Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 11:17, 23 August 2015 (→File deletion: Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg: the issue raised was that of copyright, and that is what I addressed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Courtney Stadd

I just did a very quick cleanup of this article, but it needs more work on eyes on it. Helped run NASA for a couple of years and was convicted of abusing that job in a couple of ways. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's waaaay too much editorializing in that article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned up the page a bit but it still needs a lot of work. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Marathon course-cutting

This is a bit of a spilloff of an article that came up for AfD. Basically there are people trying to add someone to the list. However my argument is that the guy wasn't notable enough for an article and as such, shouldn't be added there. There's also the issue that people seem to be arguing for his inclusion in order to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This made me look at some of the names at Marathon_course-cutting#Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Many of them do not have articles and that makes me wonder: should they really be on the list at all? I'd much rather that we only include people who are notable enough for their own articles or at the very least, have been proven to have cheated (or admitted cheating). This would likely leave only Rosie Ruiz, Roberto Madrazo, and perhaps the Xiamen International Marathon (since that was a widespread thing and is enough to mention in the race's article), but I have to say... I don't think that this is a bad thing. There's a really, really bad habit of adding people/events because they're recent, without really thinking if there would be any long term notability. And not to mention, the idea of posting about something that allegedly happened (in the cases where someone was accused but it was never proven or pursued) is sort of a BLP nightmare since it's alleged but not proven. For the people who were proven or admitted it, that sort of brings up an issue: is it really a good thing to list them if this is a minor crime/event? I think that we need to think about it in these terms: would these warrant a mention in the article's page? If not, then why should they be listed here?

Here's a rundown of the names in the list currently:

1. Jean's Marines: This happened in 2006. There really isn't much coverage that didn't happen around that time and by large this coverage is insanely light. There was a mention in Running Times and this Washington Post article from 2010, but I don't see where they've been covered in books or anything else to warrant inclusion.
2. Kip Litton: The New Yorker did a piece on him in 2012, but a search brings up fairly little as a whole. There's a mention in this Random House book, but my argument is that basically he's received very little notice. He's been disqualified for a number of races, but that's about it. Considering that the New Yorker published their piece during a point in time when the Internet was in full swing, there's really no reason for there not to be a ton of coverage- which kind of hammers home that he's not really all that notable.
3. Rob Sloan: He admitted to the cheating, so there's that - however the coverage for him was pretty light. It looks like it was pretty much all confined to 2011 and didn't really get covered outside of the UK. The BBC covered him, but other than this Summersdale book mention there isn't really much. It also looks like it was taken pretty liberally from the Misplaced Pages article since the author lists other people/events mentioned in the article, so I'm not really inclined to see the Summersdale book as a sign of notability.
4. Kevin Goodman: He's received some local coverage because of his claims, but by large this event seems to have been ignored by everyone else.
5. Jason Scotland-Williams: This is another person who only received a limited amount of coverage. Most of it seems to have been located within the UK, but this didn't really gain any coverage outside of that area. I also need to note that Scotland-Williams has claimed innocence.
6. Tabatha Hamilton: Another issue where the coverage is predominantly local and relatively light. I also need to note that the marathon itself doesn't seem to have a page, so there's the whole consideration of whether or not the marathon is really all that notable. She claims innocence but the marathon disqualified her, so there's a bit of a toss up with all of that.
7. Kendall Schler: This one is relatively recent, but the coverage is still insanely light. Other than this article from Runner's World, there really isn't much that isn't local.

Basically what I think is happening on the page is that whenever a new scandal or accusation comes about, people are adding to the page. Very few of these cases have ever really made any lasting impression to where I honestly think that they warrant inclusion. Like I said above, this runs the risk of being a potential BLP issue since some of these people are claiming that they didn't cheat, yet they're listed at this page. There is a mention of accusations, but this still brings up concerns that people are listing them here because of recentism and in an attempt to get a personal opinion across (ie, right great wrongs by highlighting the cheaters). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to tag NeilN in this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Bumping this so it doesn't get dropped off. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

The media widely reported that Jason Scott was represented by Kendrick Moxon, a prominent Scientologist attorney. This is a very significant and pertinent fact and is prominently included in the Misplaced Pages entry about the Jason Scott case. See Jason Scott case Jason Scott also made statements to the media regarding Scientology after the settlement. This included Scott's interviews with "60 Minutes," The Washington Post and St. Petersburg Times.

I suggest that this fact also be included in the bio both in the account of the Jason Scott case and the lead. I suggest that the third paragraph of the lead be revised to read as follows:

Ross faced criminal charges over the 1991 forcible deprogramming of Jason Scott, but was found "not guilty." Subsequently Scott, represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon, filed a lawsuit that resulted in a judgement against both Ross and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) for violating his civil rights. Scott was awarded $5 million in damages, which led to CAN and Ross declaring bankruptcy. As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary interventions without the use of force or restraint.

"Kendrick Moxon" should be linked to Kendrick Moxon

I suggest that the section "Jason Scott Deprogramming" be edited to include the following:

Ross faced criminal charges over a 1991 forcible deprogramming of United Pentecostal Church International member Jason Scott, whose mother was referred to Ross by the Cult Awareness Network. Ross was found "not guilty" by the jury at trial. Scott later filed a civil suit against Ross in federal court and was represented by prominent Scientologist attorney Kendrick Moxon. In September 1995, a nine-member jury unanimously held Ross and other defendants in the case liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights and awarded Scott $5 million in punitive damages . Ross' share of the damages was $3.1 million, which led to him declaring personal bankruptcy. Scott later reconciled with his mother and was persuaded by her to fire Moxon and settle with Ross; under the terms of the settlement, the two agreed that Ross would pay Scott $5000 and provide 200 hours of his professional services. Scott later stated that he felt he had been manipulated as part of Scientology's plan to destroy CAN. See Kendrick Moxon#cite note-scientologysponsored-23

As a result of the legal risks involved, Ross stopped advocating coercive deprogramming or involuntary interventions for adults, preferring instead voluntary exit counseling without the use of force or restraint. He states that despite refinement of processes over the years, cult intervention work continues to depend on the same basic principles originated through deprogramming.

Excluding the Scientology connection in the Jason Scott leaves out important historical facts and is also inconsistent with other Misplaced Pages entries.96.235.133.43 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Rick Alan Ross

John Sarbanes

• John Sarbanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed a couple out of date pieces on US Rep. John Sarbanes' page including committee assignments, caucus memberships etc.:

Headshot is out of date and can be updated to the most current headshot: https://sarbanes.house.gov/sites/sarbanes.house.gov/files/images/2013-high-res.jpg. Here's a link to verify that is the most current headshot: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S001168

Committee assignments need to be updated: https://sarbanes.house.gov/about/committee-assignments. No longer a member of the National Resources Committee and is on the Energy and Power Subcommittee. Link to Energy & Commerce Committee site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/membership. Link to Subcommittee on Energy & Power site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/energy-and-power. Link to Subcommittee on Health site: http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/health

Caucus membership needs to be updated. No longer the co-chair of the Public Service Caucus (https://sarbanes.house.gov/issues/good-government) and he is a member of the Congressional Hellenic Israel Alliance (http://www.greeknewsonline.com/congressional-hellenic-and-israeli-alliance-marks-second-anniversary/)

The congressman’s signature piece of legislation (the Government by the People Act) is currently not mentioned. Could devote a new section to the bill which is co-sponsored by 150 members of Congress and over 40 organizations. More info: http://ofby.us/about-the-bill/ and https://sarbanes.house.gov/bythepeople

Lastly, The “Campaign Finance” section needs updates with recent information. I would acknowledging that the congressman no longer takes PAC money. Also, since the Congressman’s signature piece of legislation is aimed at reforming the way campaigns are funded, the title “campaign finance” might lead some readers into thinking it is a section about his work on campaign finance issues. I recommend calling it “Political Fundraising”. LauraFriedy (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you unable to be bold and make the changes yourself because of a conflict of interest?--ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Jho Low

Cleanup needed on aisle 9! Unless you think that wealthy Asians should be trashed on Misplaced Pages. This just came to my attention, but I must go to sleep now. Maybe an excellent editor or two can evaluate and trim this hit job. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like common or garden vandalism that has now been reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Here I am being told that referring to Camille Paglia as a "feminist" is a WP:BLP violation. She refers to herself countless times as a feminist and sources refer to her countless times as a feminist. The article in which the disputed wording is occurring is not about Paglia. For the purposes of this article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), it is sufficient to identify Paglia as a feminist. In truth, even that could be omitted. The reader need not even know that she is a feminist. It would be sufficient to refer to her as an author and a professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia). Her critique of the work of art is negative. But we don't have to characterize her as a "dissident" feminist even if there is ample support in sources for that. Even the Camille Paglia article fails to use that terminology. She has clashed with mainstream feminists on occasion over specific points. No source supports as "dissident" her position on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Therefore I find the characterization particularly gratuitous. In my opinion the insistence on calling her a "dissident feminist", even claiming a WP:BLP violation if we do not characterize her that way, merely blunts the criticism that this commentator has about the work of art. Ample praise of the work of art is included in the article but of course it comes in for criticism too from some prominent commentators. Is there agreement here that there cannot possibly be any shade of WP:BLP violation in just referring to Paglia as a "feminist"? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is or was a BLP violation to call her a feminist. Just inaccurate without qualification given how sources refer to her as anti-feminist as well. Personally I think it would be best to remove all descriptors related to feminism when referring to her on the article. Just "critic" or "social critic" would suffice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This WSJ article describes her as "a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy." In this opinion piece, she rejects the idea that gender is performative, and says that men are naturally better suited to manly work like construction and are the "author" of the modern economy. I don't think it would be accurate to describe her as a feminist without qualification, just as I don't think it would be accurate to call the KKK "not racist" just because the imperial wizard said so. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

She is a feminist. Her commentary addresses the historical condition of women. It advocates for the removal of the oppression of women by a male-favoring society as concerns certain privileges, such as in the workplace. The only disagreement between Paglia and some of her feminist opponents are of relatively minor points. As an editorial compromise we can leave out both the terms "feminist" and "dissident feminist". You cannot call her an "anti-feminist" except figuratively or as hyperbole because nowhere does she advocate for instance for a status of women as inferior to men. Does she argue that women should be disadvantaged in relation to men? Of course not. So, what does she say? "I remain an equal opportunity feminist. That is, I call for the removal of all barriers to women’s advance in the professional and political realms. However, I oppose special protections for women (such as differential treatment of the names of accuser and accused in rape cases), and I condemn speech codes of any kind, above all on university campuses. Furthermore, as a libertarian, I maintain that our private sexual and emotional worlds are too mercurial and ambiguous to obey the codes that properly govern the workplace. As I recently told the Village Voice, I maintain that everyone has a bisexual potential and that no one is born gay. We need a more flexible psychology, as well as an end to the bitter feminist war on men. My feminist doctrine is completely on the record in four of my six books." Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. ... In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. ... The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

I think this is the opposite of what a feminist is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't base article content on the personal opinions of contributors concerning who is or isn't a feminist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying that someone who describes herself as a "dissident feminist" does not self-identify as a feminist is the kind of silliness that makes one yearn for straightforward sophistry. It takes no more than moments to find reliable sources like these which not only characterize her as a feminist but also quote her self-descriptions as an "Amazon feminist" and an "ardent feminist". This kind of characterization isn't really different than insisting that, say, John McCain be described as a RINO rather than a Republican because he departs from ultraconservative orthodoxy. It's much more of a BLP violation to deny a subject's self-identification, supported by reliable sources, because it doesn't comport with editors' more confining definitions. That said, unless other figures quoted in the article are characterized in terms of ideology, there's no reason to include either option; but the "dissident" language appears wholly inappropriate here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Self-identified perhaps, but RS don't treat her as one. Just glance over Camille_Paglia#Feminism. We have a conflict between what secondary sources call an individual and what the individual calls themselves. Mind you, this is a political and epistemological label and not part of WP:IDENTITY. In such a case, I'd say omit the label entirely. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Context of dispute: full context can be found on talk page, but to summarize, strong criticism of Mattress Performance from Camile Paglia was added to the article, but then reverted on the grounds that Paglia is known to be biased. Hoping to preserve commentary from Paglia, I added in-text attribution that Paglia is a "self-described dissident feminist" per WP:BIASED. "Self-described dissident feminist" is supported by source cited in the article and the first line of Paglia's BLP. This seemed to resolve the dispute for awhile, but later this was objected to on the grounds that "self-described" could be interpreted as calling in to question Paglia's validity as a "dissident feminist", saying this would be the connotation if we wrote "self-described professor". I've tweaked it to: "social critic Camille Paglia, who refers to herself as a "dissident feminist" ". Another suggestion on talk page is "an academic who has been critical of mainstream feminism", which seems reasonable to me. There have been attempts to describe Paglia as simply a feminist and social critic, but this seems problematic, one because Paglia clearly does not identify as a mainstream feminist and has voiced strong distaste for the modern feminist movement, and two, because the quotes added from Paglia seem extreme enough to warrant in-text attribution per WP:BIASED. For context the quotes currently in article are "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," "lugging around your bad memories" and "feminism should empower women, not cripple them." It would seem a violation of wp:biased to present these quotes as the opinions of a neutral third party observer, but they seem like interesting commentary, so seems appropriate if attributed to a source opposed to modern feminist movement --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—why don't we have characterizations of other commentators on the work of art? We read in the article that "Artnet cited it as "almost certainly ... one of the most important artworks of the year". Why doesn't artnet need to be characterized in some way? We read in the article that "Performance artist Marina Abramović praised it." We are not given much additional information about Marina Abramović aside from the fact that she is a performance artist. We read in the article that "New York Times art critic Roberta Smith described it as 'strict and lean, yet inclusive and open ended, symbolically laden yet drastically physical' and that "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter were apparent." There is no background information on Roberta Smith aside from the fact that she is an art critic. We read in the article that "Jerry Saltz, art critic for New York magazine, included it in his list of the best 19 art shows of 2014, calling 'clear, to the point, insistent, adamant ... pure radical vulnerability.'" Are we told anything additional about Jerry Saltz? The same should apply to Camille Paglia. We can say "author and professor at University of the Arts (Philadelphia)" as introductory verbiage. The reader is not incapable of clicking on a link to our article on Camille Paglia or Googling the name Camille Paglia. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, I'm not aware of other commentators quoted in the article who warrant in-text attribution per WP:BIASED which states: Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". "Author and professor" does not address the bias. Wording that expresses Paglia is a notable critic of mainstream feminism addresses the bias. If there are other commentators quoted in the article, who reliable sources describe as biased, who you believe warrant in text-attribution per wp:biased, please add such attribution to the article, or open talk page discussion regarding attribution.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—at WP:BIAS I find: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." This is none of them. Judging by the title of the article, this is an article on an artwork. The context here is the critical reception of a work of art. You are contriving to find language that explains away the negative opinion expressed by a notable figure of a work of art. WP:BIAS is inapplicable here because this is an artwork. The article is not about something "political, financial, religious, philosophical or belief-oriented". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Paglia quote was reverted by a single editor (who also complained that men!!!! were daring to edit the article), and then after it was restored another editor (you know who) trimmed it down so it didn't convey anything close to what it meant and started adding "dissident feminist", a qualifier that few sources use use. My take is it's designed to present her as somehow on the outside of the mainstream. And yet other positive reviewers receive no similar qualifiers.Mattnad (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The user in question gave a rationale for her deletion, and it wasn’t that the editors were male, it was Paglia’s reputation for bias. RS describe Paglia as outside the mainstream. The editor also opened a discussion on talk page The above seems to be an out of context link from a user talk page referring to past exchange on SlimVirgin's talk page which included: “the talk-page atmosphere, which has included a comment about a woman leading someone on, and asking that it be unprotected so that anon IPs can comment on a video of a rape reenactment, after a beer. (One woman referred to this exchange as a mini Elks Club gathering.)“ ,

Mattnad, we can discuss this further on your talk page.

Additionally, a source cited in the article prefaced Paglia's comments with "self-proclaimed “dissident feminist” Camille Paglia lambasted Columbia graduate Emma Sulkowicz’s mattress performance" . Also, edit history shows that for the past 4 years, Camile Paglia's BLP has opened with a self-described dissident feminist, , but since the dispute began, it has been deleted. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

While the article on Camille Paglia could use improvements (too many statements with no indication of their context), I can see why the term feminist could be controversial in her case. Summarizing some red flags: She has called feminist criticism a repressive Stalinist style, and feminists have in turn called her a crackpot extremist, an apologist of post-Cold War fascism, and a pro-patriarchy ideologue. Gloria Steinem is quoted as saying "Her calling herself a feminist is sort of like a Nazi saying they're not anti-Semitic", in what seems to be a case of Godwin's law outside the Internet. Based on another source, Steinem compared Paglia to Hitler and Paglia countered by comparing Steinem to Stalin. Katha Pollitt (who I am not familiar with) has claimed that Paglia's anti-feminist views "might make even Rush Limbaugh blanch". I don't think the problem is that her views are outside the mainstream, but rather than she is more noted for her arguments with feminism than any support for its positions. If you have to use a term to introduce in the article about the Mattress Performance, I'd suggest using only "cultural critic". Dimadick (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about feminism. It is not even about rape. It is about a work of art, called a performance piece. It is the standard operating procedure for people in the world to have opinions on works of art, and it is not unheard of for those opinions to run the gamut of types. This whole discussion is besides the point. The point only concerns how we introduce Paglia to this article. All these terms are applicable: professor at the University of the Arts (Philadelphia), author, feminist social critic, cultural critic, American academic and social critic, an educator (The New York Times has described her as "first and foremost an educator"). How do sources describe her? We should not be picking and choosing descriptive terms based on how we want the reader to perceive her negative response to the work of art. The problem here is the contrivance of the insertion of the term "dissident feminist" into the introduction of Paglia to this article (Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)). That is the only real bias under discussion. Misplaced Pages is broken up into different articles. One of those articles (not the one under discussion) is called Camille Paglia. And there are many other sources of information besides Misplaced Pages. The opinion of Paglia should be introduced unadorned by any special spin. Hers is merely an opinion, a reaction to a work of art. As a separate aim, we should introduce her to the article with the most standard terms applied to her: author, educator, etc. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Camille Paglia is sufficiently well known that no description is necessary. In this case, “feminist” is probably not as useful a classifier as “Professor”, “Author”, or “Critic”. However, the contention that describing Paglia as a feminist is a BLP violation is extremely pointy -- indefensible, really -- and should not be countenanced. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't label her, except perhaps as "professor at the University of the Arts." We don't say "according to feminist Hillary Clinton." Sarah 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence should read: Professor at the University of the Arts (Philadelphia), Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to copy-paste her business card. Just "professor" would be fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmn, it seems Hillary Clinton, along with her philosophical and political biases are well known, so they seem less in need of in-text attribution per WP:BIASED. This doesn't seem to be the case with Camile Paglia. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:INTEXT attribution just means "according to X." Bias should be attributed, but we don't have to label the person we name. In some contexts, doing so can be too "othering," as though WP very firmly wants to distance itself from the view. Sarah 22:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for link to WP:INTEXT. I might have misstated above. I was referring to this passage from WP:BIASED: Editors should consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". I'm honestly not terribly familiar with Paglia, but judging from the source cited in article, comments on talk page, and her BLP, it seems Paglia may warrant this sort of qualifier discussed in wp:biased. I think User:Nblund articulated the argument on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) page more eloquently than I have been able to: . --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoboMeowCat—you and some other editors such as User:Nblund are discussing Paglia. But you are not discussing the subject of our article, which happens to be a work of art. Nor are your examples given, from the world of art. You are speaking about "Feminist Betty Friedan" and "Marxist economist Harry Magdoff" and "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater". User:Nblund is discussing Karl Rove and James Carville. Are these artists? Do they somehow derive from the world of art? Can you give any examples from the world of art? Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop Camille Paglia is the example from the art world. The others are similarly biased people from more familiar fields. Nblund (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is an article about an individual work of art. Paglia expresses an opinion about the work of art. It is your argument that contextualization is called for concerning Paglia's expressed opinion concerning that work of art. I think such contextualization is out of place. Do you know of another example of an article about an individual work of art in which contextualization is called for when someone's opinion on the work of art is included in the article? My contention is that we just identify the speaker, and leave it at that. She is a professor at a university. That is pretty much all that needs to be said. She has an article, so we provide an internal link to her Misplaced Pages article. Several of you seem to feel very strongly that what you are referring to as "contextualization" is called for. Do you find other articles about works of art at which you feel that contextualization is strongly called for when opinions are voiced about the artwork that is the subject of the article? Bus stop (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking me to re-make my point without using any analogies. That seems arbitrary. I gave an example of a bona-fide expert in a field whose views are usually contextualized by referencing his political affiliations. BoboMewCat gave examples from WP:BIASED of other instances where the ideological views of a speaker are mentioned in the in-text citation. I don't really see the point of tracking down an additional instance of this specifically for an entry discussing artwork.

As an aside, I think this probably isn't a BLP discussion at this point, and I would be in favor of either moving it the the NPOV noticeboard or creating an RfC on the article page. Nblund (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no point in describing Paglia as either a feminist or dissident feminist in that article. I agree with SlimVirgin's comment above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a degree of consensus is emerging for the disputed sentence: "Professor Camille Paglia described Mattress Performance as "a parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism," adding that a feminist work "should empower women, not cripple them." Bus stop (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. This discussion has not been taken to the appropriate venue (its clearly not a BLP issue, its an NPOV dispute) and The arguments that have been made by multiple editors have ever been directly addressed. BoboMeowCat has produced a fairly straightforward example of precisely this kind of attribution in WP:BIASED. Why is this case an exception to the rules cited by that editor? Nblund (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That or no descriptor (honestly the latter seems more popular, but doubt many would care about " professor "). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyond any rule violations, calling her a professor, or not introducing her at all is just poor writing. Quotes need to be contextualized, readers ought to understand why a particular voice is worthy of quoting, and ought to be able to assign weight to that viewpoint in accord with its prominence and authority in the field. Identifying Paglia as a "cultural critic" or a "professor" is not an accurate depiction of her public persona.

Paglia is best known as a controversial intellectual who writes about pop culture and who engages in acrimonious debates with other feminists. Her criticism has been called "crackpot extremism", "a scorched-earth attack on the underlying philosophical assumptions of liberalism and feminism", and "so agenda-driven and so riddled with polemical asides that its potential to persuade is forever being compromised". Because of this contrarianism, virtually no reliable source introduces her by solely introducing her as an innocuous "cultural critic". Instead they describe her as "a provocateur", a "notorious Amazon feminist", and "the Donald Trump of feminism."

She's indisputably a person with a controversial perspective whose views are outside the mainstream. The quote we're including touches on those extreme views fairly explicitly. Hers is the only explicitly feminist voice currently quoted in the entire article. At a bare minimum, need to be honest and accurate about who she is and what she does. Calling her a "dissident feminist" is a sensible way of doing this: Paglia herself uses the term "dissident feminist" repeatedly to describe her own views (Examples: 1, 2, 3). And the term is frequently used by other sources as well (ex: 1, 2, 3)23 Nblund (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—you say "Why is this case an exception to the rules cited by that editor?" The problem is that you are obsessed with your interpretation of a work of art. Art is open to multiple interpretations. Sulkowicz did not expound a political platform from September 2014 to May 2015. She executed a work of art. There is a difference. Paglia's reaction to the work of art is antagonistic to your interpretation of it. So you are trying to undermine Paglia's reaction. Paglia said that Mattress Performance is a "parody of the worst aspects of that kind of grievance-oriented feminism". You wish to issue a disclaimer. You want the reader to bear in mind that Paglia is a "dissident feminist". But this doesn't warrant inclusion. Paglia is entitled to her reaction. There is no right or wrong reaction to a work of art. If Paglia's words pique the reader's interest they can simply click on the internal link to Paglia's article. You have declined to provide examples of articles on other works of art in which it was necessary to provide "contextualization" for an expressed opinion. The "contextualization" you are arguing for in this case is merely in defense of your own dearly held view of the meaning of the work of art. Notable individuals get to express opinions of works of art in articles on those works of art. Is it so surprising that a notable individual thinks poorly of this performance piece? I like the idea of the reader being exposed to radically different reactions to it. You seem to want to lessen the impact on the reader by explaining ahead of time that Paglia might not represent the most popularly expounded tenets of feminism. This is an article on a work of art and a myriad of types of reactions to it are possible. The reader can simply research Paglia if they want to know more about her. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Literature, politics, history, and any number of other things are open to interpretation. The examples given in WP:BIASED are about biases in subjective views. Are you suggesting there is some special policy that applies to an entry on art that wouldn't apply to an entry on politics? What, specifically, would that policy be?

This has nothing to do with my personal view of the art of of Paglia or her right to an opinion. I pointed out that her views are widely seen as extreme and controversial, and it doesn't sound like you're denying that her views are "radically different". As I understand you, you just think we should refrain from giving any indication of this in the article out of a concern that it might "lessen the impact" of her statements. This is flatly wrong: when citing subjective judgement, we are supposed to give readers sufficient information to determine the relative importance of the voices in the dispute. We are not obliged to afford totally "equal validity" to all views. Presenting a hotly contested minority view as though it is uncontroversial is a fairly straightforward violation of due weight.

Whether or not affording due weight "lessens the impact" of her statements really depends on the reader. A controversial viewpoint isn't always wrong, and lots of people like Paglia because she's controversial. Regardless, I don't think there's any policy that supports pretending a viewpoint is mainstream when it clearly isn't. Nblund (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You say "Literature, politics, history, and any number of other things are open to interpretation." You have only spoken about politics. You say "The examples given in WP:BIASED are about biases in subjective views. Are you suggesting there is some special policy that applies to an entry on art that wouldn't apply to an entry on politics?" No, I am not saying anything of the sort. WP:BIASED is not applicable to the question we are addressing. You wish to insert unwarranted material. You are grasping at straws to find justification in policy for presenting the reader with a disclaimer pertaining to Paglia. You say "This has nothing to do with my personal view of the art of of Paglia or her right to an opinion." Is that a typo or do you mean to refer to "the art of of Paglia"? You say "I pointed out that her views are widely seen as extreme and controversial, and it doesn't sound like you're denying that her views are 'radically different'." I am as unconcerned with Paglia as I am with Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith. We write the article about Mattress Performance and we write the articles about Camille Paglia, Jerry Saltz and Roberta Smith. I'm really not concerned that Paglia's understanding of feminism might not mesh with that of other feminists. You say "As I understand you, you just think we should refrain from giving any indication of this in the article out of a concern that it might 'lessen the impact' of her statements. This is flatly wrong: when citing subjective judgement, we are supposed to give readers sufficient information to determine the relative importance of the voices in the dispute." Yes, we are "supposed to give readers sufficient information". This is done in a separate article (the Camille Paglia article). You say "We are not obliged to afford totally 'equal validity' to all views. Presenting a hotly contested minority view as though it is uncontroversial is a fairly straightforward violation of due weight." You are once again forgetting that this is a work of art. These are more properly thought of as "opinions" than "views". In fact, these are not even "opinions". They are "reactions". They are "responses". The verbalization of a Paglia or a Saltz or a Smith are not as rational as an articulated stance taken on a political question. From where in God's heaven does Roberta Smith get the image of "comparisons to the Stations of the Cross and Hester Prynne's scarlet letter"? Nobody is questioning that. These responses to the work of art by notable individuals is almost free associational. All of your rational argumentation amounts to the equivalent of nailing Jell-O to a wall. Yes, we are interested in what notable individuals have to say. But no, we are not obligated to include editorial favorites from notable individual's backgrounds. Nobody is saying that Roberta Smith bears a well-known relation to "Stations of the Cross" or "Hester Prynne's scarlet letter" and that the reader needs to be apprised of this. (I am obviously making this up. My ignorance is probably showing.) Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, Paglia's views are extreme to some and not to others. Clearly they are extreme to you. Just because some feminists have latched onto the performance art does piece not mean that an opinion that diverges from what those feminists think requires Misplaced Pages to call that out. For instance, Paglia felt Clinton should have resigned, and A21Sauce (an editor who also has reservations about Paglia) felt she was "nuts" for voicing that opinion. Whereas there were many people who agreed with Paglia. Feminism is not homogeneous in its views, and opinions on art should not be viewed through your edict of what a feminist should, or should not think.Mattnad (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I am getting really sick of your mischaracterizing my views. Anyone who clicks on your link to what I said sees that I said "She blames the government being sideswiped by 9/11 on Bill Clinton not resigning after the Lewinsky scandal" when I called Paglia out. Does anyone but yourself take you seriously here?--A21sauce (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop WP:NPOV applies to all articles, including articles that deal with art, and including articles where some relevant information is detailed elsewhere. You say it "doesn't apply", but you don't really explain why.Lots of articles deal with subjective judgments and issues around which there is no clear consensus. Regardless of the nature of the page, we always "assign weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." When there is no clear consensus, we "describe he opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." WP:BALANCE Why don't those rules apply here?

Mattnad:None of this comes down to "my edict", it comes down to the way she is described in other reliable sources. Paglia's view, by all accounts including her own, is outside the feminist mainstream. I've provided multiple reliable sources that attest to this fact. No one appears to be bothering to contest this. If you have contrary information, please share. Regardless: the argument that we don't have to "call out" a minority view patently incorrect (see WP:BALANCE. This is a fundamental part of neutrality. Presenting minority viewpoints as though they are equally prominent is bias. Nblund (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nblund—all of you who are arguing for the inclusion of the term "dissident feminist" in description of Paglia are failing or refusing to recognize the means of communication undertaken by Sulkowicz from September 2014 to May of 2015. Sulkowicz carried a mattress. That is nonverbal. Sulkowicz was not running for office on a political plank from September 2014 to May of 2015. She was an artist carrying out a performance piece. Those who are arguing for the inclusion for Paglia of the wording "dissident feminist" are failing to note the distinction. Sulkowicz largely communicated nonverbally in her performance piece. The carrying of a mattress across a campus daily for months is mere demonstration. It is not articulation in the form that can be laid out in bullet points. Those arguing for the inclusion for Paglia that she is a "dissident feminist" start off with the premise that they understand the "message" being conveyed by Sulkowicz. They are failing to recognize the means of communication chosen by Sulkowicz. You argue for "balance". And you argue for "contextualization". But what was Sulkowicz saying? You don't know. And yet you want to provide something that provides "balance". You cannot provide "balance" or "contextualization" for an unknown value. You should not be permitted to insert your interpretation of the artwork into this article, which you are doing indirectly when you argue for that particular characterization of Paglia. Sulkowicz did not stand on a soapbox and give a speech. Verbalizations are different from demonstrations. This encyclopedia, aside from images, consists of verbalizations. Sulkowicz did not engage in verbalizing. In this sense she is solidly in the camp of visual artists. But your assumption is that you precisely understand what she was saying. Paglia can make that assumption. That is because Paglia is a notable person. But you don't get to make that assumption. Your reasoning for wanting to insert "dissident feminist" into the article in conjunction with Paglia is that you think you know what Mattress Performance is about and you think it is an excellent exemplar of the best of feminism. And you are probably appalled that Paglia would attack Mattress Piece as the worst of feminism. But in fact you don't get to offer an opinion at all. None of us get to offer an opinion. I don't get to offer an opinion and BoboMeowCat doesn't get to offer an opinion and A21sauce doesn't get to offer an opinion. We provide for responses only from notable people. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop It again sounds like you're saying that Misplaced Pages entries about visual arts are exempt from certain Misplaced Pages policies. Can you provide a link to any support for that argument? I'm not aware of a special dispensation for the visual arts, and lots of articles are discuss issues for which there is no objectively "correct" perspective. The solution is fairly straightforward: we represent views in accord with their prominence, and, when no clear consensus exists, we "describe the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." The rest of this wall of text seems incredibly off topic and unduly personal. Nblund (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—many things fall under the umbrella term "feminism". Paglia is entitled to take exception to anything she disagrees with. Paglia is entitled to be combative with her fellow feminists over relatively minor points. Paglia does not endorse rape. Paglia articulates that victimhood and male demonization are problematic in her view. Paglia expresses that she sees in Sulkowicz' performance piece the worst aspects of contemporary feminism. This does not make Paglia an "anti-feminist". You and others are not calling her an anti-feminist. But instead you and others have seized upon the term "dissident feminist" to serve as a suitable stand-in for a term such a "anti-feminist". This is to defuse the views expressed by Paglia. This is to set Paglia up for failure in the eyes of the reader. This is a disclaimer. This is to inform the reader before reading her comments that her views are somewhat "non-feminist" in character. This is not an article on a political tract. You and others are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of this article. There was debate in months gone by as to what title this article should have and whether or not it should be split into two articles. It was decided after much argumentation that this article was to be primarily about the artwork, hence the title. Now you (and others) are essentially arguing that we should treat Sulkowicz' artwork as if it were the clear articulation of a political opinion. It is not. The insertion of "dissident feminist" would not constitute "contextualization". Its insertion would be a non sequitur. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that almost no one gets to offer an opinion, I think this discussion should be closed. Since Bus stop didn't prohibit me from offering one, I think that Sulkowicz's actions plainly constituted a feminist protest, and that Paglia's reputation as a person consistently critical of mainstream feminist thought is relevant. Now please, let's stop this. There are other minute details of this article that need to be endlessly fought over. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sammy1339—I didn't mean to say that no one should express themselves on this or any other Talk page. Paglia gets to offer a response to the artwork in the Mattress Performance article. Mere editors do not, or should not, get to respond to that artwork in that article. Perhaps I was not clear about what I was saying. You say "I think that Sulkowicz's actions plainly constituted a feminist protest, and that Paglia's reputation as a person consistently critical of mainstream feminist thought is relevant." Feminism is broadly defined. It means many things. Paglia can be a "feminist" and still disagree with the months-long carrying of a mattress around a college campus as a response to an alleged rape. We do not have to poison the waters by first telling the reader that she is a "dissident feminist" because this is almost tantamount to "anti-feminist". We should be taking a hands-off approach to introducing notable commentators on the art. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Nblund, since you brought reliable sources....the source article for the relevant quotes was Salon, and here's how they introduced her, "Camille Paglia, the political and cultural critic...". While she may be know for other things, in the context of this particular question, the core reliable source presents her more neutrally. On the same coverage, the Washington Examiner describers her as "a cultural critic". The Daily Mail makes no qualifier at all, Reason makes no mention of her feminist credentials, a negative opinion piece in the Pacific Standard calls her the "Donald Trump of feminism", Artnet, in a critical commentary on Paglia describers her as a "controversial feminist and social critic".

None of these contemporaneous sources relating to her comments on Sulkowicz's artwork refer to her as a "dissident feminist" including those critical of her. Most provide more neutral descriptors or none. Whatever sources you have for the "dissident feminist" terminology, they are probably not current or in reference to the quotes in question. So we have two issues then: a) the terms you are promoting are non-neutral, and b) they are not connected to the Paglia quote of today by most reliable sources (if any) and are therefore WP:Syn.Mattnad (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Daily Mail Article you cited does call her a dissident feminist: " is the first in a series where the self-proclaimed 'dissident feminist' will weigh in on everything from the Clinton and Cosby scandals to the men running for president." The Salon article you're citing calls her "a provocateur", which is a synonym for "dissident". The Reason article also introduces her as "the always provocative Camille Paglia".

I previously provided three separate sources where Paglia describes herself as a dissident feministThe most recent is from 2014 The Observer described her as a "dissident feminist" on the 30th of last month. If your issue is with the terminology, I proposed an alternate phrasing on the article talk page, but the notion that this description is "non-neutral" strikes me as a little odd given that she applies it to herself. Nblund (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nblund—why would we issue a disclaimer before allowing Paglia to express herself on the artwork that is the subject of the article? Does feminism have any shades of meaning? Paglia does not endorse rape, does she? She makes herself clear. She opposes victimhood on the part of women. And she opposes the demonization of men by women. She also doesn't like the artwork. She says she would give it a "D" (if she were grading it as a schoolteacher). We allow commentators to express their reactions to this work of art. These are of course notable people. Only their notability has to be established, not their more nuanced leanings. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that full consensus will not be reached here. Recommend an RfC be started on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) regarding descriptors for Camille Paglia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would second that. Nblund (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Move to close. This thread has gone long enough. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. Alot of repetition and nattering on.--A21sauce (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The simple bottom line is that criticism involves both the positive and the negative. It is not unusual to have mixed feelings about an artwork or to have a complicated response to an artwork. I think the reader understandably would be interested in a full range of responses from people they may have familiarity with or about whom they can do further research. This is not a simple matter and the reader does not have to be spoon-fed. Paglia can be a feminist and still take exception to certain aspects of an artwork that in many ways is exemplary of feminist art. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have started an RfC at Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)#RfC:_How_should_Camille_Paglia_be_described_in_the_article.3F. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist)

I think the claim about King having "misled" about his race should be removed for the time being. King has stated on Twitter that "Out of LOVE for my family, I've never gone public with my racial story because it's hurtful, scandalous, and it's MY STORY" 1 and "No 2 siblings in my family have the same set of parents. We're all over the place. Some of us are not even blood relatives" 2. I think most of this will be made clear and verified by more reputable secondary sources within days. So there's no need to rush to such a claim now. "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:LIVING -Reagle (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your argument against its inclusion is... The claim is already sourced to multiple reliable sources. How many more secondary sources were you looking for? Meatsgains (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Katie Walder

Someone please have a look at this one. There's all kinds of unexplained and unverified changes going on, it's hard to see at first glance what's vandalism and what's not (though I'm reverting one clear-cut case of not any good), and the article could do with major improvement on many fronts. This one's for the fans. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Josh Duggar

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

Gawker is not an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.25.64 (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The material which had been re-inserted (with other celebrity gossip sourcing) is pure sensational non-encyclopedic material of the first water. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, an IP has made a formal accusation at Arbitration Enforcement that I violated my "US politics" topic ban by daring to remove rumours and allegations - see WP:HARASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Jenny Beck

The article for Jenny Beck may be conflating two different actresses, Jenny Beck and Jennifer Rae Beck. It is listing the movie credits for Jenny Beck, but is using Jennifer Rae Beck as the name. Per IMDB Jenny Beck has a rather lengthy career with three movies and lots of TV appearances, but Jennifer Rae Beck has only three TV credits, and from other sources seems to be known for her theater appearances.

Jennifer Rae Beck is recently deceased, Stage and TV Actress Jennifer Rae Beck Dead at 44, so someone might want to sort this out if in fact the article is mixing up two different Jenny Becks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.166.58 (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please help me out with this one? It seems there are 2 actresses named Jenny imdb or Jennifer (Rae) imdb Beck. The article has recently been updated with the DoD for Jennifer Rae, but the original DoB in the article was 1974 not 1971 when J Rae was born. The article also includes references to Jenny Beck's career rather than J. Rae Beck's. I amended the cat for DoB and changed the IMDb link, but I would like someone to take a second look before I go deleting large parts of the article which includes the wrong career details. Thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Update" Looking at the article history it seems the original intention was to create an article for Jenny Beck not Jennifer Rae as it is named Jenny Beck with no mention of the alternative and has her DoB and career details. Somewhere along the way it has been edited to refer to Jennifer Rae, but leaving the career details untouched. Eagleash (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Update" (again) offending edit is here. Eagleash (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible and plausible that these two actresses, born with a handful of years within each and have similar names, are different people. Rae Beck, the stage actress, most likely used her middle name for distinction. However. she also looks eerily similar to the other in the medias reporting her death but the child TV work. I changed the pages linking to Jenny Beck but it is possible they are different. — Wyliepedia 04:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm reasonably certain that there are 2 different ladies involved here (but not 100% sure). IMO the article should be taken back to prior to the edit in June 2015 (noted above) where the "Rae" and some bio details were inserted into the page. Up to that point the page was correct for Jenny (rather than Jennifer Rae) Beck with, as far as I can tell, correct career details, DoB etc. However, I will wait a few days so any other interested parties can have their say or edit, and also try to find more info. on both names. Eagleash (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted until further notice of confirmation. Best to err on side of BLP correctness. — Wyliepedia 05:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks. Eagleash (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Huguette Caland

• Huguette Caland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've reverted a badly sourced puffy essay with a long resume listing, to the last decent version. In anticipation that an interested party may return this to an unacceptable version, I'm requesting more eyes and watchlisting here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Imran Uddin (Blogger) - possibly defamatory revision

An IP user made an unreferenced change to Imran Uddin (Blogger) which I think could possibly be defaming and require revision deletion. Please check this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Imran_Uddin_(Blogger)&oldid=677019341. Thanks GoddersUK (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh... not quite REVDEL worthy imho... but that article fails GNG so I'm nominating it for deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, EvergreenFir. Thanks for your time! GoddersUK (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They've gotten worse... going to ask an admin for revdel. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There's some sockpuppetry and/or paid editing SEO problem here. An older account of the creator of this article was blocked for spamming. I've left a note asking for some clarification, failing which this one is going to be blocked for spamming and block evasion. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Request

There's a bit of a situation about what the WP:COMMONNAME (and hence the correct article title) should be for an American political strategist, which I wanted to ask for some assistance in resolving. I've also posted the same request to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics, but I don't know how widely read that page is, as not a single thread posted to that page since 2013 has ever garnered a single response from anyone at all — so I thought I should also post it here since the situation has a WP:BLP angle to it.

The situation is that the article was created at Mari Maseng in 2010, following which just two months later a request was posted somewhere (I can't remember where, it might even have been right here) for the article to be moved to Mari Maseng Will on the grounds that she was known by her married name. Acting as an administrator I complied with the request in good faith, but then one year after that an anonymous IP posted an angry rant to my talk page demanding that the article be moved back to "Maseng" on the grounds that she wasn't known by her married name — I did a quick Google search, and indeed was unable to find any significant sources at that time in which she was known or referred to by "Will", so I complied with the request despite their impolite tone. The article then remained stable for almost four years, until a few weeks ago another editor moved it back to "Will" again on the grounds that she is known by her married name. (And even then, they didn't actually revise the entire article accordingly; the title, the top of the infobox and the first bolded mention of her name in the introduction had the "Will" added, but her WP:LASTNAME was left as Maseng everywhere else in the body text.)

So obviously there's a dispute, and a slow-motion edit war, here. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody who has access to a broader range of US news sources than I do — I can only Google, while other people might have access to a much more comprehensive news database, or a range of political science journals, or some other specialized sourcing which might help — could assist in figuring out which title we should preference. I'm a Canadian citizen, so I have no knowledge of her whatsoever apart from having gotten dragged into this naming dispute — I didn't even know that she existed until seeing the original 2010 move request. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Hello? Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, @Bearcat: I have good newspaper database access so I did some searches for you. In Proquest's newspaper database, "Mari Maseng Will" returned 9 results, all since 1995. "Mari Maseng" returned 67 results, but all of the results were prior to 1995 - any results after that date use the "Will."

In Lexis Nexis' database, "Mari Maseng" returns 103 results, while "Mari Maseng Will" returns 32 results, all after 1993. But the 103 results for "Mari Maseng" include the more recent uses of "Will;" there are nine results since 1993 which use "Mari Maseng" but omit the "Will," compared to 32 results that include the "Will."

What this seems to suggest to me is that "Mari Maseng Will" has become the most common means of referring to this person since the mid-90s. The only thing that gives me pause here is that a recent gift from the two of them to the Univ. of S. Carolina was made in the name of "Mari Maseng and George F. Will," and funded the "Mari Maseng and George F. Will classroom." So it's possible that she may now prefer "Mari Maseng" over "Mari Maseng Will." RS seem to use the "Will," though. I hope this helps. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My User page (RoverTheBendInSussex)

My User-page/biography has been subject to harassment and vandalism via Twitter by a Far-Left individual (SLATUKIP) who opposes the political party I am a member of. Would the admin on Twitter be able to protect my page so only myself or site admin have the capability to alter it. It can be viewed on my User page via the end of this message. I have undone the vandalism concerned. But this individual has already been warned with banning on another website (Facebook) for photoshopping my user picture onto a racist comment and it would appear he is going to continue the same form of treatment on here and elsewhere.RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2015 (GMT)

I find myself in sympathy with this users plight, but not his politics. I will remove the current vandalism. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SLATUKIP should be indef blocked under WP:NOTHERE, and I would suggest a semi-protection on RoverTheBendInSussex. I am copying this section to WP:ANI#Attack only account from WP:BLP/Noticeboard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

e/c My suggestion trumped by Rich Farmborough. thx. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 00:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

My politics is not in question here. Granted I don't see your point regardless. This indiviual (SLATUKIP) will continue vandalising my page until he is banned. RoverTheBendInSussex (RoverTheBendInSussex) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (GMT)

@RoverTheBendInSussex: Having looked at @SLATUKIP on Twitter, I see no evidence that they are the same person as the editor here; nor that the editor here is the same person as the one you allege to have been warned about Facebook. Nor did I find any evidence that that Twitter account or any other has encouraged vandalism of your user page here. WP:BLP cuts both ways, and you should not make such accusations - including allegations of what would amount to a criminal offence - without evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist) part 2

More experienced eyes would be appreciated on this page; it was a classic WP:COATRACK created as the result of 12 hours of news-cycle stories based on inflammatory claims by a partisan writer, which have now been directly and publicly refuted by the article subject. We should try to avoid sensationalism, avoid writing "biographies" based on 12 hours' worth of news stories, and avoid leaping to conclusions. I think we can do better by our readers and our article subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• It would also be great if experienced editors could weigh in on whether the "see also" section on Rachel Dolezal should include a link to King's article. Everymorning (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki threats regarding Chris Janson

Tonight, I received off-wiki threats of legal action on Facebook from a user claiming to represent Chris Janson, probably the same user who has been blanking content from their article. (see Thesongfan (talk · contribs)). The user threatened legal action and demanded that any edits be made through the Bobby Roberts agency, but backed down on the threat after I linked them to WP:OWN. The main concerns were that the article had the (backed by a secondary source) names of Chris's children, and mentioned two duets that he did early in his career (also verified by a reliable source). I explained that I could remove the names until I find a compromise, as I don't know the specifics on revealing the names of a famous person's underaged child, but when I asked why the duet information was controversial, they dodged the question and recommended that I talk to their agency or label. Per their request I have also shot an e-mail to the Bobby Roberts agency asking why the Holly Williams information has been deemed controversial. I would appreciate any further help in this matter. Thank you. I will include screen caps of the facebook conversation and e-mail if needed. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I've dealt with a lot of this sort of thing on OTRS, so if you want to cc me in to the emails, I'm fine with that, just drop me an email (I'd like to see the relevant content behind this in any case). As for the other points, I'll have to look into this - with the children, it depends how widely they have been mentioned, so I'll look into this. As for the duets, I'm completely baffled about that.... Mdann52 (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Though this fellow is moderately successful and certainly notable, he is not the type of "superstar" who has to suffer widespread media coverage of the birth of their children. The cited source seems to be a country music gossip site. Though I am sure that its regular readers love it, I very much doubt that it is a reliable source sufficient enough for us to violate the privacy of minor children. With a better source, perhaps the article could mention that he and his wife have two children, with no more details. As for the step children, leave them alone and out of this. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now what about the information regarding Holly Williams? I contacted Bobby Robertsv Agency and they have no knowledge of this situation. Ten Pound Hammer • 14:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Leave it in if its reliably sourced. For something to be controversial there actually has to be a reason for it. 'Its controversial' is not enough. I suggest that if you are in a dialogue with them explain why that has not been removed and probably wont be unless there is a reason for it, adding you contacted his agency and they dont have any idea. Although its more likely that if there *is* a controversy around it, its probably more likely to go into the article if the controversy ends up reliably sourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick google suggest they had a more personal relationship than musical collaborators. So there might be some personal beef going on. I wont link here, but go a few pages into a google search and the usual gossip starts to appear. The reliable sources all show they co-wrote those songs however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Lynn Walsh

I am writing to you about this page: Lynn Walsh

The article is not about me, Lynn Walsh, an Investigative Journalist (www.twitter.com/lwalsh) yet, when you Google "Lynn Walsh" the wikipedia entry above (about a leader in the socialist party), shows up with my image (the journalist) attached to it. (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Lynn+Walsh)

Is there any way this photo can be removed since it is associating a photo of the wrong person with the wikipedia entry?

Thank you and feel free to contact me:

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.178.109.82 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The error appears to be on Google's side. There is a "feedback" link next to the search result that you use to let Google know about the error. I'm not sure why Google connected the image with the Misplaced Pages article. — Strongjam (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Chances are they didn't - from experience, most people see the "from Misplaced Pages" link below the text, and assume it is all from us. Mdann52 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Sorry, I meant why Google put them together on their page. In my experience when something like this happens it's because of something in wikidata, or Google's cache of the article, but in this case it looks like Google's algorithms decided that the article was about the person in the image, or at least the placement of the image suggests that. I've left feedback with Google, but I have no idea how they process such reports.— Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: ah, I see. And to answer the second question - they don't (in the main....) Mdann52 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP may find this useful (warning: some technical knowledge may be needed...) Mdann52 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this person really wikipedia notable? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that the original issue seems to have been resolved. The image is no longer showing up next to the Misplaced Pages article blurb on the search results. — Strongjam (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Demetrios Spandidos

Demetrios Spandidos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was nominated for deletion earlier this year, and kept because its subject is clearly notable. At the AFD some concerns regarding BLP issues were raised, and so I am bringing this article to the watchers of this noticeboard to determine if they think this article is BLP compliant, particularly the "career" section. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

File deletion: Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg

After a related policy discussion on republication of photos originally published without copyright, Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Republication of photos I have been directed to post the privacy aspect of the issue here.

Pulitzer prize winning journalist, Richard Ben Cramer wrote “It was Donna's camera, and Donna's picture-never intended for public...well public anything! She never did let the negative out of her possession. It was always her picture, her property-which is partly what would gall her so when it made its very public debut on the front page of the National Enquirer. (The Enquirer had the nerve to claim copyright on the photo.)” (“What It Takes” (1992), pg. 437) The photo was published in 1987 by the Enquirer along with the story that Hart had asked Rice to marry him. The photo was published in support of that story as a kind of innuendo by photo that some hanky-panky had occurred between the two that both have always denied, i.e., that Hart was a womanizer, and Rice a bimbo/homewrecker. Because of that photo how many people now know that Rice first met Hart at rocker Don Henley's house with his wife present (“What It Takes”, pg. 439)? How many people know that Rice was talking to Hart about fundraising, (Alan Richman, Donna Rice: 'The Woman in Question, People Magazine (Vol. 27, No. 20, May 18, 1987), “What It Takes”, pg. 460) and that "Rock musicians represent a rich vein of financial support since, under the law, they could perform at benefit concerts for the candidates, and each ticket was treated as an individual contribution. Thus the candidate could report 20,000 contributions of $10 apiece rather than an illegal one of $200,000. And each ticket could qualify for Federal matching funds." http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/09/us/courting-danger-the-fall-of-gary-hart.html?pagewanted=all That photo created a very different public image of their official relationship. It was never intended for publication. Therefore BLP presumption of privacy should apply to deleting the photo as well as the policy to avoid prolonging the victimization. Its publication created victims. Its continued republication therefore must be presumed to continue victimization. Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion is here: Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion#File:Donna Rice and Gary Hart.jpg Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Miami Herald - it is an AP file photo - and copyright belongs with the photographer, not the person being photographed. Collect (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the Miami Herald, the photo was not taken by an AP photographer, but someone was trying to sell the photo: http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/Hart/hartarticle.html The photographer doesn't always own the copyright, not when someone else bought the camera, film, and paid for the processing. The fact that Rice has the negatives, proves she has the copyright. See related discussion on the policy page.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the Washington Post, copyright was claimed by the National Enquirer/Getty Images:https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/22/how-gary-harts-downfall-didnt-really-change-american-politics-all-that-much/ The Miami Herald has a long history of contested reporting regarding stories about Gary Hart.

(answered on the deletion discussion page - suffice it to say the claims above are not supported by reliable sources (the Cramer book basically says Rice says she "lent" the photos to a friend) and the idea of Getty Images, which acts as a holding company and agent for copyright images, as well as being a stock photo house, colluding with anyone is unsupported by reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Response on the image deletion discussion page. The issue of privacy and BLP is separate from copyright infringement. However, it was predictable that someone who dislikes Hart's politics (or perhaps Rice's work against internet pornography) would want to believe that embarrassing private photos should be published regardless of copyright or BLP, or the clear language of a RS like Cramer. Therefore, the matter was first addressed on the policy board in hopes that a clearer policy on the matter would be written. Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that I have zero motives with regard to Rice or Hart or Armandt - and found the only issue was that of copyright ownership - and the assertion that Rice has been proven to hold copyright was a bit of an exaggeration. Collect (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

deleted external links

why could external links of an article I just moved be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erigits (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 August 2015‎ (UTC)

@Erigits: Is it the Eric Kinoti page you're talking about? Looks like Nthep removed them while working on the article (probably due to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.) I don't think this board is needed for that, just discuss it on the article talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff again

Stephanie Seneff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) See also here. The article Stephanie Seneff makes some highly negative claims, some of which are sourced to blogs that may not stand up to WP:BLP. I want to know what other editors think about the "Criticism" section in particular. Everymorning (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reduced the "overkill" of criticism, including one claim which was intrinsically BLP-violative. Collect (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

I've just reverted this, both for WP:UNDUE and BLP concerns, but as I know the subject of the edit, would be grateful for a review by someone uninvolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: Given that Symonds' name was well publicized in multiple UK national media outlets, and further given the potentially serious impact on a UK national election, as well as the ArbCom outcome regarding Symonds' checkuser and administrator permissions, I'm shocked that no one has previously dealt with this scandal in the Wikimedia UK article. The incident needs to be addressed; Misplaced Pages is not censored and this incident is well documented in multiple reliable sources. Deleting any mention of it from the Wikimedia UK article strikes me as both censorship and favoritism.

Given your personal relationship with Symonds, I would also suggest you are the wrong person to be editing the article regarding this topic. There's an obvious COI and a violation of the spirit of WP:INVOLVED and WP:NPOV

I hope some of the other BLP/N regulars will take a serious look at this issue. If we can't treat a subject that directly involves Misplaced Pages fairly, openly and honestly, we really should not be writing about other controversial BLP subjects. That's our challenge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Given your personal relationship with me, I'd rather hear from someone uninvolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Andy, I don't have a personal relationship with you; I know you only from your work on Misplaced Pages. You have a personal relationship with the subject BLP; big difference. I'm not going to edit the article, either, because I expressed some very strong opinions on the subject at the outset of the ArbCom proceedings. I suspect you will get your additional opinions here, and that is important -- as the credibility of Misplaced Pages is on the line here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording must obey WP:BLP and, alas, it fails. It is not neutrally worded, and uses a column with specific opinions. As such it is usable, at most, as opinions cited and attributed as opinion in the first place. Where it imputes specific motives to a person, and implications of improper or criminal actions by the person, it fails to meet the burdens places by WP:BLP on such a column. Collect (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect, there are multiple reliable sources available in the UK media that dealt with this subject -- both before and after the ArbCom decision. While there are undoubtedly multiple problems with the original addition to the Wikimedia UK article, omitting/deleting/ignoring the incident and not providing a factual account of it is an even bigger problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The material as cited and written failed on NPOV and BLP grounds, and relied on a source which was clearly editorial in nature. If you find a source which dispassionately sticks to facts and not rumour or allegations, and then write a totally neutral section that would be a different edit entirely. All I can do is deal with the edit placed before us - and, in my opinion, that edit did not comport with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. I've again reverted its addition, along with a further BLP violation by the same IP. I would be grateful if you or other BLP regulars would watchlist the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Collect, here is a small sample of the coverage about Richard Symonds' very public (and out-of-process) accusations against Grant Shapps, their impact on the 2015 UK national elections, and the ultimate outcome of ArbCom proceedings against Symonds:

• "Misplaced Pages administrator who accused Grant Shapps of editing pages of Tory rivals is Liberal Democrat activist", The Telegraph (22 April 2015)
• "Nick Clegg mocks Grant Shapps over Misplaced Pages affair", The Guardian (22 April 2015)
• "Did leading UK politician edit his Misplaced Pages page? Possibly, but the problem goes deeper", Christian Science Monitor (22 April 2015)
• "Misplaced Pages volunteer who blocked 'Grant Shapps' account: I stand by my decision", The Guardian (23 April 2015)
• "Misplaced Pages official who accused Shapps is a Lib Dem: Online administrator once described himself as 'Liberal Democrat to the last'", Daily Mail (23 April 2015)
• "Is Grant Shapps being naughty on Misplaced Pages – or did a Lib Dem stitch him up?" The Register (30 April 2015)
• "Misplaced Pages volunteer faces reprimand over 'Shapps account' investigation" The Guardian (8 June 2015)
• "BBC says sorry to Grant Shapps after Misplaced Pages Story", iMediaEthics (8 June 2015)
• "Censure for Grant Shapps' Misplaced Pages accuser", BBC News (8 June 2015)
• "The Waugh Zone June 9 2015", Huffington Post (9 June 2015)
• "Misplaced Pages: account at centre of row 'not linked' to Grant Shapps", The Guardian (9 June 2015)
• "Misplaced Pages story and the resulting BBC coverage", The Rt Hon Grant Shapps (14 June 2015) -- includes links to over 40 BBC broadcasts on the subject
• "BBC apologises over false Shapps Misplaced Pages allegations made by LibDems", The Rt Hon Grant Shapps (28 June 2015) -- includes copy of response letter from BBC News director
• "BBC (sort of) sorry for Grant Shapps Misplaced Pages smear reportage", The Register (30 June 2015)
• "BBC's James Harding says 'sorry' to Grant Shapps over scant coverage of Misplaced Pages story 'correction'", Press Gazette (30 June 2015)

We should never simply delete factual content about a subject if it can be improved to comply with our fundamental policies/guidelines embodied in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If we're seriously looking for an impartial account of the whole affair, I might recommend the 8 June 2015 account from BBC News, or the 9 June 2015 story from The Guardian, both linked above. What do you think? Given the plethora of factual accounts available in reliable sources, the only problem I see is writing a relatively concise paragraph about the matter that does not overwhelm the Wikimedia UK article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If there's enough sources for a section on this in Schapps' article, there's enough sources for a section on this in the WMUK article. Brustopher (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The incident involved a volunteer, not a WMUK, action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Andy M on that point. These actions were as a WP admin, not in any way that I can see as a WMUK action. "WP in the UK" is not the same thing as WMUK. This topic is notable, maybe it should be covered, but it's not part of WMUK specifically. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Shaun King (activist)

Is it a BLP violation to mention in the Shaun King (activist) BLP that a comparison has been drawn between King and Rachel Dolezal, or alternately to include Rachel Dolezal as a "See also" link? Sources provided on talk page for comparison to Dolezal are as follows: , ,, , , , , ,, ,, ,. Additional arguments and commentary can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Shaun_King_%28activist%29#Rachel_Dolezal --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a well sourced comparison and frames the issues for many of the reliable sources opining on the issue, so I'd say it's fine, as long as it doesn't outgrow its importance to the sources citing it. It's with no small amount of interest that I note much of the objection on the article talk page I see is framed around their ideological displeasure with the context of the incident, with frequent sneers at "right-wingers" and "doxing" along with pejorative and dubious usage of "bloggers". Much of this is coming from the usual cast of editors who seem to run toward these sorts of politically charged media frenzies. GraniteSand (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Spot on, and thanks for giving a sensible opinion. I was starting to question myself in light of such strong and adamant objection in conjunction with the labels of "White Supremacists" and "racists" being thrown around. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution