Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 28 March 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;" |

• 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?

Matthew VanDyke

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

This article has been previously discussed at:

• Archive 165, 22-28 Nov 2012
• Archive 167, 25 Dec 2012

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

An article that's suffered extensive personal attacks in the past. This time it's someone posting psychiatric diagnoses (narcissism, egomania) using newspapers and blogs as references. Talk page discussion here, contentious edits in history. I think it's completely wrong, User:Slugfilm is citing policy as reasons to put diagnoses into a BLP, I seek outside opinions on the matter - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have set out a full summary of this disagreement in the talk page discussion. I am not seeking to include psychiatric diagnoses - I am seeking to include descriptions of character traits repeatedly observed by media commentators. I'd also welcome the opinions of other Users. - Slugfilm (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my opininon narcissism should not be used, but egocentric can. Also the criticism of VanDyke in relation to point and shoot should be added under point and shoot not in its own section. Naturally any criticism should be attributed correctly. The problem I have with narcissism, is that even if it is meant as a personality trait to be correct it is assuming he is receiving gratification from the attention. That is original research from the sources presented and we should not be presenting others original research in a blp. I feel this can't be used even with attribution since and narcissism has negative medical connotation. A decent criticism can be written summerising the sources without going into grey territory. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your constructive comment AIRcorn. I therefore suggest the following language is included in the "Point and Shoot" section: "Media commentators have described VanDyke as egocentric and have questioned whether his experiences in the Middle East were driven by desire for fame and adrenaline, rather than geopolitical conviction." - Slugfilm (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition to the narcissism/egocentricity issue, I would like to make two additional changes as detailed in the talk page discussion: deletion of an unsupported comparison to Che Guevara and acknowledgement of the dispute between VanDyke and the Committee to Protect Journalists. I welcome opinions on these two further changes. - Slugfilm (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The description of this article as one that has suffered extensive personal attacks seems somewhat unbalanced. Another perspective is that this article is extensively curated to maintain a positive perspective on a controversial public figure by removing properly sourced criticisms.

@David Gerard, who raised this comment, has been active in this regard. I note from the article's Revision History Statistics that he is listed as one of the more active contributors to the article yet his net additions are given as zero. Looking at his edits to the article, they are all reversions of material except for one instance of setting copy protection for the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts @SteveMcCluskey. Another user (User:Instruisto) is deleting all sourced criticism en masse without prior discussion. I would welcome third party comments and opinions on the talk page. - Slugfilm (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

On reading the archives (see above) it seems that this long-running controversy was initiated by the subject of this article, who was the first to dismiss criticism by the Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists as a "ridiculous, self-serving blog post" on his Facebook page. It would help if a disinterested party looked at the controversy over this article in the light of BLP policy. From my perspective, there seems to be a concerted movement to suppress criticism of VanDyke. Others may differ. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Finn

Posted at ANI

Pmesiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made edits to the BLP page of politician Bernie Finn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), only ever blanking sections, after being cautioned not to do so by four different editors, and has breached 3RR twice on 1 September 2014 and on 16 June 2014. The user is not here to build an encyclopaedia and has made no productive contributions. Vandalism tools help to rollback section blanking - but I would recommend at least banning that user from editing that page. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that nobody has started a discussion on the talk page. Anyway, at a brief look at the sources, I believe The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are generally considered acceptable broadsheet newspaper sources, as is the Australian Parliamentary Hansard. The Herald Sun, however, is considered tabloid journalism and should not be used. Finn seems to have a reputation for controversial right wing views that sit uncomfortably with his party, and these have been documented in the broadsheets acceptably. Therefore his anti-abortion views, and criticism to them by other politicians, should stand. I've toned down the anti-abortion remarks, sticking close to exactly what The Age says, and I think that should set the tone for how we proceed. Ritchie333 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, Pmesiti stated on User talk:Dsprc "Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further"

See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Pmesiti using SPA declares he is paid media advisor of politician whose page he keeps blanking.

-- Aronzak (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

Earlier today, List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States was deleted through an AfD process, subsequent to discussion here at BLPN. Likewise, I nominated List of international political sex scandals for speedy deletion today. Here in this BLPN section, I would like to suggest deletion of a very similar list: List of state and local political scandals in the United States, and I expect to go through AfD on this one unless someone would like to talk me out of it here.

Following are some parts of WP:BLP that seem relevant: (1) "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. (2) "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many of these entries characterize scandalous behavior as fact rather than allegation. (3) "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Many of these entries involve accusations of criminal behavior for which there has been no conviction, and yet they are characterized as scandals and mixed in with incidents that have resulted in convictions. (4) "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content." There is inherent guilt by association here, because acquitted people, and people who have merely been accused, are listed together with convicted people. (5) "iographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It is not fair to list people here who have merely been accused, together with people who have been convicted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are available sources for 'state and local political scandals in the United State' as a group, the list should be deleted per WP:LISTN. Unfortunately, this argument frequently looses over ILIKEIT at AfD.- MrX 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think political scandals is something that exist and there are plenty of reliable sources for it being a phenomenon but a list of all of them thru history would be huge so the idea is to break it into smaller lists such as state and local ones, federal ones, but then someone unnecessarily further split them into sex scandals as well. That doesn't mean get rid of all the lists tho does it? WP:LISTN says it's ok to list things. If something doesn't have a reliable source, take it off the list. Popish Plot (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ernesto de Lucas Hopkins

This page does not meet many requirements related to Biographies of living persons

Please be specific. What parts do you believe violate WP:BLP? Has anyone objected when you tried to correct the problems?- MrX 14:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not the easiest to review due to my ignorance with languages other than English. However, there is a section that talks up his achievements that is mostly sourced to https://www.ehui.com. I can't open it so not sure what it is exactly. AIRcorn (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It can be opened, but not as an https: site, needs to be http://www.ehui.com. Since my spanish is sparse, I can't really tell what that site is. It appears to be a Spanish-News site, but I'm not sure. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything that immediately appears contentious/negative/poorly-sourced. It would be helpful if you'd describe more fully your issues with the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, perhaps it would beneficial to go to the Misplaced Pages: Translators available page and ask for help to verify some of the sources in this BLP. That way, it can be determined whether or not this https://www.ehui.com site supports the material in the article. Cheers, Comatmebro 23:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

Two edits by jps on March 19 2015 and add the words "denialism website" about Anthony Watts (blogger)'s blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), in the lead. I claim this could damage Mr Watts's reputation as a blogger, and is poorly sourced.

• The sole source is Michael E. Mann, well known as an expert on climate but not known for qualification to judge whether WUWT is a "denial" site. ("Denial" is the word Mr Mann actually used.) Mr Mann is known for labelling others, for example calling Roy Spencer an "evolution denier" , calling Judith Curry a "disinformer", calling Steve McIntyre a source of "denialist drivel" -- which should suggest not that they all are guilty, but that he likes to accuse.
• jps has said several times that there are many other sources, even "dozens", that "the most reliable sources call Watts a denier", etc. But when I asked twice what those sources are, I was brushed off -- see here and here
• I noted six passing mentions in reputable-looking sources which call WUWT a "skeptic" site (a mild word that Mr Watts himself uses): scientific american washington post a book Times Online another book Orange County Register. I claim it is wrong to name-call if the majority of sources are against you, and cited an administrator's statement concluding a denier-versus-skeptic argument last year on WP:ANI: "... We use what the majority of sources use. ...". I claim the administrator's statements were general and apply to cases like this.
• I twice suggested we could use a more bland term such as "climate-related", but was ignored.
• The article already contains 3 critical quotes about WUWT (and zero praise quotes), so even if Mann's opinion was attributed and was outside the lead and had been reasoned, it would be excessive unbalance.
• Discussion of the edits is in the latter part of this talk thread. In that thread are references to jps labelling someone -- presumably me -- a "POV-pusher", to jps threatening to take me to WP:AE for unspecified reasons, to jps suggesting I was into edit-war. Thus I am deterred from reverting, and take the matter here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Although WUWT is by any reasonable measure a denialist site, they are not generally described as such in the mainstream press other than a few British papers. Thus WUWT should be described as "skeptical" following the majority of sources. Common usage is gradually shifting away from the inaccurate "skeptical," but by design Misplaced Pages lags trends in usage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you should check the sources we have that are not press sources but rather academic sources. They are pretty clear in their evaluation of the site as being part of the "denial machine". jps (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the majority of sources say that, but even so, in cases where sources conflict Misplaced Pages should defer to what the highest quality expert sources say, a strategy that has been used in the past. Misplaced Pages should prefer quality over quantity. I have noticed that Nature (certainly one of the best expert sources) has used contrarian and contrarianism lately, e.g. . I would be fine with that. Manul ~ talk 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Mann book is, of course, a high quality expert source as well. However there's no need to quest for a perfect word, as if we are trying to save bandwidth. I would also be satisfied with something like "opposes the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change". Manul ~ talk 06:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would point out that before Peter decided to cut short the discussion and come here, we were having a little chat about WP:SOURCECOUNTING which is the dubious practice in which Peter is engaged. Note that the best way to write articles is not to simply provide laundry lists of sources backing you up, but to find the best sources which most reliably explain (or refute) the point being made. I tend to think that one good academic source is better than four media sources, one denialist book, and a book which uses the terms "skeptic" and "denialist" interchangeably, but I now see the number of sources, absurdly, is the only metric Peter seems capable of understanding. It is not difficult to find a source-for-source oneupmanship of Peter's list, but I would prefer not to stoop to such petty gameplaying. What I did do is refute the claim that there is only one source that describes the denial nature of the site. I added two additional academic sources that explain the point about the blogsite and I think we can rest assured that the claim is very well sourced to independent, expert reviews of this website. jps (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

jps cites wp:sourcecount which in fact is just an essay written by none other than jps, and jps cites this "academic source" which in fact doesn't say WUWT is a denier blog but says that Watts and McIntyre are "global warming skeptics" and "Muller agrees that they are skeptics not deniers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If you disagree with WP:SOURCECOUNTING, you are welcome to try to get it deleted. Otherwise, you should note that cherrypicking quotes from the text of the paper does you no good when any person can see in the quote provided that Watts' blog is explicitly called out as falling into denialism. jps (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• A quick look at the blog site and I don't see how it could be described as anything else except a denialist site. Disagree with following the majority of sources, we should follow the best sources and it is hard to go past the nature one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• wp:label applies. Defining a living person in negative terms by those openly hostile to them is both a violation of npov and blp. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, first the label is being applied to the blog, not the person. But, secondly, if, say, a living AIDS denier objects to being called an AIDS denier, that does not mean they get a veto option over the label solely on the basis of their objection. If the reliable, independent sources about the person indicate that the label is appropriate, then it is actually a violation of NPOV to remove the label or water it down. jps (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Neither the blog or the person (which are linked) should be labeled using an obviously pejorative term. We would not describe Mann by what Watt's said and the same applies to Watt's. Remove any pejorative labels and use labels provided by Watts. --DHeyward (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Watts is an amateur who did not publish his evaluation of Mann's work in a book published by an academic press. Mann, on the other hand, has published his evaluation of Watts' blog in a book that was published by Columbia University Press. WP:PARITY should be considered here. The fringe viewpoint is Watts', and until he is successful in extracting himself from his marginalization, it is not okay for Misplaced Pages to simply split the difference between poor sources and good sources. jps (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Watts is among those promoting a misinformation campaign about climate science, framing this as "skeptical" misleads the public and contravenes policy on giving "equal validity" to these fringe views of science. Scientific skepticism denotes standards of open investigation which Watts and others don't meet, so "skeptic" is misleading and pseudoskepticism is the proper term. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• The edit in question does not "label" Watts -- it labels the blog, and it does so on the basis of a high-quality source. I have therefore reinstated the description. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question we should be asking ourselves is how do the majority of reliable sources refer to this topic. Assuming good faith, we have 3 sources which use the term "denialist". What about all the others? Surely, there are more than 3 reliable sources about this topic else the article would be deleted for lack of notability. What do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? Do they refer to it as "denialist", "skeptic", "contrarian", some other term, or no term at all? If, for example, only 20% of sources use the term "denialist", then it's clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to use that same term in Misplaced Pages's voice. OTOH, if 80% use this term, then it's perfectly fine. Has anyone done such an analysis to see what the majority of reliable sources actually say about this topic? In any case, WP:BLP requires that we be cautious about contentious BLP matters so I have temporarily removed it from the article while this discussion is pending. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's a fine way to put it, but we have to look for sources which talk explicitly about the blog and look at which ones are best. The best sources I have found characterize the POV of the blog as "denial". The marginally worse ones may use the term "skeptic". jps (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's too simplistic in my opinion to just count sources that meet a certain threshold of reliability and use an arbitary percentage to determine whether to use a term or not. Reliability is more a spectrum, some sources are more reliable than others. Quality journals should be given much more weight than magaizine or newspaper articles. How much weight to give each is debatable, but my preference would be to give scholarily pieces a lot lot more, especially in the lead. Almost to the point where they are all that are used. In the body context can be provided between different sources, but in the lead the best current source should always prevail. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge: That is the question that we have asked ourselves, and we at this time have 6 sources which call WUWT a skeptic blog (listed above), and 2 which call it a denialist / denier blog (jps listed 3 but see the refutation above), and "a few dozen" which jps announced but has not shown. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "refutation" of one of my chosen sources is refuted in the quote provided in the citation itself. As for other sources, I'm not of a mind to go digging for comparisons in the media because I don't think the media is the best source for this kind of question. I have given you a peer-reviewed paper and two books published by university presses. When you provide me comparable sources, I think we can discuss whether you have met your burden. jps (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that "denial" reeks of Holocaust denial and it is a pejorative term. Connolley used to use the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" and can no longer edit BLPs out of the ArbCom ruling. This is no different. No matter how many of Watt's detractors use the term "denial", it's pejorative in nature and offers no further insight than "sceptic" (or "skeptic"). I question why anyone would vociferously argue for a term that minimalises the Holocaust when a perfectly acceptable alternative is available. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There really is no term that is entirely suitable. "Skeptic" implies scientific skepticism; "denial" is taken by some (primarily those toward whom the term is applied, and those who sympathize with them) as invoking Holocaust denial; other terms have their own problems. Academic literature uses both terms. There's no obviously correct answer here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Then we should not qualify it at all. "climate change blog" is adequate if it cannot be bucketed. If "denial" was not a pejorative, I have trouble believing that it's innocently being applied when the subjects object so strongly. It's very hard to say he denies global warming. He's sceptical of the cause of attribution. That's apparent from the article. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. We need to let the reader know that the blog hosts only climate change denial pieces. I don't really care how we do it (calling it "climate change skepticism" is not an acceptable "compromise" as has been outlined elsewhere), but to pretend it is simply a "climate change blog" would be very misleading. jps (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• We can use some more watchful eyes on this article. We have an editor who continues to edit-war contentious WP:BLP content into the article without participating in this discussion which remains outstanding. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the article should be protected until this is worked out, and will ask an admin.

By the way, if you make an allegation of misconduct against someone (namely, edit warring) Misplaced Pages convention is that you must notify that individual. Have you done so? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Could we please avoid Godwin's Law here? This kind of argument is not reasonable or convincing. If meant as a joke, it's not an appropriate one. Manul ~ talk 02:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the article I tried the compromise "a website that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change", though upon reflection it still falls short of accurately describing how the website is received by mainstream science. Considering that we have a climate change denial article, and considering that high quality academic sources describe the site as denialism, we need to set aside this argument that there is a BLP violation resulting from an accurate description of a website. Manul ~ talk 03:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The view that "denial" is a slur is, I think, sincerely held, but much more importantly it is false -- the phrase is both accurate and widely employed to describe Watts's blog. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is either one or the other. Personally, I would say that words intended to denigrate / dismiss / ridicule others would count as "slurs" even if widely used and accurate. For example, calling someone a "racist" or a "bigot" is often used to ridicule or be dismissive of someone, but nonetheless the usage is widely accepted when discussing certain people whose racism has been established in detail. In my experience, calling someone a "climate change denier" (or "denialist") is often also used as a form of socially-acceptable ridicule. Personally, I would generally discourage using language like that because it is inflammatory and a contentious label, and only consider using it in the most extreme and well-documented of cases. Dragons flight (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware: denial of issues due to climate change is causing unspeakable problems. . . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why not just say that Watts "does not accept the current scientific understanding of climate change"? This wording is obviously correct, makes clear his position and its relationship to the scientific consensus on the topic, and avoids charged terms like "denialist", "skeptic", etc. MastCell  19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  That's the correct position to take. As far as I am concerned, the entire term "denial" is a ploy to establish camps of believers and nonbelievers and there are many reputable scientists that believe in climate change but disagree as to the severity or short and long term trends.--MONGO 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Got any sources for your assertions, MONGO? jps (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud -- yes, the scientific community contains people with a variety of views on a variety of issues. To think that this natural variation has anything to do with organized climate change denial is utterly deluded. In particular, it has nothing to do with Watts or his blog, which does not host posts by climatologists debating the finer points of attribution or trend analysis. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is maintained by Leif Svalgaard of Stanford. Svalgaard is a solar physicist. Judith Curry is a climatologist and I don't think she would describe his blog or his views as "denialism." There are plenty of non-political scientists that don't consider "denialism" as a part of his views or blog and that's reflected in the press. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a peer-reviewed paper or a book published by a university press that makes this point about WUWT? Or is this just your own original research? jps (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support this above phrasing as a description of his personal views... we might note, if this can be sourced, that his website has been described as promoting "climate change denialism, but as to his personal views, we can afford to be somewhat more tactful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread is not about labeling Watts; it's about describing his website accurately. The first paragraph of the Gavin Menzies article calls Menzies' work pseudohistory, a word which is at least as charged as "denialism", yet that is the most accurate characterization. That Menzies or his followers don't like the reception of mainstream experts is not a reason to remove it. Like pseudohistory and pseudoscience, climate change denialism is a categorization that conveys useful information, and if experts have characterized something as climate change denialism (or pseudohistory, or pseudoscience), then the reader deserves to know. Misplaced Pages articles prominently include such information because the WP:NPOV policy (specifically WP:PSCI) dictates it. Manul ~ talk 22:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, what do the majority of reliable sources say about the blog? The only editor who appears to have attempted to answer this question was Peter Gulutzan, and assuming good faith that his analysis is accurate, that this website is a "denialist" website is a minority POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I answered the question above and showed how he was wrong. jps (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the only sources you view as valid are ones that agree with your POV. Your basic assumption is that anyone that does not agree with that POV is a Climate Change Denier and thus to be disregarded. On top of that your basic argument appears to be that there are no skeptics. Either you believe or you are a denier. I does not appear that you are capable of viewing this objectively. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith but you can verify too -- the sources mentioned so far are easy to check online. The "put-denialism-in" side named only three sources that say something like denier. The first is Mann who's a poor source because he's not known as an expert on Watts's blog and is known for name-calling; the second is Dunlap + McCright two non-notable sociologists; the third supposedly is Liu but Liu does not say WUWT is a denialism blog. I named six sources that say something like skeptic. Two of those sources are books published by Palgrave Macmillan and (both notable and both called "academic") (by the way transcript Verlag books are distributed in the USA by Columbia University Press), and the authors are just as non-notable as the sociologists but have just as many doctorates. So much for the pretence that more "academic" sources call the blog denialist, but the four non-academic sources (Scientific American, Washington Post, The Times Online, Orange County Register) are equally or more important -- it matters that the mainstream press calls the blog skeptic. If there's a "fringe" view here, it's the name-calling minority. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Michael Mann is not an expert in this subject is absurd. Dismissing sociologists as sources is even more ridiculous. And denying the quote that is included in the Liu source is simply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is no way to have a discussion when a person cannot recognize the best sources and instead insists that experts in the field are "poor sources" or that somehow the newsmedia is better equipped to explain what camp an opinion belongs in than a sociologist. This is where WP:CHEESE must be referenced. jps (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's false that I said Mann is not an expert on Watts's blog, I carefully said he's not known as one, there's been no evidence shown. It's false that I dismissed Dunlap + McCright, I pointed to other academic sources which say differently. It's false that Liu said WUWT is a denialism blog, anyone can read the passage where Liu says Watts and McIntyre are skeptics, then adds that Muller agrees they're skeptics not deniers, then adds "the tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic", for example one by David Middleton, and that's all. It's false that I compared any news media to a sociologist, I separated the academic comparisons from the observations about the mainstream press. After discarding the false statements and the uncivil statements, I saw nothing that counters what I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann is "not known" as an expert on Watts' blog? Who is "known" as such an expert? "The tone of some of their blog posts sound denialistic" is not identifying the blog as a "denialism blog"? I'm sorry, your hairsplitting is transparent. People can read what my sources say and compare the credentials and independence to your favorite sources. It's pretty easy. jps (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, I asked the question, what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? I decided to attempt to answer this question by examining the first 10 reliable sources, randomly selected by Google. Here are the results:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics" in general. In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"

Again, these were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). In any case, here are the totals:

1. "Skeptic" (or some variation thereof) - 8 sources
2. "Meteorologist" - 1 source
3. "Science" - 1 source
4. "Denier" - 0 sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not use Google Scholar and only choose peer-reviewed papers and books published by academic presses? jps (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that folks are making way too big a deal out of this. The public knows how to decode "skeptic," much as they know "lady of the evening" is not a titled woman who goes outdoors only from late afternoon to sunset. Flip a coin and get on with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources say someone is a denier (about whatever topic) that's what wikipedia should say. Can't push a POV. Popish Plot (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• First, those that argue that it's about a blog to avoid BLP issues and then cite Mann, don't seem to realize that Mann talks about Watts, not his blog. Second, "denier" is not a word that just fell from the sky as an innocent term to describe a view, third reliable, uninvolved, sources like NPR (hardly a right-wing news outlet) doesn't describe either the person or the blog as anything but "sceptic." Any book that starts off the title as "Climate Wars" is not about science. It's politics by other means. --DHeyward (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• • First, the quote from Mann that is relevant is "Watts Up With That?... has overtaken climateaudit as the leading climate change denial blog." Second, do you have any sources for where the word "denier" came from and who chose it if it is a nefarious as you are insinuating? And third why should a journalist writing for NPR be more reliable that a sociologist describing the social context of blogs or an academic who studies the subject? jps (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin and libelous descriptors

G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have returned this from the archive since no action was taken. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

*Can we say at G. Edward Griffin that he and his book "promotes conspiracy theories"? Consensus on the talk page says we can, but as an outsider to the article before a few days ago, it concerned me as pejorative to appear in a living person's biography, since he describes his book as factual as do several sources including Forbes and Fox News. Media Matters uses "promoting wild conspiracy theories" to describe his other works. The subject himself has stated the the term is a pejorative: "There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase 'conspiracy theory' with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected." Misplaced Pages BLP rules demand that we reject it too. The pros and cons of his book on the Federal Reserve are discussed in an appropriate section, this debate is about the lede.

• The word "quackery" has been restored to the BLP which I find libelous. There already was a qualifying statement the the FDA found the drug ineffective which is neutrally worded. I was listening to an interview with Penn Jillette a few days ago and he told about how they could not use the word "quack" on their show Bullshit! because it was libelous, so they so they had a sord of ducks roaming the set making the duck noise, without themselves using the word. BLP rules demand it be removed, but a not previously-involved editor needs to get involved. Consensus should not be allowed to override using such a strong and libelous word, when neutral wording already exists that does not libel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC) "if one calls people liars and quacks one can be sued ... but 'assholes' is pretty safe. If we said it was all scams we could also be in trouble, but 'bullshit,' oddly, is safe." - Penn Jillette. Note that in an EU court case the word was found to be libelous.

Possibly no action was taken because other editors did not agree that any action should be taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

soooo, you are suggesting that we just call his claims bullshit then? It would seem better to follow the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then it would have been administratively closed as "no action taken". This was never closed, it was archived while open. I can find reliable sources using the n-word, that doesn't make it any less objectionable or less libelous as a descriptor for a living person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't even suggest this is remotely close to similar to that word. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is troubling. Why does this Griffen article bring out the worst in people?Popish Plot (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What is troubling is that some editors refuse to accept the fact that none of his (so far identified) theories has any mainstream acceptance. We may not be able to say that he is a conspiracy theorist and a quack; but we can and must (per WP:NPOV) say that his theories are conspiracy theories, and his Laetrile theory is quackery. In spite of the claim above that there as a Belgian case in which it was ruled that "quack" was libelous, there are US, UK, Scottish, and Dutch cases where it was found not to be libelous. In any case, if it were libelous and in a source (reliable or not) we could "reprint" it and be immune from US libel laws under Section 230. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• You are confusing tort law with Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages policy says "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory." There is no reason to call it quackery when you can use the encyclopedic phrase "not clinically efficacious". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No reason to hide the meaning behind sesquipedalians and erudite vernacular that the average reader will not understand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Not clinically efficacious" is inadequate. "Having no evidence of effectiveness and strong evidence of harm" approaches adequate strength. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• BLPN discussions do not require administrative closure. I have no objection to re-discussing it now -- but it is likely to be archived again without administrative closure, and I'd recommend that this not turn into a justification for re-opening the same discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Frances Barber

Frances BarberTrolls have added abusive content with a section called Scottish Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markludmon (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker (politician)

Issue: whether information added to Scott Walker (politician) article about his "Divide and Conquer" comment is "undue speculation and redundancy" or useful context. (Previous argument on the issue here: Talk:Scott_Walker_(politician)#.22Divide_and_conquer.22_watered_down.3F_soliciting_opinions )

(Currently the article is NOT alleged to violate BLP, but (IMHO) is excluding useful context in the name of excluding "undue speculation and redundancy."

In a January 18 conversation with Beloit businesswoman and supporter Diane Hendricks shortly before the "budget-repair" bill was introduced, Walker was asked if he would make Wisconsin a "a right-to-work" state. Walker replied, "Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there."

Change suggested by me, opposed by editor CFredkin:

In a January 18 conversation with Beloit businesswoman and supporter Diane Hendricks shortly before the "budget-repair" bill was introduced, Walker was asked if he would make Wisconsin a "a right-to-work" state (i.e. would prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers to pay dues to the union that negotiates their contract). Walker replied, "Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there." Walker later explained that "divide and conquer" referred to "protecting the taxpayers" from unions that "stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall." (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state, see below.)

Some relevent info:

• transcript from video of conversation from which the comment "divide and conquer" comes

Q (Billionaire supporter Diane Hendricks): Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -

A (Walker): Oh, yeah.

Q: - and become a right-to-work (state)? What can we do to help you?

A (Walker): Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there.

• There is a Right to work section later in the article (that the "see below" refers to).

• The 2011 budget repair bill and protests section that the contested paragraph belongs to is already quite long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Marley, Patrick (May 10, 2012). "A transcript of the Walker-Hicks union discussion". Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 16 March 2015.
2. Marley, Patrick (May 10, 2012). "A transcript of the Walker-Hicks union discussion". Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 16 March 2015.
3. "Video: Walker explains divide, conquer strategy". Associated Press. May 11, 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2015.
4. Governor Walker of Wisconsin signs right-to-work bill, nytimes.com, March 10, 2015.
5. Marley, Patrick (May 10, 2012). "A transcript of the Walker-Hicks union discussion". Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 16 March 2015.

At this point, I can't see why this is an issue for this noticeboard, if the article is currently "NOT alleged to violate BLP". It is a content dispute, and we have methods of dispute resolution for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it was (if you consider "undue speculation and redundancy" part of BLP policy which I'm assuming is the case) until CFredkin deleted it. I would rvt CFredkin but I though it would be better to come here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

Consistent insertion of contentious and libelous material accusing Kissinger of "infamous" complicity in "genocide" among other things. If these things are to be inserted at all they need to be worded more intelligently with a little less POV and linked to reliable and objective sources. This has not been the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.105.47 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Steve Forbes

This seems suspect. ResMar 05:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: I edited that out. Will start talk page discussion. Certainly does not belong in lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Vacca shooting

In this AFD, people have suggested raising the matter at this noticeboard. Issues include the notability of the topic and the identity of the minor and her family. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

anna gunn

Just found out that under her Personal Life section, someone added this: Gunn and her ex-husband, actor and real estate broker Alastair Duncan, have two daughters, Eila Rose and Emma. '(Redacted)

Guess you'll want to take that down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.163.252 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed from both here and there. — Strongjam (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas L Thompson

Thomas L. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Incorrect link to Thompson's CV at the bottom. On my computer, the link leads to a page of "Water Damage Studies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.178.215.215 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed with wayback link. Looks like the domain expired and was picked up by someone else. — Strongjam (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lizzie Woods

Per my comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Woods, I think this BLP is unsourced and unsourceable. As per WP:BLP, I removed all the unsourced statements, but someone else immediately restored them all. I didn't see the point in fighting the reversion while the AFD was open, but now the AFD has somehow been closed as "no consensus" despite nobody voting to keep the article. I don't really want to re-stubbify this if I'm somehow misreading policy and this kind of autobiography is acceptable - can someone else take a look at this? I've made as thorough a search as I can for sources, as documented on the AFD, and I can find literally nothing to indicate she's anything more than an at-most mid-ranking functionary in a trade union. Mogism (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a flawed no con closing to be frank.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Eastman

I'm not good with BLP's, but an editor has made significant changes today, which don't look well sourced to me, but as I'm unsure of myself in the area of BLP's I'd love it if somebody would look. I suspect, entirely without evidence, that the ed is the subject of the BLP. Thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Emma Chambers

Doncaster isn't in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It's in South Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.114.102 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct, but when Ms Chambers was born, Donny was in the West Riding. To be clear, Donny hasn't actually moved to a new situation, but boundary changes have occurred, and area names have changed since then. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As Bill might say, it depends on what the definition of in is. Older Yorkshiremen and Russell Grant are proud of the three Ridings and hate Humberside. This is a silly thing to argue over. Ritchie333 07:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David Southall

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

Help please.

I am not the subject of this BLP but am a longstanding professional colleague of the subject. I consider the article unbalanced and not conforming to the Neutral Point of View as it is largely focused on one aspect of the subject's activities, namely his appearances before the UK General Medical Council in regard to both his child protection work and his research work. The information and therefore the citations are largely from media reports.

Below, I enclose a fuller biography which includes material from the original one but also adds much more about the subject's work. Please could other more experienced volunteers help with correcting this BLP as I have no experience previously! The new text is well referenced from several sources including peer reviewed scientific papers. Thank you. Jerry O'Diner (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the full article that you posted here. Please consider posting it in a sandbox or draft space and linking to it instead.- MrX 17:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read our policies and guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest (which you do have), verifiability, neutrality, and identifying and citing reliable sources.

You need to propose specific changes on the article's talk page, instead of posting a mess on this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can edit the article and make changes that you think will improve it. You can also discuss your proposed changes at the article talk page. You may want to just make a few changes at a time to see if other editors object.- MrX 17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mr X and Mr Thomson. Please would you explain to me about a sandbox and a draft space and where I would find them. I have read the conflict of interest pages and agree that I have an apparent COI through knowing the subject. I intend only to add facts to the BLP and not opinion and I am in the position of having verifiable facts having worked with the subject. Please, editors and contributors, bear with my inexperience and don't bite this newbie! Jerry O'Diner (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, verifiable information comes from newspapers or magazines. The point is that it has to be stuff that we can verify as well. Your position really would provide you with personal information, which we can't verify. There should be a link to your sandbox at the top right-hand side of the page, somewhere between the link to your talk page and the log out button. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert J. H. Morrison

Robert J. H. Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page, as is typical in the case of many lesser-known Canadian academics at smaller institutions, suffers from shameless self-promotion. A former de Quincey scholar myself, I have not heard of this person before. There are no third-party references given to the claims of "renown" or "acclaim". I should hope the editors excise from this article its baseless advertising. I will be commenting on similar pages in the next few weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJYale (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, if you look at the page history, the reason is because it was created as an autobiography. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It says that he is a lobbyist for Monsanto. That needs to be verified. His article is being edited a lot recently. The first place I saw that listed with him was in Infowars. Please check his article for other recent edits.

Thanks

68.94.207.29 (talk) Cairenn — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist) Govindaharihari (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Infowars is not neutral. Spumuq (talq) 10:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

PERFECT MASIYA

I posted an unfinished biograph of myself. all i want is a second chance to work on it, i realy want this to go public please help. i am a university student at Bindura University in Zimbabwe Africa and its part of my project. i hope you will find this relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafact (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to edit your user page to tell us a bit about yourself, but it should be relevant to your editing activities on Misplaced Pages - see WP:UP. If your university prof has asked you to do something different, then I am afraid they have sorely misunderstood what Misplaced Pages is all about.--ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

HR 2314, "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009

This article has been titled Akaka Bill for some time against BLP policy. It is not the title of the bill. The title and number appears as the section header above and is:HR 2314, "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009HR2314. Daniel Akaka is a living person and one of several people that introduced the bill. I moved this title to the official name and it was reverted. A few weeks later (last night) I noticed it and moved it again as a BLP exemption from edit warring but it was reverted again. The nick naming of this bill as Akaka is from opponents of the bill. I believe Misplaced Pages is clear about this. If the article name is using an unofficial nickname, whether used by opponents or supporters and that name uses a living persons actual name, we cannot title the article with that nick name. This needs attention please as a BLP violation not a move request. The name Akaka Bill should also be salted.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

1. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Natural Resources (2009). HR 2314, "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009". U.S. G.P.O.
2. Xiaojian Zhao; Edward J.W. Park Ph.D. (26 November 2013). Asian Americans: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History : An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History. ABC-CLIO. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-1-59884-240-1.

King Abdullah II

Instead of "Alternative style: Sir", it is OUR MAJESTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.34.12.126 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Minor confusion persists over whether or not Carl Freer was on the Forbes list for 2005. I have a paper copy of the Forbes list of the list I could scan and send. Please advise. Thanks DavidWestT (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Jordis Unga

The IP 98.193.95.34 has been repeatedly adding unsourced, contentious info on Jordis Unga regarding a failed Kickstarter campaign. It was formerly just sourced using the Kickstarter comments, and this went on for several revisions before it was semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather, a protection which just recently ended and low and behold the information was just added again. This time it also included an "article" from BuzzFeed here, but that page was "created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff." The editor received a 4im warning early this month for this same behavior, but blanked their talk page. Kharkiv07 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction: the page was given pending changes protection. Kharkiv07 23:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This was handled via the boomerang effect at the edit warring noticeboard. Kharkiv07 00:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

paul edge

Hi,

This page is about me and repeatedly is updated to contain inaccurate information such as my date of birth which I have again just corrected.

I am requesting that page be deleted immediately.

Thank you

Paul Edge

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution