Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?

You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.

More ways to help

• Categorize: Potential BLPs
• Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist (may be long to load)
• Remove BLP violations: Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs (recently created), BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content
  Possible vandalism or libelous edits (as detected by edit filters 39, 339 and 189), Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)
• Check if these people could in fact be dead, or if articles about them were removed
• Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type X incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar.
• Request article protection, report edit-warring users or report a specific user (in contentious topics recognized by ArbCom or elsewhere).

Today's random unreferenced BLP

Ghazi Shahzad (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 26 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

Josh Mirman Template:Blpwatch-links

I am Josh Mirman. After trying to get my own article removed this summer because I find it unnecessary despite created by fans of some projects I made, it was left up because I was told I can't really decide such a thing. However I try to at least keep certain things factual and accurate if it is to remain up, but even moderators revert things to previous entries, ones that include slander and false input. Can we try and remove the entire article again?

I suggest checking out WP:DP. If you want it to be deleted, try looking into WP:AFD. Note, however, that that doesn't guarantee it will be deleted. If you bring up the fact that it may be inaccurate (Examples help), someone may decide to clean it up so it wont get deleted. 68.39.174.238 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reputation as a 'cheat' - get this **** off here FFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.127.13 (talk • contribs)

There is no article by that name, nor has there ever been. A Google search for "Mark Bircham" on Misplaced Pages finds nothing. What is the name of the article that concerns you? BigDT 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Suzanne Hinn Template:Blpwatch-links

• Suzanne Hinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - see discussion page under nomination for deletion // Jamie Guinn 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no use for either of the Hinn's, but this page clearly qualifies as an attack page (CSD A10). I have to tagged. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Blpb

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy Template:Blpwatch-links

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This book, published by Doubleday and written by Hoover Institute research fellow Peter Schweizer, contains chapters entitled things like, "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider" and "Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss". Is listing these titles a violation of WP:BLP? // Lawyer2b 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, reporting "X said Y", if, in fact, X did say Y and either (a) X is a reliable source of information about Y or (b) your article is about X is ok from a BLP standpoint. But good grief ... this article needs help. It should not be giving WP:NPOV#undue weight to the author's claims and it really needs to cite SECONDARY sources of information about the book. BigDT 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is essentially a recapitulation of the book, with a lengthy quotations for most chapters (that is, for each liberal person being attacked by the author). For example, the section (in the Misplaced Pages article) that discusses the book chapter on Barbara Steisand is over 500 words long. It contains sentences like Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States.

I don't think that the article about the book could possibly be considered NPOV unless it summarized each chapter in three sentences or so; what's there is way too much like mini-articles that present only one point of view (the author's). John Broughton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An article about a book should be primarily based on secondary sources. It should talk about the impact of the book, about what people have written about the book. It should not be an opportunity to present the POV of the author without balance/context, and it should not violate content guidelines. Guettarda 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

John Orr

Would someone mind checking this out? I've read a reasonably reputable synopsis of this dude, so can't bring myself to remove stuff I know is accurate, but I suspect it is in a poor state. If not, let me know so I can stop worrying. Thanx 68.39.174.238 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (PS. I don't have on hand the source I'm referring to, so I can't use it to source this... ARGH!)

Periyar RamasamiTemplate:Blpwatch-links==

It is potentially libellous allegations without any any citations which I have asked for.The wording are not encyclopedic. 1: Periyar being likened to Hitler is potentially libellous as Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths whereas Periyar was not guilty of even one.Further no evidence or citation is given this comment.Periyar turned the offer to become the head of the Madras Presidency in 1939 after the Congress quit but he turned it down now to compare Hitler is wrong.

2:Brahmins:comments like The population of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, which was about 10% in the 1920s, is today less than 3% as a result of persecution by EVR and his followers are strange as not even a Single Brahmin has been killed in the entire Dravidan movement. Further Rajaji,Jayalaitha and Janaki who were Chief Minsiters were Brahmins and ruled Tamil Nadu longer than any other single community and these statements are not backed by citations or evidence which are required.Jayalalitha is the head of a Dravidan Party

3: And the wording should be encyclopedic none emotional and contraversial lines like Within a span of 20 years, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, who had been living there for more than 2000 years, were turned into alien immigrants by the DK's propaganda. The speeches called for the elimination of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, and the enslavement of Brahmin women. The speeches harkened back to an ancient Tamil glory, similar to Hitler's revival of ancient Germanic culture are not abcked by citations or Evidence

4:Further some one blanked His Childhood and Education.Even today there was mass deletion by 192.223.243.6 which was reverted 5:Only 1 name needs to be used either Periyar or EVR not 2 creates confusion to readers particularly foriegners.Periyar is how he is known.Tamil Nadu Government refers to him as Periyar.http://www.tn.gov.in/government.htm.He is refered as Periyar in Tamil Nadu Government. Periyar University is called named after him and Also, convention suggests that the most common name be used as far as possible in the text of the article Vandalism is done by 80.195.10.170 who vandalised the page 3 times .Harlowraman 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for disputes about deceased persons. Please following Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution. Andries 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche Template:Blpwatch-links and related articles

These articles are being used to showcase the theories of three minor critics, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth. These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. It would be proper to devote perhaps one paragraph to their shared theories. However, two of them are editors at Misplaced Pages: Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and they are very aggressive about promoting themselves and their viewpoints in these articles, and apparently in other articles as well. I believe that some of their allegations may be libellous, but because they have been published (or in some cases self-published) it is argued that they must be included in the articles. They also have friends at Misplaced Pages who support them (as seen elsewhere on this page.) I think at the very least there are violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. Both Cberlet and Dking are published authors, based on their user pages (and following a link); I suspect they can recognize libel when the see it, before they put it in writing. And it's pretty clear that Cberlet and Dking think that LaRouche is, well, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Which would tend to make their opinions on that matter the mainstream view, actually.

It would help if you provided some diffs here (or even specific wording that bothers you), rather than broad generalities. Details will give other editors a much better idea of what you consider "esoteric" and what you think might be "libellous". (As far as undue weight, that's really a matter for talk/discussion pages of articles, unless an edit war breaks out.) John Broughton | Talk 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, these three authors allege that LaRouche is a fascist and that he is in favor or some sort of totalitarian state. I consider this possibly libelous because LaRouche has campaigned for over 35 years against fascism. These three make insinuations, without offering evidence beyond a technique of "decoding" where Dennis King, for example, says that photographs of galaxies that appear in LaRouche-affiliated science publications remind him of swastikas. Wohlforth equates support for government regulation of the economy a la FDR with support for a totalitarian state.

LaRouche has mainstream critics, of course, but they generally criticize him for being a conspiracy theorist, and do not accuse him of conspiring to bring about dictatorship or, as Dennis King does, having a "dream of world conquest." I think that one would have to draw the conclusion that King, Berlet and Wohlforth are themselves conspiracy theorists, and their ideas might deserve some mention, but not a central place in a biographical article. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a diff from yesterday, where Cberlet inserts his own libelous allegations into the intro of the article. --Tsunami Butler 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar material was added by Dking here in the midst of a rather extensive re-write, and when the potentially libelous material was removed, it was re-added by Phil Sandifer here. --Tsunami Butler 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo Template:Blpwatch-links

A series of anonymous IPs, which all resolve to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in Queensland, Australia, has repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations that DiNovo, a Canadian politician, was involved in a bank fraud scam in 1992, was saved from prison only by agreeing to act as an RCMP informant, and has misrepresented other elements of her biography. Edit summaries have included inflammatory allegations that a "legion of NDP attack queers" is conspiring to protect DiNovo by burying this information; one of them, charmingly, directly addressed me as "Bearcunt". In the most recent edit, this mythical legion of NDP attack queers even found its way into the article itself.

This has happened six times now. I have tried addressing the matter of BLP policy on several prior occasions, but each time the allegations simply resurface again, posted by a different IP number that still resolves to the same institution. I expect that since they're posting anonymously, the person in question isn't even seeing comments posted to prior IP talk pages. I even tried at one point deleting and recreating the article to remove this claim from the edit history entirely, but as the matter has resurfaced again I've restored the deleted edits so they can be reviewed here. I've even tried searching both Google and the Toronto Star news database to investigate the verifiability of the claims, but whodathunkit? Not a single verifiable source to be had.

Since this happens at completely unpredictable intervals, I'd like a few people to keep it watchlisted just in case this happens again at a time when neither myself nor CJCurrie (the other user who's done reverts on this) are online. And if anybody has any other advice on how we can make this stop, I'm all ears. Bearcat 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield Template:Blpwatch-links

Note: the above had previously been archived. Since there is more interest in it, I have unarchived it. BigDT 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Fighting for Justice" (see the recently archived discussion, archive4): I pointed to physical (biological) evidence, presented in court (by a prosecution witness), and uncontested, that a little girl might have been sexually assaulted, and you reacted with outrage, as might be expected - except that your anger was directed against ME! Shoot the messenger.196.15.168.40 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You wasted your time bringing it up again BigDT. I have no interest in conversing with 196.15.168.40. He is a sad being who defends a murderer. Another user tolerated him for a long time, but I will not. He makes me sick. That's all I gotta say. You can archive this section again, if you wish. Fighting for Justice 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll rearchive it, but please see WP:NPA. Regardless of the correctness of this user's position, there is no reason to engage in personal attacks. BigDT 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A week after your reprimand, “Fighting for Justice” hurled the following rude remark at me (see Westerfield History page): “STOP EDITING THE ARTICLE TROLL”. I suppose I should be grateful: this is MILD by his standards.196.15.168.40 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on archiving: What is important is not whether the discussion is archived or not, but that something be DONE. I originally reported it here because my edits to the article were being constantly vandalized. Two MONTHS later, that hasn’t stopped. Someone must explain to “Fighting for Justice” what “neutral” means, and then ensure that he abides by Misplaced Pages policy. For example, the article MUST include evidence that Westerfield DIDN’T have child porn; and it MUST include evidence that Danielle had prior ACCESS to his motorhome. Neutrality is particularly important in the case of a living person.196.15.168.40 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I called you that, because you exhibit the behavior of one. You are constantly putting in information to make David Westerfield seem innocent, or wrongly convicted. The article is already very kind to him. Almost all the notes, with the exeception to the last one, put DW in a positive light. Yet you still complain it is not neutral enough. College age does mean adult age. What do you have against calling them adults? Link 8 is biased and YOUR original research. Your other links is the same information as in link 8. Link 8 is your soapbox, which was tagged as biased. You saving it without the tag is deceptive. Link 7 is hard to follow. The replies are all over the place and your arguments with another user are not special. Fighting for Justice 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”: So you admit you are guilty of a personal attack on me. I put in information which balances an incomplete, biased article. Let’s look at one of the notes (not the last one). Does the “Peeping Tom” allegation really put DW in a positive light? If we look in Link 7 (the Archived discussion), we’ll see how flimsy the evidence for that is. It was based on two things. One is that his estranged ex-wife suspected he spied on neighbors (but admitted she never caught him); the other is that the neighbor behind him said she had seen him - but that was the embellished version of the story, which was after the prosecutor had mentioned the binoculars in his opening statement. Yet you want to delete that link. Both his children were in college at the time, and they weren’t “mature” students but were of normal college age (18 and 21). They were described in a media report (which I quoted) as “college students”, so why are you so strongly opposed to that? Link 8 is a collection of verified evidence pointing to innocence. It states clearly what it is, both in the article (“Critical examinations of the evidence can be found at”), and in the link. And it was due to your soul mate and predecessor, TripleH1976, that it was tagged POV. Which was redundant because it states itself what it is: “Guilty? The verdict left many dissatisfied. ...” And, as I’ve pointed out many times, it’s NOT original research but source-based research. If you can follow the trial testimony - which the lay people comprising the jury were required to do - then you should be able to follow Link 7. And you have advantages over them, such as you can do a computer “Find” on the text.196.15.168.40 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been putting in information since March of this year. How much more do you need to balance? Who is the "many" that were unsatisfied with the verdict? Did you count them? Are they your friends? How much is many? 15? 30? 100? 1500?? What? Source-based research that's a term you invented. Where does wikipedia tell you you can do this? What other changes do you propose? That Damon got his back rubbed? That he kissed and snuggled with another woman who wasn't his spouse? Will that kind of stuff make the article neutral in YOUR opinion? The smoking of marijuana? The fact that the family ate pizza? The cancellation of the ski trip? If it weren't for myself and TripleH1976 I bet this type of stuff would be in the article. The article would be a cry festival for Westerfield. A good chunk of the article is positive to the child-killer. I bet ALL child-killers would love an article like this one. Fighting for Justice 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... guys ... please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Regardless of what you think of the other's view, this is way over the top. I've gone back and taken a look at some of the disputed edits. 196.15.168.40, I see that a couple of times, you added links to page history and to the talk page. Please take a look at WP:ASR - discussing Misplaced Pages is a really bad idea - this site is mirrored constantly and having self-references in there breaks the mirrors - that absolutely cannot be there no matter what the reason. Fighting for Justice, when reverting, rvv (with two v's) means "vandalism". No good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is ever vandalism. The current dispute seems to be whether to include the text "Some members of law enforcement, such as Detective Chris Armstrong, concluded that this was not child pornography". Please see WP:AWW. Saying "some people" is a bad idea. Was this detective the only one who believed it was not child pornography? If so, just say that. The other dispute seems to be over whether to call two people "adults" or "college students". Obviously most college students are adults. Can you explain the heartache one way or the other? If they are 30-year-olds working on their second phd, they should probably be called adults ... if they are 18-year-old freshmen, they should probably be called college students. The bottom line on all of this ... please be WP:CIVIL ... and remember that Misplaced Pages is not the place for pushing an agenda. BigDT 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we can focus on the article and not who is doing what to spin what, etc., maybe we can get somewhere. BigDT, maybe you can weigh in on this - the line about Det. Armstrong appears to be from a raw trial transcript published somewhere. The actual text is a defense lawyer who wants to hear Armstrong say that the material wasn't pornography but the judge refuses to let him say that. That's it. Apparently no one has ever reported on this anywhere. I'm not even sure it's relevant and God knows a defense lawyer is going to be biased (he's paid to be biased!). To me, allowing a line in this article saying that even Armstrong disputes the pornography based on that would be against WP:NOR, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know wikipedia is not a place to push an agenda. I've told User:196.15.168.40 this as well and he just doesn't get it. He thinks this is a place to retry the case again. He wants to right the wrongs he thinks happen. Armstrong's statement should not be included, because the transcript is about a defense lawyer trying to get that statement in. And you know what? He was DENIED. The transcript is hearsay and, not only that, we have no clue if Armstrong saw EVERYTHING Westerfield had. It goes against everything we do know about the child porn conviction. If this man didn't own child porn, why was he indicted for it? Why did the jury convict him of it? His lawyers knew he had that's why they build a defense for it. They tried to pass it off to his 18 year old son. Fighting for Justice 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please try to leave speculation as to 196.15.168.40's motives out of it - Misplaced Pages is about the product, not the personality. It would be easier to resolve this problem if you guys would quit with the personal jabs. As for the question itself - Detective Armstrong - there are two issues. One is whether he actually said it or not. If he is quoted somewhere as saying it, ok, that's fine, but if the only source is the unsubstantiated statement of the defense lawyer, I don't know how useful that is because there's no context. Did he say it just before the trial in a deposition? Did he say it the first day of the investigation? There's no context there. The second issue is what position he was in. Was he one of 100 detectives working on the case or was he the lead detective? If 100 people looked at it and one thought it was not child pornography, you don't want to give undue weight to the statement ... on the other hand, if he maintained from the beginning until the end of the case that there was no child pornography, then that's a meaningful statement. BigDT 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, will you agree with me the statement is poorly sourced? According to the biographies of living people policy controversial or poorly sourced statements are to be left out. You are right context is sorely lacking. Did he see the same stuff that was shown to the jury? If he did I find it very hard to believe he would say it wasn't child porn. I don't believe he saw all the material. Fighting for Justice 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Composite reply to discussion:

The evidence from members of law enforcement that this is not child porn, is (see the Westerfield Talk page): “there was a police report (by Detective Armstrong) quoted by the judge in court; the testimony of a member of the police (Watkins) who had worked alongside the author of that report (and who denied disagreeing with Armstrong’s conclusion) (the judge overruled the hearsay objection); possibly the same police report mentioned in a media report; the decision of an Assistant U.S. Attorney (quoted in the sworn affidavit for a search warrant); and the conclusion of a former member of law enforcement (Lawson) (ex the Secret Service, the DEA, and the US Customs Service, where he specialized in child porn crimes) (in a court document). ”

Very early in the case, Armstrong was asked by Lieutenant Collins, who was in charge of the Robbery and Special Investigations Unit, to evaluate the images. He did so and produced a report. The defense wanted to call him as a witness, but the judge (acceding to the prosecution’s request) wouldn’t allow EXPERT opinion (so much for a fair trial). The judge explicitly stated that he HAD read Armstrong’s report, so I don’t see how there can be any doubt that it says what the defense attorney says it does. As to the opinion of law enforcement officers other than Watkins and Armstrong, someone in the FBI presumably thought there was child pornography there, otherwise they wouldn’t have (unsuccessfully) approached the Assistant U.S. Attorney - unless it wasn’t a serious attempt, but just routine procedure to do so. Regarding the local police, I would quote Lawson’s statement: “None of the images in the computers themselves or the loose media are of the type normally presented for prosecution for child pornography cases. We feel certain that the law enforcement personnel of the San Diego laboratory are aware of this, which in our opinion, calls into question the governments initial refusal to allow the defense to have copies of the media.” That indicates that the DOMINANT opinion (perhaps even unanimous opinion) in the Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory, was that this was NOT child porn.196.15.168.40 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it to an appeals court then. if his conviction is overturned then come back here and we can include it in the article. Until then it doesn't have to be here. Fighting for Justice 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

BigDT asked for more information about Armstrong’s statement so I gave it. I have proved that he DID say it, and that it’s a MEANINGFUL statement. I now await BigDT’s response.196.15.168.40 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It matters squat that you proved it. It isn't the article's obligation to defend Westerfield against the charges he was convicted on. It's about time you understand that. Fighting for Justice 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart Template:Blpwatch-links

This article violates Misplaced Pages's guidelines for biographies of living persons.

It has been the target of frequent wiki lawyering, edit warring, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V and similar violations. The frequent violators would intimidate the new editors and then call in their friendly admins who then ban such newbie editors as a result.

The biggest problem is that for many years (since 1996), this prominent game industry developer was net stalked, harrassed and libeled by a certain individual named Bill Huffman, an employee at NCR and who lives in San Diego. This guy has run the gamut from instigating a kid who lived near Smart to find out where he lives, follow him around the neighborhood, to spearheading a search to find out information about Smarts newborn daughter. He created a libelous website, which according to forum and Usenet reports, has repeatedly been closed by Smarts lawyers, only to pop up elsewhere. His friends have tried in vein to have his site added to the wiki and now they have resorted to engaging in wars on the talk page as a result of this consensus rejection. All further attempts were also quelched and repeatedly so.

This Huffman character showed up on Wiki a short while ago and even though his edits are not permitted on the article, he has been using the talk page to inject his usual brand of harrassment and libel on other editors as well as Smart. Both actions which violate Wiki. Please see..

Commentary and Criticism of Smart

Marriages and Divorces

Going with the strict WP:BLP guidelines, I started to remove his libelous talk page comments, but this morning I am told that I cant do that, even though I know for a fact that I can.

This is what has been happening and I fear that if I continue to try and impose the wiki policies, that I would be blocked again as I have been in the past.

I offer evidence of Bill Huffmans contributions to date.

We need an admin to please come to the page, read his contributions and draw their own conclusions. For someone who has stalked another person for nigh on ELEVEN years, why would any editor think that Huffmans intentions and appearance on Smarts wiki are anything buy nefarious and an attempt to push pov? WarHawkSP 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. WarHawkSP is a single purpose account who has consistently been edit warring on the Derek Smart page. He's been blocked multiple times for 3RR and edit warring on that page, and consistently misinterprets the BLP policy to suit his needs: recently he unilaterally deleted talk page comments he disagreed with, citing BLP's ability to remove libelous material: the talk page comments were CLEARLY opinion, which does not constitute Libel under U.S. law, and were fair comment on a public entity. I strongly advise any decision makers on this topic to ignore his request. PS: WarHawkSP's request has been filed while under the guise of informal mediation on the topic. The fact that he would go behind the back of the mediation and make a claim here, though he did notify the talk page, is rather disingenious to me. ⇒ SWATJester 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You're just wiki lawyering. Anyone looking at my ban record shows that I've been blocked for the same things that I am reporting. In that you folks show favoritism to those who don't oppose you. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I clearly posted here because we weren't getting anywhere and its people like YOU who have made the situation go from bad to worse. People like you act like you are infallible. That nonsense you are posting about opinions, is just that NONSENSE. Anyone who understands anything to do with libel and opinion, can clearly read the links I posted and recognize them for what they are: libel. You have no clue what you're talking about and its people like you that gives others who are making their best effort on Wiki, a bad name. Where is the policy that says I have to clear it with you and your friends first before I can post a grieviance on a noticeboard? Where were YOU during all the other mediations that that the page has gone through? Have you even READ through the history? No. One of your friends calls you up to come and block someone, and the next thing you know - just like others before you - you think you have all the answers and then start taking sides. To any sane and neutral person, your post above, when compared to my complaint, just PROVES my point. Unlike you, who offers an OPINION, what I posted is based on FACTS because I have the cites to prove it.

At the end of the day, this person said it best. WarHawkSP 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've repeatedly warned WarHawkSP for incivility, and yet he continues with the incivility and personal attacks against me on this page now too. I think this is a pretty good representation of what's going on. This needs to go to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester 09:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It always easy to claim incivility when you're on the receiving end of a strong opinion. I consider your first post in this section to be uncivil; but you don't see me crying about it. It was not my intent to be uncivil, sorry you feel that way. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit war has gone on for over a year, this would best be solved by taking a case to Arbcom for review. Quinsisdos 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages, after looking over Quinsisdos' link on Arbcom I would have to agree with him. After working for almost a month to improve the Derek Smart page, I think we've exhausted all the other methods of resolving disputes to no avail. I offer my personal experiences with the two incidents here and here as evidence.

1. Trying to improve the edit results in reverts, with rationale such as "I don't know why you're tinkering with this" and "It's fine how it is."

2. Talking about the edit, citing evidence and describing my rationale results in the other editor ignoring my comments. After disengaging for nine days to cool down, I assumed consensus was reached, since four other editors agreed with me and the other editor hadn't responded to my evidence, although he was active in other aspects of the article during that period. I made the edit, citing this fact. Within 12 hours, a revert was made with no rationale beyond, "consensus hasn't been reached."

3. As seen here and here, formal and informal mediation with third parties has been tried to no avail.

4. Finally, surveys and straw polls have been tried on several occasions; when a consensus has been reached, the other side will ignore it later, citing "lack of consensus", or the fact that the methods are non-binding.

I admit that I'm drawn to this article because of the increased...interaction between editors that I don't see with some of my other edits, but at this point, it's become tiresome. Therefore, I support taking this to arbitration. Cardinal2 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kerr_avon Derek Smart is a game developer who is known not for the quality of his games which have all been critically panned but for his aggressive and foul mouthed defense of his said mediocre games, which have generated >50,000 USENET postings. As such most commentary by authorities in the gaming industry and game reviewers on him in the internet are critical of him and bear citation and inclusion in his biography which does not contravene wiki guidelines as the sources are reliable and reputed. He was single handedly responsible for the longest running flame war in the USENET history, a fact which could be attested as when he stopped taking part in the discussions the flame war ended. The Derek Smart article edit war was mainly due to the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses originate from fort lauderdale florida (Please see the talk page Talk:Derek_Smart) which is where Derek Smart resides. As such the biography possibly falls under WP:AUTO. Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad". Both WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr who are suspected to be sock puppets of Smart himself have been repeatedly banned for edit warring and 3rrr violation contrary to accepted consensus, and for trying to push there own POV and biased agenda of removing any properly cited contructive criticism of Derek Smart. They cite WP:BLP for removing cited commentrary critical of smart but fail to demonstrate the relevant clause under which the said cited info is not permitted. Once both accounts were banned both the talk page and the article were subjected to vandalism by rotating IP addresses. One solution would be to ban WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr and to leave the page in a semi protected mode where only registered users could edit it, with strict supervisations by admins, and a zero tolerance policy with regard to vandalism and POV pushing and SPA's. Failing that we can request arbitration.

You are the ONLY editor on that page who keeps claiming that people (not just myself or the accounts you listed above) are sock puppets. Get the facts straight. WarHawkSP 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe you are a sockpuppet of User:Supreme_Cmdr. Beyond that, I believe you are Derek Smart himself. However, this is irrelevant and totally not (practically, reasonably) provable. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to claim that the opposition is a sock puppet. This is the usual Wiki strawman argument with no factual basis. You folks can't seem to make up your mind about who you want to be a sock puppet from one day to the next. If anything, given Kerr's MO on the page in casting Smart in a bad light at every turn, one can argue that he is in fact a sock puppet of Huffman as well. I for one can't think of any editor on that page who I can accuse (Kerr doesn't appear to be smart enough to pull that off without getting caught) of being a sock puppet, because mostly they are mis-guided, have no clue or history on the subject (in this case Derek Smart) they are editing etc. Instead, they rely on pov statements, tainted and unsourced material and copious acts of common sense abandonment when it comes to editing the article.Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most everyone assumes that WarHawk, WarHawkSP, and Suprmem_Cmdr are all Derek Smart. They all have the same MO, the same writing style, the same set of lies they tell, especially about me. They have to all be Derek Smart. The only way I see that this edit war will end is if the article is deleted or everyone let's Derek write an autobiography for the Derek Smart article. Other than that his edit warring can only be slowed down by blocking/banning his current accounts etc.. Have fun, Bill Huffman 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming from you, color me shocked. Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary there was a majority consensus via a straw poll Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive4for inclusion of the werewolves site as a external link.The SPA WarhawkSP is true to form distorting the issue with false claims. There was additionally a recent majority consensus that since Smart became notable via his USENET postings that a USENET archive such as google groups could be used to cite facts.Kerr avon 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Once again your post has no basis in reality Kerr. Supreme_Cmdr 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything you posted amounts to the same thing you post on the Wiki talk page and which have been discounted and tossed out repeatedly. There is nothing factual now npov about your statements. Nothing new to see here. Please get some new material. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you beleive in the Goebbelsian theory of that "If a lie is repeated frequently it becomes the truth", The above statements are facts and they have not been discounted at all except by yourself by rhetoric and without providing evidence to the contrary as seen similar to the above statement made by you. Rather than talking rhetoric please respond on this prominent page to the above serious statements made by me.Kerr avon 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note let me say that the presence of Smart himself is probably the most important reason for the wiki edit war to survive just like the USENET flame wars survived for years till he left the scene. Till Smart/WarHawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr stop edit warring the edit wars will continue, as they are bent on pushing their own POV disregarding accepted consensus and wiki guidlines.Kerr avon 05:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And where do you see 'the presence of Smart?'. Have you not been warned about this already and that all you've been doing are making personal attacks against others who disagree with you? Like Huffman, your SOLE purpose is to inject libelous, non-factual and derogatory info into Smart's Wiki. Which is why none of your edits have thus far been allowed. WarHawkSP 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not my sole view, it is the views of others too that SPA's like yourself(WarhawkSP) and Supreme_Cmdr both have IP addresses from fort lauderdale florida with bellsouth as their ISP. Smart's home is in fort lauderdale and his ISP is bellsouth. Isn't it quite a coincidence that you and Supreme_Cmdr who are two of the most rabid SPA's who have been repeatedly blocked due to edit warring by removing cited content critical of Smart too have the same ISP and operate from the same area as Smart. Additionally both of your writing style's are similar to the abrasive and haughty style of Smart which made him notorious in the first place. I restate that this bio possibly falls under WP:AUTO for the above stated reasons. I completely disagree with warhakw's allegations as anyone going through my edits will see that i have contributed a lot to Sri lankan articles and can no way be called a SPA unlike WarhawkSP.Kerr avon 23:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I too concur that arbitration is needed, but can i ask if it will practically accomplish anything. So far there are certain undisputed facts such as that there is no wikipedia guideline forbidding commentary critical of Smart if it is properly sourced from a a reliable source, in fact WP:BLP states that commentrary critical is permitted however it has to be properly sourced. The crux of the matter is that supreme_cmdr and WarhawkSP are hell bent on removing any statement critical of smart even if it is properly sourced. So IMHO arbitration may not give the desired result, as edit warring by removing commentary critical of Smart no matter how well cited will continue to go on till one party or another gets banned or quits. WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr are simply not the type to comply with the arbitration process, as evidenced by their persistent blocking for reverting without consensus and repeated warnings for uncivil behaviour.Kerr avon 11:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat Template:Blpwatch-links

One contributor (Gstaker (talk · contribs)) thinks that information sourced to an article in the Washington Post should be removed because he thinks the Washington Post is not a reliable source.

Another editor (Momento (talk · contribs)) asserts that allegations of anxiety and heavy drinking can only be made by a qualified doctor if not, as is the case in this article, the article, according to him, violates WP:BLP policy.

I disagree with the reasoning of these two contributors. Andries 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The claims that you classify are as exceptional are not in the entry nor does anyone currently wants to add them, so I think that your comments are irrelevant. I omitted adding that part of the Washtington Post article to the entry because I could find no corroboration, in contrast to the claims of heavy drinking. I cannot know whether the excerpts that you quote are sensationalist lies or not because I was not there, though again, I do not intend to add them to the entry. Andries 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good original research, Andries. Selective quoting from one article, based on your presumption of lack of corroboration for the part you did not quote, but omitting the fact that there is lack of corroboration for the part you did include, is violating NOR and demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source. Any editor reading the whole quote will know that this is sensationalist BS and will avoiding touching that source in a BLP as being "poorly sourced". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you state, there is corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation that I included both in reputable sources and non-reputable sources. For example in the book by Spohia Collier Soul Rush that is also used as a source for the article Prem Rawat. Andries 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not know whether what is written is sensational bullshit and I do not know how to find out. Andries 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(ed conflict)Sources, Andries, sources. An editor can make the assessment that as these extraordinary allegations are not reported in any other source, and given that there are hundreds of scholarly sources on the subject that do not mention any of that, these cab be assessed to be extraordinary claims that do not have the necessary support to be considered anything than a "poor source", in particular given the context in which these were made. As editors we have some responsibilities that we cannot skirt by playing the "I don't know" card. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you write, there is not a single scholarly biography on Prem Rawat. In contrast a lot has been written about the related subejct Divine Light Mission. Of course, I can say write that I do not know when I really do not know and have no way to find out. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please stop disingenously stating that there is no corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation. Apart from the already mentioned reputable source, somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources for this are Dettmers statements, and Mishler radio interview. Andries 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement that I engage in Misplaced Pages:original research when I use my knowledge and my common sense to assess whether sources are reliable in a certain context. Assessing sources is the right and duty of contributors. Andries 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The source we are talking about describes the radio interview, so I do not understand what you are saying. There are no other sources corroborating any of these sensationalist claims. Who is the disingenuous here, Andries? Or is it that you believe that it is OK to selectively cite from an article based on an editors' presumptions based on "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources"? You may need to refresh your memory on WP:NOR and WP:V, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sophia Collier wrote in her book that Prem Rawat and his brother got slushed during Millenium '73. Andries 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a 13 year old having some fun maybe?. But that is very different than saying that he "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" alongside saying that he engaed in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop mentiong off-topic quotes? That latter quote is not in the article nor does anyone intend to add to the article. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because if you did add the quotes that you selectively omitted, it will clearly destroy the credibility of the other statement and of the person that made them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to add it? Andries 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A thirteen year old having fun by drinking a lot of alcohol during an event that he himself described as the "most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." is not innocent. Andries 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is okay to quote selectively from a reputable source based on common sense, personal experience, corroboration form other reputable sources, or non-reputable sources etc. Again, assessing sources is the right and the duty of contributors. You can quote more from the article in the Washington Post if you think that I have omitted something important. Andries 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not OK, Andries, as per my arguments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain? I do not understand your reasoning. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try: The article describes the opinion of Misher, saying that in a radio interview he said that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". The same article describes him as saying that PR engaged in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools". These explosive allegations are not mentioned in any other source besides this article. None of the scholarly sources describe these traits even these sources that containing highly critical material, such as these from your favorite Dutch scholars. So, as a responsible editor, and given this is a BLP, we can safely assert that this source does not meet the threshold for being a high quality reference: Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives, WP:BLP advises us. And we should listen to that advise, not dismiss it on the basis of one's knowledge of "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the reputable source the Washington Post the allegation of heavy drinking was also reported by Mishler and another inner circle member called Dettmers in an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated Septembre 21, 2002 Andries 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You forgot to disclose who exactly was the journalist that wrote the article, his trial for conspiring to steal data to harm PR and his students, the judge comments, and the affidavits he signed in which he says that "because of my media connections I was supported by the Group to publish articles that furthered the goal of defaming Prem Rawat and his students" and that "based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications", etc. So, these sources are as unreliable as these can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the media articles were never retracted by the magazines. And there is another person who signed a similar affadivit in the same affair i.e. Tgubler (talk · contribs) who has not stopped being critical about Rawat. All this suggests that these affadavits were signed to get rid off a nasty litigation instead of a genuine change of heart. Andries 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the person that was the co-conspirator about which the judge said to "suffer from a credibility handicap" when he tried to retract his testimony? In any case, you are just speculating. Let these affidavits speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you do not convince me when you assert that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please note that the wording of Washington Post article suggested that Rawat's anxiety was not just a detail of Rawat's private life, but relevant for his notability because of Rawat's claim to bring peace. I admit that the Washington Post would not be the most suitable references if there were multiple scholarly biographies of Rawat, but there is none. Andries 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are abundant scholarly sources about Prem Rawat, see the article itself, and none of them support these statements, even the most critical ones. The arguments are all laid here for other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. The subject of these scholarly sources is Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (organization). Not Prem Rawat. Where is the scholarly biography of Prem Rawat? Andries 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue? These scholarly sources describe him, his youth, the succession, the arrival to the West in the 70's, his marriage, the family rift that ensued, the evolution of the presentation of his message, etc, etc. So again, there are substantial scholarly sources that describe Prem Rawat's life. Do these have the title "Biography"? no. But that does not mean that we do not have sources about him. We do, and plentiful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, untrue. If you think otherwise then please show me one scholarly article that has either an extensive description of Rawat's life or has Rawat as its main subject. Andries 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can keep saying "untrue" until you get blue in the face, Andries. But the fact is that there are many notable individuals about which there is abundant sources describing their life-work, and do not have a biography with an "extensive description of their lives". That does not mean that there is no material about their lives to serve as the basis for article about them in Misplaced Pages, and furthermore, that does not mean that we should use material that is unsuitable (as per the arguments I made above), just because there is not such biography available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have observed that you have made the same argument in the pasts in other biographies. These arguments are in contradiction with WP:BLP, in particular when BLP asks asks to be very firm about the quality of our sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the Washington Post not a high quality source? Andries 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument, Andries. I am not disputing the quality of the Washington Post. Please go to to the beginning of this section and re-read the arguments provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)As one coming fresh to this dispute, I see the Washington Post as a fine example of a reliable source. Further, there is absolutely no requirement that an associate of the subject be a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist to observe that he was anxious or stressed and that he drank a lot to deal with it. We as the readers can note that the quote is from a former associate and not from the man's doctor, who would in any event be forbidden from releasing such information by the strictures of medical ethics. The quote should be attributed to the person who said it, and should be complete enough that it is not taken out of context. Claiming that it is a "minority view" violating Misplaced Pages policy since most of the man's other followers have not described him as anxious or a heavy drinker is a red herring. The quote appears well sourced and should be included. If the other editors have a quote wherein a follower said in a reliable publication that he was not a drinker and was not anxious, they should add that. That is how a NPOV treatment of a subject works. Edison 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Jossi is mistaken when he writes as I may sunmarize his way of reasoning that a reputable source completely stops being a reputable source if it makes an uncorroborated implausible statement. Yes, may be he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Misplaced Pages entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did). But of course, we can still use the corroborated statements from the reputable source for the Misplaced Pages entry. I think Jossi's reasoning "demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source", to use his own words. Andries 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You summarise Jossi well - "maybe he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Misplaced Pages entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did)". Exactly!. Be true to truth.Momento 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Edison, for your comments. Note that the discussion was not about about if the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, or if the comment made by these persons in the article can be attributed to them. The question was about the selective quoting from that source to avoid giving readers the possibility to understand the context in which they made these comments. Any sensible reader will most probably dismiss these outrageous allegations, if the have the opportunity to read all what they said. Andries decided to just add a specific allegatiion that in his opinion is plausible, while omitting others that are, in his opinion, implausible. My contention is that when you cite you cannot make these "editorial decisions", as you are engaging in a clear attempt to enhance the reputability of the source by selectively omitting material that shatters the credibility of the source. So, either we, as responsible editors do not use that source in a BLP, or we cite the comments of these people without selectively omitting other material. My opinion is that we should not use that source on the basis of it being "poorly sourced" in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I consciously added only material from the Washington Post that is corroborated and omitting that is what uncorroborated. I often leave out uncorroborated statements from reputable sources or statements that I consider implausible. I am not going to change my habit in this regard of making good editorial decisions. Feel free to add more information from the Washington Post that will allow the reader to make an informed decision about the accusations. Andries 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An exceptional, sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employer who died in the 70's is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. That a newspaper reproduced this claim doesn't excuse it from failing every other test for inclusion.Momento 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is a non-exceptional claim voiced in a reputable source (Washington Post) that is more or less corroborated by other reputable sources such as Sophia Collier's book Soul Rush and by another inner circle member i.e. Dettmers (in among others an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002). In addition it is corroborated by yet another inner circle member in a non-reputable source. Here Momento admits more or less that it is a non-exceptional claim Andries 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Andries. The Washington Post article includes material from the same person that is my all means and "extraordinary claim". You decided to "censor" that material and leave other material that you consider to be not extraordinary, when it is when taken as a whole. John McGregor's legal imbroglio, and subsequent ruling by a judge coupled with his apology renders that source to be of the same quality: "poorly sourced". As per BLP, that material has no place in a WP article. Your continuous efforts to keep a partially censored reference to that Washington Post article, without addressing other editor's concerns about that material is a case of WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unconvincing Jossi, if you want the full story to be told to the readers then feel free to add more material from reputable sources. I have no problem adding it myself though you never answered the question whether you want me to add it. Do not censor well-sourced material from from reputable sources. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question Andries. If a 30 year old exceptional and sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employee who died in the 70's turned up in a local paper about (insert any notable person), would you include it in their autobiography?Momento 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-exceptional, corroborated claim voiced in a national newspaper from one of the few persons who could know. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MIshler is not a reputable source and no scholar or journalist has corroborated his claims. Jossi, could you please block Andries from the PR article?Momento 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You omitted some of material, because they shatter the credibility of the source. When taken in their totality, that material violates WP:BLP. You cannot cite only what you perceive as credible ands omit what you perceive as plausible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil McGraw Template:Blpwatch-links

An anon is adding disgusting libel to this article. I've blocked them for 24 hours, but be on the lookout. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

John Cena Template:Blpwatch-links

On the article's talk page, we're looking to get consensus on whether or not putting statements about anal sex into his personal information section is relevant or not. To sum it up quickly, John Cena is a professional wrestler. Apparently in October, he made a statement on the Howard Stern radio show that he isn't into anal sex. It's been added, reverted, added, and reverted off and on in the past month or so. We'd like some outside views on this as to its relevance within the confines of the article (does the fact that the section is all about personal information open it up to something like this?) and whether this is an issue at all in terms of the guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Metros232 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is completely irrelevant, particularly since it's a denial. You may as well list all the arenas he hasn't wrestled in.Momento 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been added back again with no consensus to do so yet. So I'm not sure how to handle this situation. There are about 2 users who want it in and 2 or 3 who don't. I'd appreciate more input on the talk page. Metros232 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Earl Mindell Template:Blpwatch-links

This is an author whose article is on the radar of several POV pushers who want to highlight the dubiousness of some elements of the subject's history and current activities. The main reason I'm posting here is because some of the sources for references (like quackwatch) are out of my experience as to whether or not they are acceptable. POV creeps into the article on a regular basis also. Anchoress 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones Template:Blpwatch-links

Although I believe his research is nonsense, the talk page Talk:Steven E. Jones#Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense slanders him. I don't feel it's my place to remove the section, because both theories are WP:BOLLOCKS, but could some 9/11 conspiracy theorist comment? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Kennealy-Morrison Template:Blpwatch-links

My concern about this article is that the subject's own book is used to source the subject's own claims, with no independant verification of the subject's claims being used. I would politely request that the section in question is removed. The section which is poorly sourced is in relation to Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's claims to have married Jim Morrison. There are no sources cited, other than Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's book, 'Strange Days: My Life With And Without Jim Morrison.' I was under the impression that proper sourcing needed to be in place in order to allow publication of claims within Misplaced Pages. I would remove the offending material myself; however, a tendentious editor accused myself and others of vandalism when reasonable changes were made to the article. Maybe an editor is available to take a look at this (but please, not an editor who is already assigned as the 'regular' editor?). This is a high-profile article, when one considers that the claims centre around Jim Morrison, who is to put it mildly, rather well known on a worldwide basis.

BLP applies to unsourced material. This is sourced, and doesn't fall under BLP. The reliable sources guideline is broken, but even it allows the book to be used as a source. Books published by major publishing houses are not considered self-published. Moreover, the claim is very high profile, and I'd think that if there was anything false about it we'd have heard by now. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been other sources which have commented on her claims. They could be included to discuss her book's reliability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric Shinseki

User Zsero is repeatedly using a hatchet-job article from the National Review to claim Shinseki was close to insubordination. His/Her edit says that "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." The cited article is clearly politically biased. It merely quotes "According to an Army source". Does this qualify as the kind of "fact" worthy of Misplaced Pages? The article makes predictions that proved incorrect about Shinseki, namely that he had political ambitions: "Shinseki's retirement two months ago coincides nicely with the planned — but yet unannounced — retirement of Inouye at the end of his current term in 2004. Shinseki will run for that seat, and most likely will win." Inouye did not retire in 2004, and is still Hawaii's Senator. The article goes on to state "any general like Shinseki, whose political ambitions interfere with his willingness to carry out civilian orders, must go".

Boris Stomakhin

I have created an article about Boris Stomakhin, a journalist who was recently imprisoned in Russia for exercising his free speech rights. User Vlad fedorov repeatedly inserts citation from an allegedly Stomakhin's article, taken out of context, to defame this imprisoned journalist as a fool and extremist (see last "Further political activity" chapter in the article about him - I will delete it again). Not only such citation is biased, but the cited paper may not actually belong to Stomakhin. The original source of the text is basically a blog run by several young people. Moreover, there are already claims in media that Stomakhin was convicted for articles he actually did not write. I summarized my arguments in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, "Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons".Biophys 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Would it be possible to have an advice from a neutral person who is familiar with Misplaced Pages policies? Whatever such person decide, I would accept. My only concern is to have an objective article that provide information rather than propaganda from any side. Biophys 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to resolve the situation, but apparently it did not work. My arguments can be found in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, but I would like to repeat them here:

"Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the cited fragment of the text has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading this and his his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article."

You wanted to write that decision of administrator Alex Bakharev who found this source to be reliable and rewrote that passage doesn't suit you. He also found my translation to be correct.Vlad fedorov 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the segment of the text allegedly written by Stomaknin was impecisely translated to English. There is nothing else I can do. I will never again write any articles about "controversial" persons, because there is no way to protect their views and even facts of their life from crude falsification in Misplaced Pages. Biophys 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it not strange that Biophys who is russian by nationality living in USA, could do nothing with "wrong" translation? He could suggest better translation, which he didn't. Instead he claims that 'there is nothing else I could do" which is weird.Vlad fedorov 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K, I added some statements of ARTICLE 19, Committee to Protect Journalists, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, etc. in Boris Stomakhin article to show that I am not alone in this opinion. So, we need an objective article about him.Biophys 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin", talk page and its archive. Statement from Committee to Protect Journalists is taken by user Biophys from Blog, and the statement from Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false and libelous statements. For more details and facts of user Biophys abusing and violationg Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin" and its talk page.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A proposal. The situation with Boris Stomakhin article is getting worse and worse. Obviously, we can not have a Misplaced Pages article dedicated to defamation of a journalist who is sitting in prison cell for free speech being "practically paralyzed". This article became an object of vandalism (see talk page), editing war between several partisan editors, and the Russian language sources are even more unreliable than I thought. For example, the texts of the most contentious alleged Stomakhin's paper "Death to Russia" are obviously different when cited by different sources (see talk page). The problem: Stomakin's writings are considered offensive by many Russians. I suggest the following way out of the trouble.

1. Find an arbiter who is not Russian. 2. Exclude any Russian language sources as difficult to verify by third parties. 3. Make an NPOV version of the article and lock it from any further editing. Me (as an original creator of this article) or anyone else can prepare a new version of this article based exclusively on English sources. The arbiter can make any necessary editing and lock it. Another option is to remove the entire paper.Biophys 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the user Biophys in his 'proposal' uncovered his real motives. Boris Stomakhin is a russian politician and talks only on Russian. Biophys wants actually to prevent non-russian users of Misplaced Pages from learning new information from reliable russian sources, beacuse russian sources are not in support of user Biophys views. The incident was already resolved twice by administrator Alex Bakharev and twice he found user Biophys to be wrong.Vlad fedorov 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, pay attention at the request by Biophys, he's currently asking to find 'an arbiter who is not Russian', next time he would ask to find 'an arbiter who will rule in his favor'.Vlad fedorov 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If this proposal about using only reliable English language sources and locking the article is accepted, I would not mind if Alex Bakharev was an arbiter and edited new version of the article that I could prepare. All links to unreliable Russian language sources can be also provided, but they should be marked as "articles allegedly written by Stomakhin", and so on. Biophys 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, please state here all your reasons of unreliability of Stomakhin's articles "Death to Russia". And why there are 'allegedly wriiten by Stomakhin'? For I could critisize any of your sources as 'allegedly written by the their authors' then. I complied with all Misplaced Pages policies by citing Stomakhin's article. May I bring to your attention that according to Misplaced Pages policy I could cite even a blog, but only in case it is written by the subject, e.g. Stomakhin? Vlad fedorov 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to pay attention of all people reading this section that Biophys consistently mentions that he could write NPOV article about Stomakhin. Is it not strange that this person consistently asks for such weird things like to remove all sources on Russian, to select non-Russian arbiter, to rewrite himself the article about Stomakhin which is the cause of the dispute?Vlad fedorov 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K. I just edited Boris Stomakhin article using Russian language sources and included citation of "Death to Russia" by Sokolov (although I feel this is violation of LP). If Alex Bakharev or any neutral 3-rd party editor (I suggested non-Russians to avoid nationalistic feelings) verified this text now for consistency with LP policy and corrected it as needed, that would solve the problem I hope. Biophys 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The user Biophys right now reverts my additions to the article which add citations of Stomakhin which are contained in the official court sentence for Boris Stomakhin. He deletes my additions without any explanation by telling me that he complies "LP policy". Is it LP policy to delete additions which are supported with reliable sources?Vlad fedorov 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Death_.26_Putin.27s_birthday and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Unsourced_speculation to see that I am not alone who are fed up with Biophys political propaganda. Even non-Russians complain that Biophys publishes propaganda in Misplaced Pages.Vlad fedorov 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Allen Template:Blpwatch-links

Byron Allen interviewed Ronnie Lott on his syndicated interview show. During the interview Lott says that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated if Byron Allen had not helped them cheat in an Anthropology class. Should this be included in the Marcus Allen article? --Gbleem 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible Lott was joking? If so, it definitely shouldn't be included in Marcus Allen. And even if Lott was completely serious, that doesn't make him an authoritative source as to what Marcus Allen's grades in the anthropology class were. So I would say, no, it does not belong in the Marcus Allen article. --Metropolitan90 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I put it in the article. I don't think I would have put it in if I thought Lott was joking. They did laugh about it but I think that is just because they thought it was funny in retrospect and not because he was making a joke. Assuming I can get a copy of the video what criteria should I use to determine if he is joking? I suppose someone could interview him again and he could say he was joking. --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point on the grades. If I remove the statement about grades could Lott be considered a reliable source on the issue of cheating? --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elfriede Motzkuhn

At there are up for deletion 15 articles which state that various women were Nazi concentration camp guards. No references whatsoever are presented in the articles which state that they were guards, and that some of them were convicted, and that the fates of all are unknown. These articles were up for deletion before but the nomination failed for lack of consensus. In the present debate someone voted for deletion for non-notability but stated "She was born in 1917. That would make her 89 years old, and I am not overly worried about biography of living persons. " Does BLP fade away if the subject would be 89, or 103? I could see some elderly defamed person seeking a windfall for their family. I would normally be inclined to blank the articles but I'm not sure what to do when they are up for deletion anyway. Blanking a nominated article would seem to confuse the process, but blanking it if it is kept would also seem odd. The original article creators were probably working from a book or webpage, but did not cite it, and this sort of allegation smacks of the Siegenthaler incident, but goes back an extra 20 years. These articles have been mirrored all over the internet, and seem to be the original reports. Edison 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ross Gelbspan Template:Blpwatch-links

I'm not an editor of this article, but the subject of the article has reverted edits to make his entry more favorable. I flagged this for NPOV and expert attention. The Talk page has nothing on it, but these reversion and edit wars seem to be ongoing. I'm mentioning this article here because this may need attention, mediation, etc. I'm not sure if there are guidelines for subject reversions. Experienced mediation help would be great. JazzyGroove 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Carmelo Anthony

72.73.50.2 had inserted "See, e.g., Carmelo Anthony." into the article Sucker-punch. --Arno Matthias 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Proctor

75.8.103.125 had inserted an uncomfirmed bulletin board posting into the References section. -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin Template:Blpwatch-links

I recently added some material to the biography of Vladimir Putin that relates to the press censorship and other undemocratic actions of the Putin government. The material has been repeatedly removed by Alex Bakharev with the explanation that minor violations of civil rights should not be included in the biography. I have mentioned in my additions, the widely reported accusations of murder by the former KGB agent in London who died recently of Polonium poisoning. No one can deny that this event is a major news event and has strained relations between Russian and Britain. It should be included in the biography as long as it is carefully noted that it is only an allegation at this point. I call upon the editors of Misplaced Pages to carefully consider the possibility that these deletions in Misplaced Pages may have been instigated by the Russian government itself, a government that is extremely sensitive to criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.13.136.170 (talk • contribs).

I don't think this is a issue of BLP concern. Nil Einne 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking over Putin's article it seems like it is very much slanted in his favor.Steve Dufour 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

'Slanted in his favor' by users inserting unsupported allegations from mass media like Putin has killed Litvinenko, Politkovskaya and so on? You would like to mention he was behind murders of Kennedy, Mahatma Ghandi and Ceasar too, right? You have to look at "George W. Bush" article definitely.Vlad fedorov 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir Template:Blpwatch-links

Someone has vandalized the biography of His Beatitude Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir by having questions included in the sub-article of his involvement in politics and the removal of information from this article to slander his work as an anti-Syrian nationalist..

Angela Beesley

Angela Beesley: I suggest for developers to delete all versions of her article that contain her date of birth. It is a sensitive private information of a non-public person. This info may potentially be abuses eg in identity theft. `'mikkanarxi 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agreee with you ... but she's an administrator ... so I would assume that if there's any troublesome revisions, she can take care of them. ;) At any rate, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight for the procedure to make such requests. BigDT 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

She's also a steward, which means she can give herself oversight and get rid of the information herself. MER-C 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can make the claim that Beesley is a "non-public person." Does she not sit on public boards? Quatloo 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Koenraad Elst Template:Blpwatch-links

• Users hornplease and TwoHorned have been persistently editing some material into "Koenraad Elst" over the course of several months that are violations of WP:BLP. The following statements:

"He has also been accused of connections to the Vlaams Blok by Sanjay Subrahmanyam (a professor at University of California, Los Angeles) in the Times of India"

is based on one source and a newspaper op/ed to boot. It is an unsupported statements and has the connotations of an opprobrium, making it a BLP violation unles it is sourced more reliably.

"has contributed with other interventions described by Prof. R. Zydenbos on his homepage as emanating from right-wing circles in Belgium"

is based on the following linke:

It is a geocities site. It's authenticity cannot be verified. We do not know if it really belongs to Zydebos, who is not notable enough to have his criticism mentioned. Also, BLP#Reliable Sources clearly states:

"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

This is clearly a diatribe written against Elst by this Zydebos chap who has not published it anywhere other than his "website" so BLP mandates that it be removed

These points have been raised, but hornplease and TwoHorned keep adding them in and mass revert-warring with a clear intent to defame Elst on wikipedia (as their talk page posts indicate) based on political biases and various degrees of ethno-religious bigotry expressed by hornplease.// अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 16:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ConcurBakaman 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. TwoHorned's BLP violations were also discussed at an WP:RfAr, but we assumed good faith and didn't take any action then. User:Hornplease is a member of the BLP project, and regularly and often deletes "pov" from other BLP articles, so he should know better than supporting WP:BLP violations, and should also treat articles about people he dislikes the same way. (Though to his credit he recently removed OR from the article.) --Bondego 14:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Boudin Template:Blpwatch-links

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

The article shows rampant POV, seemingly looking to paint her as a one-dimensional mad leftist radical. The writer knows nothing about her or her views or the work she did in prison, or her dedication to peaceful change in the current time.

Note: The articles on her husband, as well as the Weather Underground as they are on the same touchy subject show the same bias. Fair treatment of individuals does not mean an indictment of their beliefs, no matter how radical they may be. Winnebagan 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Ga-Ken Wan Template:Blpwatch-links

Self publicity by the individual in question, quote by Alasdair Gray is not referenced nor (presumably) referenceable.

84.13.227.58 19:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should probably be deleted but it appears to be more of a vanity and non-notability thing then of BLP concerns Nil Einne 16:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tony Martin (professor) Template:Blpwatch-links

This biographical article falls considerably short of the standards of Misplaced Pages; it is full of unsourced claims and it is completely biased in its presentation of a controversial, if obscure, individual. Tony Martin is "considered by many to be the foremost scholar on the life of Marcus Garvey"? Really: by whom, exactly? What is the rating system for evaluating scholars of Marcus Garvey? The article also claims that Martin's work, "The Jewish Onslaught"--one of the most patently and ludicrously anti-Semitic diatribes to have been published in America in recent years--was written in response to efforts by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups to repress Martin's scholarship. Is this claim documented? Is it even credible? It is further worth asking why this article stops its narration of Martin around the year 1993: has he done anything of merit since then? Has he published a book since "The Jewish Onslaught"? Or have "the Jews" succeeded in their efforts to "silence" him?

Far from being a first-rate scholar of Marcus Garvey, Martin since the mid-nineties has been nothing better than a second-rate Leonard Jeffries. His Misplaced Pages article, to the extent that he merits an article at all, should reflect this.

Viera Scheibner Template:Blpwatch-links

The information contained in the Criticisms of this living person's biography is POV and potentially libelous, and therefore should be deleted. POV criticism of the critics has also been removed demonstrating a bias. The habitual replacement of libelous material seemingly indicates a vendetta against Viera Scheibner.

Agreed that this needs watching, but not with the reason. This is about a content dispute between mainstream/skeptical editors (who view Scheibner as a quack) and supporters of her medically unqualified anti-vaccination activities. The article is under major sockpuppet attach from the latter. 82.25.234.106 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun

He was a Scientology leader but has dropped out and seemingly become a non-person. About half of his article is taken up by conspiracy theories about him by another ex-Scientology leader, Barbara Schwarz. She seems to be saying that he is a bigamist. I tried taking this part of the article out but it was put back by the group of people who handle the Scientology-related articles here. Steve Dufour 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the material is sourced, I don't see a good reason to remove it. I put in some {{fact}} tags, because sources are needed. It seems that he's notable for two things: becoming a Scientology Unperson, and being the subject of Barbara Schwarz's delusions. Because he's notable on his own, it's worth including the stuff about Schwarz. If he were otherwise not notable, that material would be better merged to her article. Argyriou (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara's theories are already well covered in her own article. Steve Dufour 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dufour's claims are ill-founded. He is improperly combining what he believes to be true (i.e., that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to Anne Rathbun) with what Barbara Schwarz believes to be true (that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to her, Barbara Schwarz.) Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to support the theory that Barbara Schwarz shares his beliefs about Mark Rathbun being married to anyone else. Only if one holds both beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to indicate there is anyone out there holding both beliefs.

For Mr. Dufour to file this report (with no mention of it made on the relevant talk page, I might add) falsely presenting his conclusions, drawn from combining Barbara Schwarz's beliefs with his own, as what Barbara Schwarz "seems to be saying", is manifestly irresponsible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If Barbara's theories are patently false then I don't think so much space, about half of the article, should be devoted to them. If her theories might be true then the article shouldn't present his marriage with Anne as a fact, as it does. Steve Dufour 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The last time I read WP:NPOV I didn't get the impression that it said "you must either describe what the vast majority of the world accepts as the truth as only something possibly true, or you must abstain from discussing the fact that anyone else has ever believed anything else." If you don't think that "about half of the article" should discuss Barbara Schwarz's claims regarding Rathbun, then please find us more information from reliable sources about Mark Rathbun and then the single paragraph discussing Schwarz won't be as large a part of the whole. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Should half of Queen Elizabeth's article talk about the theory that she is really an alien lizard from outer space? Steve Dufour 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that parenthetical claim "(which quite a few believe)". It's good to avoid straw man arguments. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

At least a million more people believe the queen is an alien lizard than believe Mark and Barbara are married. :-) Steve Dufour 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And so far not even one person has been presented who believes that Mark was married to Barbara and to Anne -- certainly not Barbara, which makes it an irresponsible misrepresentation for you to bring this here claiming that she "seems to be" making claims of bigamy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case maybe Barbara's theories should be removed from Mark's article. Steve Dufour 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Mr. Dufour. Please read carefully. The fact that no one believes your original research combination of Schwarz's beliefs and the general beliefs contradicted by Schwarz does not say a single thing about what should or should not be in the article. One might as well say that because no one believes that the Apollo moon landings were both real and faked, it means that Misplaced Pages should never discuss anyone believing that they were faked. Frankly, it seems you are trying to game the system -- first, filing a completely false report that Schwarz "seems to be saying" Rathbun is a bigamist to get the article onto this noticeboard, and then continuing to argue what you think should be done with the article even after it's been clearly shown that your excuse for bringing it here is purely your own misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it? Steve Dufour 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)p.s. If only one person believed the moon landings were fake I don't think it would be mentioned in the WP article on them.

What is wrong with sticking with the truth, Mr. Dufour? What makes you think that you are entitled to manufacture an issue to try and make things go your way? What you are doing is the Misplaced Pages article namespace equivalent of POV forking, and just like any determined POV-pusher called out on his misdeeds, you are trying to pretend the issue is whether you get your way, not the fact that you already made all the same arguments and when you didn't convince consensus, you did an illegal end-run to try and dodge consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors is that a conspiracy theory believed in by only one person, as far as I know that is, should be allowed to take up half the space in an article? Steve Dufour 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you had a concern about the article which was actually based on the facts and which had not already been rejected by consensus, you would have had no reason to resort to submitting this false report. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor (footballer)

There is an edit war going on at this page between at least 2 people concerning the name of his wife and child/children! Neither person quotes sources or signs themselves, nor do they seem to read the talk page asking them to do this. Hyperman 42 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps Template:Blpwatch-links

User:143.81.252.12 has added defamatory information about subject, and was reverted. He re-added the material, but included a {{fact}} tag, and was reverted. The second reverter (who beat me by seconds) also placed a warning on user's talk page; I added a note with further explanation. Hopefully, that will take care of the issue, but 143.81.252.12 may come back, and the material is a rumor which has been floating around a while; if he doesn't bring it back, someone else might. Argyriou (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Speleers Template:Blpwatch-links

There is an edit war concerning this actor's date of birth. In particular, various sources I have found provide two different years (including the actor's website and IMDb). There is a small discussion as to the what the correct birth date is on the talk page, but the article is generally unstable due to the rate at which the birth date is change. We have also seen in increase in vandalism lately, but that is easy enough to remove on a per-case basis. // Todayisdifferent 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein Template:Blpwatch-links

This is a dispute concerning a edit I made to the biographical section of the article on Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and professor at DePaul University. Dr. Finkelstein is well known for works challenging certain facts about the Holocaust and the State of Israel.

In all of his publications and public appearances, Dr. Finkelstein makes the point that his parents were survivors of the Holocaust. He has stated that his mother and father were both survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto, as well as concentration camps and labor camps.

Whether of not Finkelstein's parents were indeed Holocaust survivors is important because it lends his positions a degree of credibility that would otherwise be absent.

My edits changed the categorical statement that Finkelstein's parents were survivors to statements that these accounts were due to Finkelstein himself.

My changes were removed by another editor who made no attempt to contact me and characterized my changes using extremely disparaging language. I engaged him on the discussion page of the article, and offered to soften the language while preserving the fact that the status of Finkelstein's parents as Holocaust survivors is due to Finkelstein himself and has no independent, third-party verification. I have not been able to resolve this matter in that context.

I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons and feel that my edit can be worded within those guidelines and that it adds important information about Dr. Finkelstein.

I would like assistance in resolving this dispute. The record of it can be found in the section on "claiming" in the discussion page of the Norman Finkelstein article.

Thanks for your assistance.

Robert E. Rubin Roberterubin 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin

The question here does not seem to be so much a matter of WP:BLP as of original research, as I assume the parents are no longer living. Have any critics of Norman Finkelstein cast doubt on whether his parents were Holocaust survivors? If the answer is no, then there is no real issue. If the answer is yes, then the dispute can be described. I would avoid writing "the only source is Finkelstein himself" or some such wording, because it implies "I think he's wrong but cannot prove it". Sam Blacketer 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.

Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Itche Goldberg Template:Blpwatch-links

• Itche Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two days ago an anon listed this person as having died. I can find nothing in news.google.com which even mentions him, let alone his death. I have reverted pending a source. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• • His death has been reported again, with the only reference being alt.obituaries. Still zero refs at news.google.com. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prem Rawat

Dispute between Momento (talk · contribs) and Andries (talk · contribs) about repeated removal by Momento of sourced information from the talk page that Momento considers poorly sourced.

This dispute deals with more or less the same material as the Criticism of Prem Rawat dispute that is also listed on this noticeboard in another section hereabove.

Andries 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ascended_master

There are a number of problems with the addition of a "Critical" section under "External Links". This article is about the religious belief that calls saints in Heaven "Ascended Masters" and is not exclusive to any one organization or church. It is not about a political party position or a scientific theory; it is simply a religious belief.

Having these "Critical" links does not fit the external links guideline because it is not relevant to the article, rather these links are related to the Church Universal and Triumphant and / or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Therefore these links could be on the Church_Universal_and_Triumphant or Elizabeth_Clare_Prophet pages if desired by other editors.

Another issue, is from the Misplaced Pages: Three Revert Rule WP:3RR: Reverting potentially libelous material: "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary."

>>> The repeated adding of blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous external web site links attacking any person or organization on a page describing the belief in Ascended Masters, a religious belief held by a number of organizations both in the past and present, is totally out of place - and a violation of the Misplaced Pages policy quoted above (Elizabeth Clare Prophet is still living). This type of behavior interferes with the possibility of Misplaced Pages becoming an objective, neutral, and useful academic reference resource. At the very least, it should be obvious that under no circumstances should "External Links" to defamatory personal attack web sites directed against any individual or church be on an encyclopedia article that is NOT about that individual or church organization. Aburesz 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am currently mediating a dispute on Ascended master, and I would like some opinions regarding whether the links in the critical section of the external links would violate the living persons biography rules or not. Aburesz feels that they are because he believes that they are either unsourced or not sourced properly. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a bit more, do external links fall into the living person's rules, and if yes, would these links violate it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Baker (disputed conviction) Template:Blpwatch-links

I would be grateful for some guidance on editing this article. User Sparkzilla is repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. His cited sources are of an unreliable nature as the contentious material only appears in two self-published articles contrary to WP:V#SELF. Sparkzilla cannot show that the author is a well-known professional journalist with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. Now he is trying to invoke the WP:BLP "Using the subject as a source" section to justify it's inclusion. However I believe this to be irrelevant to the case. An authoritative interpretation would be much appreciated. David Lyons 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.

Contrary to Mr Lyons opinion, NONE of the information in the section comes from articles published by Mr Devlin. I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.

Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.

I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice. Sparkzilla 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't bore the authoritative editors here, except to say that my response to Sparkzilla appears on Nick Baker's talk page. David Lyons 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)