about my date and place of birth etc, which I did yesterday, but have since seen it removed. Please let me know to whom I should write regarding the removal or at the very least reprioritizing of this extremely old content. Many thanks.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.111.53 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You can post links to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (usually books, newspapers, or magazine articles), that write about your current work, on the article talk page, Talk:Norah Vincent, and volunteer editors will add the information to the article. (If the sources are not online, you can give their names, issue dates, etc., and they will be perfectly acceptable, but they will be harder for the editors to get hold of.) --GRuban (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road) and Ross William Ulbricht

Silk Road (marketplace) is a Tor-based online marketplace known as a place for illegal exchanges (drugs and such). It was operated, at least for some period of time, by someone who went by the name Dread Pirate Roberts. Ross William Ulbricht was arrested and charged with being Dread Pirate Roberts. But he has not been found guilty.

A few minutes ago Ross William Ulbricht had his own article. It's a WP:CRIME notability issue, first of all, but a whole lot more importantly it seems like a crystal clear example of WP:BLPCRIME. In the past it has been redirected to either the Dread Pirate Roberts article or to Silk Road. I've restored the Silk Road redirect.

The Dread Pirate Roberts article, I noticed, likewise is predominantly about Ulbricht, whose name appears in most of the sentences throughout. I've redirected that one to Silk Road as well. (Notability for this one is more debatable, though I would say that even if DPR were found to be the subject of sufficient reliable sources beyond those about Silk Road, it would still make sense to incorporate it into the Silk Road article as there just wouldn't be enough WP:BLP-friendly material to construct an encyclopedia article without turning that article into an article about Silk Road).

But I digress. The real issue isn't notability, and that's why I'm posting here.

I see this has come up a few times before here, the first two without conclusion and the third apparently also resulting in a redirect. Bringing it up because my redirects were initially both reverted, and given the relative popularity of the subject and the articles' histories, I imagine they will be again, so I'd like to get others involved. I've also requested page protection for both. --— Rhododendrites \\ 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I have not addressed, and would suggest discussion of, the coverage of Ulbricht in the Silk Road (marketplace) article. --— Rhododendrites \\ 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your objects in regard to WP:CRIME. We should probably wait for the outcome of the trial to determine whether Ulbricht should have a stand-alone article on Misplaced Pages. If he is convicted, however, I think he should have his own article. This is a fascinating case, one that has been covered in major newspapers and news outlets. Ulbricht is a fascinating figure. He started out as an idealist, got involved in libertarian ideas, and (if his prosecutors are correct) crossed the line into facilitating the buying and selling of drugs and guns on the so-called dark internet. There's going to be a movie about him, you can bank on it. I don't mind holding off till the end of the trial, but after that, I'd like to see him have his own article. People will look for information about him. Chisme (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Terry Carter

Terry Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone changed this actor/director's page to say he has died. There are reports in the news that a 55 year old man called Terry Carter was killed by someone called Suge Knight. But the actor/director is in his 80's, so it seems a case of mistaken identity on the part of some reporters. The identity of the dead man is not even confirmed by the police yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.184.35.181 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is a different Carter, since the most reliable sources I could find have definitively stated the victim's age as 55. Seems like a for sure case of mistaken identity by people editing the other Carter's page. Canuck 10:36, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

An IP has re-instated the edits at the Terry Carter article. More eyes please. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be that "Suge Knight", though. Not too many of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

CinemaBlend has Knight's lawyer saying it was indeed the old man. Or at least they say they do. Not sure where they rank on the reliability scale. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait. It's them recycling Entertainment Weekly. They're at least established. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:16, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to semi the article given the persistent re-adding of the death rumor. — east718 | talk | 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also the actor has posted on their Twitter that they're alive so I think that settles that haha. — east718 | talk | 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He only said the rumours were exaggerated. He didn't say he wasn't dead. But yeah, safe to assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, January 30, 2015 (UTC)

Jill Soloway

There is no place on the Jill Soloway page to report an issue with made up quotes. The information is not necessarily defamatory, but it is bogus. The quote "The fact that this story happened for me in my personal life at the same time felt kind of divinely inspired and I felt very lucky." Does not appear in < http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/transparent-boss-reveals-moment-she-758426 > at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:2000:27A:B428:EE4E:7432:2363 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that quote in the video at the top of the article, starting at 2:32. Woodroar (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance

Tom Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I posted this question at another Board. Namely, here: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. At that Board, I was told to come here with my question. The question is as follows. I was on the Talk Page of an article (Talk:Tom Brady). Per an "Admin Help" Template request, an administrator told me that I should come to this page with my questions and concerns. There is an article (Tom Brady) that is being edited in a very POV manner (in my opinion). Editors on that page will not allow any mention (whatsoever) of the word "Deflategate" in that article. Even though Tom Brady is a central figure in that topic; Tom Brady himself held a press conference on that very topic; and the topic has a million reliable sources. One editor in particular, in my opinion, is editing in a POV manner and interpreting Misplaced Pages "rules" to his convenience (User:Calidum). He says that, per BLP, we cannot "infer guilt by association". And, on top of all that, he keeps deleting a post that I placed on that Talk Page. He has deleted my post about 3 or 4 times now. My post contains nothing but (A) factual information; and (B) my concerns for editing that specific article. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro. I looked at the page in question. There's consensus on that page that mentioning Tom Brady and Deflategate on the same page could imply guilt by association, and I agree with that. You were advised that unless there are reliable sources that link him to deflategate, we can't post it, that's true too. In short, I agree with that was said on that page. I realize Tom Brady looks bad, however, no matter how bad he may look, no matter how obvious it may be, without a reliable source, we can't imply, assert or make any claims of guilt (or innocence) without some reliable source saying so. The best we can do (which was also mentioned on the talk page ) is state that this person was mentioned in regard to the above incident. That's about it.

The only thing I disagree with was the non-admin closing the admin help request. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Without a reliable source directly accusing a identifiable living athlete of cheating, we will not accuse an identifiable living athlete of cheating. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above me. The addition of the link into the "see also" section is also extremely awkward, and I agree that it implies guilt by association. The most I think you can do is mention that he has been mentioned in conjunction with the controversy but this isn't particularly relevant to a biographical article. — east718 | talk | 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Who says that he has to be "accused" in order for the incident to be notable? If it's not related to him, and he's not linked to it, why would he hold a press conference on this very topic? He's linked to it in about 8 gazillion sources. His being accused has nothing to do with it. To claim that there is no link/association with Brady to Deflategate is incredibly naïve. And POV. Wow. Just wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering you have now brought this up in multiple venues and no one else seemingly agrees with you, it may be time to drop the stick and slowly walk away from the carcass. Continuing to dismiss others as naive or harboring some sort of bias isn't going help either. -- Calidum 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bessora

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

In October, I updated this page to contain the text "Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema, better known as Bessora" with a reference included. Recently, I have been contacted on my talk page by two users who I think at the same person asking for the removal of the redirect for Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema which I also added at the same time. I noticed that the text was removed by anonymous user about the same time. (I have raised that issue as a possible sock puppet issue). However, I don't want to get into an edit war over this issue so I though that it would be better to raise it here. If it should be better raised somewhere else, then please let me know and I will do that. I don't really want to bang heads with anyone on this but neither do I want to be bullied into submission. --Big_iron (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard McKenzie (actor)

Richard McKenzie (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Julius Rose T. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has made a substantial change to the page of former actor Richard McKenzie, claiming that he is alive and well.(diff) The edit is sourced, on the talkpage, to a neice. Can this be confirmed?--Auric talk 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There were also changes to the spouse and children fields that seem questionable. OTOH, there is an Asa Cefkin McKenzie, as this edit says: https://books.google.com/books?id=J0N0KZX1gT8C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq="Aza+Cefkin"+McKenzie

I can't find an obit at the moment -- all the sites showing the 2002 death seem to use user-generated content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I found a Google Book "Exit Laughing: How Humor Takes the Sting Out of Death" published in 2012 to which he contributed (see here). In the text, he talks about his wife Aza who was fathered by Samuel Cefkin. For some reason, Google seems to think that he's dead but I'm not sure how it determines that. Sounds like he might still be alive to me. --Big_iron (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Google is taking the word of the Internet Movie Database. It's probably true, as the IMDB is widely followed and I'm sure McKenzie or his friends and relatives would have changed that if it wasn't. However, IMDB utilizes user-generated data and we can't utilize it for material that is potentially defamatory like calling a living person dead. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Neoconservativism - Victoria Nuland

As for Robert Kagan, his father, Donald, a Yale historian, and his brother, Frederick, a military historian at West Point and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, are both highly visible neocon activists, and, in the Bush-Cheney administration, his neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, server as ambassador to Turkey and ambassador to NATO.

Do the following sources support characterizing Nuland as a neoconservative?
In the Financial Times piece, the notable author protects his government source and doesn't name the former colleague in the Obama administration state department quoted.

In an administration so eager to correct the perceived errors of its predecessor, it might be surprising that Ms Nuland has emerged as its point person for dealing with Russia. She was Mr Cheney’s deputy national security adviser before moving to be ambassador to Nato. She is married to Robert Kagan, author of Americans are from Mars, Europeans from Venus and one of the most prominent neoconservative intellectuals – even if he now shuns the label.

“I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table,” says a former colleague in the Obama administration state department. “But she is also one of the most talented people I have worked with in government.”US diplomat Victoria Nuland faces questions over strategyby Geoff Dyer

Both Dyer and Parry are notable, as demonstrated by their Misplaced Pages articles. --Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 04:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

En passant mentions about a person have generally not been allowed for making claims about that living person. You need sources specifically addressing the person and not use of a single adjective in a single sentence. Also claims based on an anonymous source are problematic, and in this case it appears to be an opinion which must be cited as an opinion. You might get away with:

An anonymous person in the Obama administration said he thinks she is a "neocon".

but not more than that from the sources you give. Collect (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, what is your opinion of statement in the Unger source?--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 14:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unger gives an en passant mention - "his neocon wife" is insufficient to label the living person as a "neocon" as he says basically nothing about her. Collect (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Kagan

A webpage called Right Web hosted on the Institute for Policy Studies website has been characterized as an "attack piece" and deleted from the article. The reason being, apparently because categorizes the subjects as "militarists" with the caption "Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy". It is a profile of Kagan presented by the think tank, and contains 24 citations, many to pieces from the NYT and WP, for example.--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 05:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IPS may be considered to have specific points of view, (see ) thus best practice is to treat any remotely controversial claim as an opinion, and to seek out less pointed commentaries for claims of fact about a living person. "Militarist" does appear to be an opinion, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't have a problem recognizing that they are liberals with a liberal POV, and their opinion that Kagan is among those they consider to be militarists is implicit in him being listed on that webpage. On the other hand, the pieces themselves are tertiary compilations of RS pertaining to the activities and the like of those profiled there, and what I read of it contained no objectionable statements, and was a balanced coverage, including this

Despite his GOP bona fides, Kagan has studiously maintained a number of bipartisan affiliations. He has visited the Obama White House, for example, and helped establish a bipartisan civilian advisory board for Democratic Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to a July 2014 New York Times report, "Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute" and has "insisted on maintaining the link between modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism." In fact, Kagan has even shied away from the "neoconservative" label, saying he prefers to be described as a "liberal interventionist." - See more at: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Kagan_Robert#sthash.14JUYGI7.dpuf

Accordingly, what specific grounds, if any, are there for excluding that reference? That it is construed to be an opinion piece because it classifies Kagan as a militarist?

The following single sentence is the entirety of the removed text, including refcites, with the reason being the assertion that this Right Web is an "attack site". Here is a link to the series of edits removing material and sources, and here is a link to the talk page discussion.

Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, before joining the Brookings Institution as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010.

References

1. Robert Kagan joins Brookings
2. Profile on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace site
3. Robert Kagan, "I Am Not a Straussian", Weekly Standard 11: 20 (February 6, 2006)
4. "Robert Kagan Follows Father but Forges Own Path", Andrew Mangino, Yale Daily News
5. Robert Kagan profile on "Right Web"

It seems that the only reason for removing that site is to prevent people from having access to a good tertiary source, as I don't see anything objectionable in the sentence in which it is cited.--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Read my post. Opinions must be cited as opinions. RightWeb is an opinion source per se. Your Brookings link seems dead right now. Yale Daily News is a student publication, and such have routinely found to be problematic for BLP claims in the past (the only claim relevant to "neoconservative" appears to be " While some friends call him an open-minded maverick, Washington, D.C. has labeled him a neo-conservative." which does not label Kagan a neoconservative in itself.) (also note the correct link is http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/10/27/robert-kagan-80-follows-father-but-forges-own-path/). So much for your apparent belief that the sentence must have sources labeling a person as "neo-conservative". Sorry -- fails. I told you what your source could support - cited as opinion to the source holding that opinion. Collect (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is nothing at all in the sentence citing the sources characterizing him as a neoconservative. The citations are for factual biographical details related to his employment history:

1. Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
2. before joining the Brookings Institution as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010

What is there to site as an opinion in that regard? Note that I did not add the material, just think that it's removal is substandard.--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 16:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In which case the opinion sources are not needed at all -- do you understand that a valid Brookings cite is sufficient for the Brookings claim etc.? (Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan, along with his wife Victoria Nuland, has been named one of POLITICO Magazine's top 50 influential people in Washington, DC fact source) The Carnegie cite is sufficient for the Carnegie claim. (Robert Kagan was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. fact source) And so on. Use sources which are fact based for facts, and editorial in nature for opinions cited properly as opinions when dealing with living persons. Simple. Collect (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How does that address the fact that the Right Web piece contains relevant factual information to support the sentence. Is the fact that this apparently neutral tertiary source shouldn't be used because it is on an opinionated website?

As I said, I didn't write the sentence or provide the sources, and the sentence is still there.

Meanwhile, the questionable sources such as the student newspaper weren't removed, but one that the editor didn't like was, even though it also contained the relevant information on the Brookings Institute, and two paragraphs of test related to Carnegie Endowment, which are based on these two sources

1. Robert Kagan, "The Power and Weakness," Policy Review, June/July 2002,
2. Howard Zinn, "Of Paradise and Power," Zmag.org, February 9, 2004,

--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Neoconservatism - Frederick Kagan and Robert Kagan

I have found another reference on p. 73 to Frederick and Robert Kagan as a "well-known neoconservative activist" in a book published by an academic, Jeanne Morefiel, on Oxford University Press called Empires Without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection. Amazon

For the sake of argument, is the following statement reliable for characterizing Frederick Kagan as a neoconservative? The source is from Consortium News, Neocons and the Ukraine Coup by Robert Parry.

The Kagan family includes other important neocons, such as Frederick Kagan, who was a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan “surge” strategies. In Duty, Gates writes that “an important way station in my ‘pilgrim’s progress’ from skepticism to support of more troops was an essay by the historian Fred Kagan, who sent me a prepublication draft.
“I knew and respected Kagan. He had been a prominent proponent of the surge in Iraq, and we had talked from time to time about both wars, including one long evening conversation on the veranda of one of Saddam’s palaces in Baghdad.”

Again an en passant mention of a person without any other claims whatsoever about the person is an exceedingly weak source for labelling that living person. First one is tossed.

Second one is from "consortiumnews.com" discussed at where there was no clear result other than that it is Robert Parry's site. While "owned" by a corporation, he appears fully in charge and it appears to meet the Misplaced Pages usage of "self-published source". More interesting is that it is specifically one with a political point of view (Though the election of Barack Obama in 2008 showed that the Right’s propaganda machine is not all-powerful, it remains the most intimidating political force in the United States.) and also appear to heavily entwine opinions into its articles. As such, at best is could be used for opinion cited as opinion.

More than five years into his presidency, Barack Obama has failed to take full control over his foreign policy, allowing a bureaucracy shaped by long years of Republican control and spurred on by a neocon-dominated U.S. news media to frustrate many of his efforts to redirect America’s approach to the world in a more peaceful direction. at the start of his article certainly appears to not be a piece of "simple fact journalism" alas. It is editorial in nature no matter how one looks at it.

So the most you could use is:

Robert Parry believes Frederick Kagan is "an important neocon" who was "a principal architect of the Iraq and Afghan 'surge' strategies"

To use Gates from an opinion article is difficult - you would need to cite Gates directly here, and his statements appear a tad memoir-like for claims of fact, and says nothing whatsoever about Kagan being a "neocon". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem attributing Parry's statement, if that is the consensus, but his site, it should be pointed out, is a non-profit, with him as the editor and a contributor. He is a recipient of the Polk Award, and there are three other notable contributors to his news organization's publications, which I assume includes factual reporting as well as opinion pieces, including Norman Solomon, David Swanson, and Martin A. Lee.

More importantly, what is your opinion on the statement from the book by Jeanne Morefiel?--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

He is apparently the sole editor as such, primary writer, fact-checker and factotum. shows precisely and exactly one single employee in the 2013 report. One employee. His writings for an organization of which he is the sole apparent employee = "self published". He did not receive the Polk Award for this personal publication. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• My comments pertain to this and the #Neoconservativism - Victoria Nuland section. The sourcing is adequate per WP:BLP and WP:RS, but I don't think we should label the subjects as neoconservative per WP:BLPSTYLE and for the same reasons we should avoid value-laden labels like right-wing, liberal, fascist, and so on. {Full disclosure: A year ago I would have supported some of these labels, but my views on WP:NPOV have evolved}. I do think that the articles might discuss how Kagan's and Nuland's political views have been described as neoconservative, provided that some supporting detail is included. Including the label without some context would not be advisable in my opinion.- MrX 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I fear I demur - opinions must be sourced and cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If the view that the subjects are neoconservatives is contested, then we should (not must) follow WP:YESPOV and attribute the views to the scholars who hold those views, or simply state that they are widespread views, if they are. Biased opinions should definitely be attributed, especially in a BLP. I don't know if that's the case here.- MrX 16:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

BLPSTYLE includes WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- that does not make any claim that opinions should be cited as facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the term means different things to different people, sources will disagree over who is a neoconservative. Originally it referred to a group of Socialists who decided to back Nixon. It now also refers to their followers, although how closely they need to follow the original neoconservatives is unclear. Hence a list of neoconservatives is inherently non-neutral, with the possible exception of the pioneers associated with its beginnings. So I would scrap it. TFD (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen anyone refer to neoconservatives in the first sense you mentioned, but the above book by Jeanne Morefiel, published b y an academic press in 2014 is recent, and not an "opinion piece". By the way, I didn't even note that the sentence describes both Frederick and Robert Kagan as "neoconservative activists". I suppose I'll have to add this to another thread on Robert Kagan? Or could we decide both here?--Ubikwit<sub>見学/迷惑</sub> 17:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, will you agree to stop hunting for "neoconservative" sources with which to label living persons (as in your Google searches, linked above), and instead agree firstly to seek out high quality reliable sources on the person, and try to summarize important information per WP:NPOV and WP:Due Weight?

So we have three pages now at this noticeboard dealing with the same problematic BLP behavior---restoring contested BLP claims without having gained consensus. This has been going on for some time. Ubikwit, will you agree now that you have been wrong in restoring contested BlP-claims without having gained consensus first and that you agree not to repeat this behavior again?

Would you also agree to stop accusing editors of trolling and to remove the trolling notice on your user space? is a 17:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The existance of Timothy Sherian

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution