Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 4 February 2008 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 15d) to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive38.). 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.

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

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

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

Individual articles

Primal Therapy

• Primal therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Since my recent edit of the article (), which removed a link to a website, the presence of which represents a BLP violation, in my opinion, an edit war has been raging. A key page on that website which would make any link to it a breach of BLP is here .

• It was the removal of the last remaining link to this website by me (after I read that recently added page) that seems to have triggered what appears to be a coordinated counter assault notably by an unregistered user, 76.90.103.220, and others including Randroide who was involved in an earlier BLP issue in the same article. I have not yet had time to see who appears to be defending the article, if anyone, other than Twerges. A few of the edits appear to be valid neutralisation of language which may be worth retaining but the majority appear to be either the adding of links and text to the Criticisms section or, most importantly, restoring of the links to the website in question, even to related articles I had removed them from months ago. There are many paragraphs of external links added to the Criticisms section many of which would never measure up to Misplaced Pages's standards even without invoking BLP policy.

• I now believe that the links to the website and the links to Tom Werges' web pages have no place in the article or the related articles because they don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards especially the more stringent requirements of BLP that apply here. Without these links being removed and the people who deliberately engaged in destructive editing being blocked from the article and all the related articles, about Arthur Janov and his therapy, I can't see how any constructive work on it can happen from this point on. // GrahameKing (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• In actuality Grahame King has consistently been removing criticisms of primal therapy and adding advertising material. His attempt to label a critical website as libellous or of violating BLP rules are merely attempts to give him power to remove criticisms from the page. The said links to criticisms are sourced and often more reliable than official primal therapy books or websites. The claim that grahame king makes that there have been destructive edits are in fact reversals of attempts to remove criticisms. the real vandalism is by those trying to erase criticisms or links to critical information. Not only has grahamking vandalised criticism, but so has twerges, always for bogus , but impressive sounding, reasons.

Zonbalance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Randroide

I present edits removing sources and sourced information made by User:GrahameKing in Primal Therapy:

I challenge User:GrahameKing to present a similar list of (IMO) destructive edits performed by us, those other users User:GrahameKing is asking to be blocked to edit Primal Therapy. Such list does NOT exist.

User:GrahameKing even blanked a whole Talk Page , by far the (IMO) weirdest move I have seen at Misplaced Pages. GrahameKing insisted in blanking discussions and sourced chunks of data from the talk page, over and over again .

Please note that User:GrahameKing express allegedly WP:BLP-related worries only in case of criticism against Arthur Janov. On the other hand User:GrahameKing is extremely liberal inserting lines of criticism made by Janov against other living persons, calling them "charlatans", "would-be practioners", "inexpert", "abusive therapists" and "lacking the empathy and technical knowledge necessary" .

• I -UserRandroide- think that both sourced sides (pro and anti Janovian) should be present in the article. Therefore, I think that the edit by User:GrahameKing linked above is a very good edit.
• OTOH, User:GrahameKing seems to think that criticisms against Janov should be erradicated from the article, and those Users who add those criticisms (like me) blocked. I disagree vehemently on this point.

Unlike him/her, I am not advocating the block from the article of User:GrahameKing (he/she made very good contributions to the article, despite some destructive edits). I am only providing the whole picture about User:GrahameKing, whose statements -IMHO- should be taken cum grano salis.

See also that User:GrahameKing is not shy of adding unsourced blocks of text , flagrant POV "appropiation" of the term "Primal Therapy" , his/her own speculations about the future and lines that sound in my ears like unsourced Janovian sales pitchs Randroide (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a complex, long-running dispute. Whatever the history of the participants, I am inclined to agree with GrahameKing that linking to debunking primal therapy is problematic. The site does nto meet reliable sourcing requirements, which would not necessarily eliminate it as an external link, but the subpage mentioned specifically (here) certainly contains unverified negative allegations about a living person. That said, I tend to think that more constructive work on the articles might happen with more open-minded, cooperative conversation about them on the talk page. The issues here go beyond BLP into content dispute, and, if the warnings about edit warring issued to the two primary editors of the article do not take effect, I would be inclined to recommend seeking page protection until the dispute can be ironed out properly at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me I did not get you right: "DebunkingPrimalTherapy.com" can be linked as long as we abstain to link (much less quote) the contentious "_former_trainee_interview " page.

Did I get you right?. If not, could you please be more specific?. Thank you.Randroide (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Linking to the site at all is problematic per WP:BLP, which specifies that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies and external links guidelines." WP:EL specifies that with regards to biographical material about living persons, "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The website may provide links to reliable sources with editorial oversight, but it does not boast the same for itself, and it contains a subpage that is derogatory and unverifiable. I think it would be far better to mine the website as a source of usable material—by which I mean looking for links to published journal articles or tips to books—and leave it out of the article altogether. --Moonriddengirl 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl, for your time and your careful consideration of what may appear on the surface, as I presented it above, to be a complex problem. I have explored the page protection option you recommended and regret that I can not follow it just on principle, at this time, as it would make me an accomplice to locking in clear BLP violations of the worst kind (inadequately sourced, potentially libellous claims) - and I do use my actual name. I noticed someone has already given page protection to the main article but not to the related articles. I reported on this noticeboard as it appears to offer adminstrative intervention where my efforts to uphold BLP policies had been to no avail. The only intervention that I can see that would be consistent with BLP policy would be to immediately and unconditionally remove all links to the two websites which contain references to the potentially libellous claims (,) and to block those who added these links (76.90.103.220, Twerges, Zonbalance) from editing the relevant articles (Primal Therapy, Arthur Janov, Scream therapy, The Primal Scream, and also Debunker vandalised by Zonbalance) because they are not properly registered users (who would only be subject to formal warnings if they were). It was I who added the link at the end of Types of patients treated to his website long before Twerges himself made me aware of the problematic interview which he was preparing to rebut - so ironically it is thanks to him that we discovered this problem. Once this report is history, any links to it such as the link to it placed on Talk:Primal_therapy by Randroide (and any others that may be found) should also be removed of course, preferably by an admin, not me (I've sworn off edit wars) - though maybe such links would just get broken by archiving. I do think page protection is a good idea. Someone should make a bot to seek out and remove links to sites that have been identified as BLP-unfriendly etc. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if you need anything from me. GrahameKing (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl asked me for my opinion. I partly agree with her. I think the site is usable in some manner for the purpose of the article on the theory. We do not avoid a site because some small portion of it is unsuitable. We shouldn't link specifically to an unsuitable part, but using it as an external link as a whole is indirect enough. the safest way is an external link. As she says, there is no shortage of unimpeachable materials to use at references for criticizing the theory. DGG (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be taken in by the attempts of editors to remove criticism on primal therapy by labelling criticism as libel. For criticism to become libel it actually has to be false. The destructive vandalism was actually the removal of criticisms, NOT the reversal of those deletions. We may be dealing with editors who have a financial stake in primal therapy, so don't get taken in. I also second theidea to have grahameking banned due to the destructive edits. Although twerges and moongirl also seem to want to suppress any criticism too, and are equally destructive and clever at explaining their deletions.

Zonbalance Zonbalance

I'd like to bring to the attention my comments in the arthur janov section further down this page, which belongs here too. There I detail some reasons why the link discussed above should stay. I agree with Randriode in that the history of the editing of wiki primal therapy involved the invoking of the BLP rules in order to try and remove criticism of primal therapy and janov's theory. Criticizing Janov's theory or even pointig out inconsistencies or contradictions is not personally derogatory to a living person, and is an expected consequence of inventing a theory and submitting it to the scientific community or by calling it science. The discussed website (debunking primal therapy) link is not derogatory realy, and the violation of BLP is stretching the interpretation too far and is subjective. I'm glad there is some consensus that the link should not be deleted, however I don't agree that a small proportion of the site is unsuitable (as an external link). It seems relevant and if you think deeply enough about it, everything on there comments on primal therapy efficacy or primal theory, and is not meant to personally atack any person or persons. I submit that one of the main reasons why the initial request for removal (it was grahameking who removed it) was really due to the websites comprehensive criticism of primal therapy, and the biography of living persons argument was the vehicle used (incorrectly in my view) to affect that deletion of criticism. Aussiewikilady (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbi McMillen deletion

On various occasions has the management of artist Robbi McMillen contacted Misplaced Pages in order to have all metion of him removed from this website. As of yet, no such changes have been made. McMillen and his management demand that such pages be deleted, and that any pages about him must be removed until he is 18 years of age - we would not like this site, under reputation to cause any legal or moral damage, or damage to the artist's personal life. If confirmation is required, please email dan.casey'AT'robbimcmillen.com

All articles in all languages or containing mention of Robbi McMillen must be deleted. This is a request from his management and from his family. All pages, including those in Gaelic and his discography must be removed or a legal representative will contact Misplaced Pages. If you are in any doubt, please contact his management through his website.

Also, please note that Robbi's management are his family and a member of the family's legal team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.73 (talk • contribs) 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm this? After all it is an IP. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For confirmation, please feel free to email his management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.120.246 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Janov and others

• Primal therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Arthur Janov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scream therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Primal Scream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Debunker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A question was raised above at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy regarding the appropriateness of this external link under BLP policy. This subpage includes unverifiable contentious claims regarding living persons. I have opined above in response to the question that I feel its inclusion is inappropriate, as BLP requires that ELs be fully compliant with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The link is offered as a source or an EL in each of the above articles. I would appreciate feedback from others as to whether it presents a significant enough issue as regards BLP to warrant immediate removal, particularly as one of those articles is protected against edit warring. Pretty please and thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Still hoping for feedback on this. I'm considering asking at the help desk. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

on the narrow question of including the subpage, or maybe even the main debunkingprimaltherapy.com page, I'll say no it shouldn't be included because it is not a well-known reliable source. However it does seem to have a wealth of reliable source linked to.

There is a question on a talk page about whether Discover Magazine is a reliable source. While it certainly is not a scientific journal, for purposes here it should be considered a reliable source. Being a scientific journal is not a requirement for being a reliable source - even for scientific topics.

My main comment is that this is probably best handled under WP:fringe. There is a question of whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. It looks like some editors are SPEs. I've listed Primal Therapy at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, but not sure that this is the best place. The main issue should be in deciding whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. From there, the rest should take care of itself. Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response and for listing the Primal therapy article in a good place for further review. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is an attempt by moonriddengirl to remove criticisms of primal therapy or arthur janov from wiki, by using bogus arguments and labelling sourced criticism as libel, even when it is far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I remind you again to be civil and assume good faith. Given your contribution history, it's obvious that you have strong feelings about Janov and primal therapy. Conversely, my contribution history rather suggests I don't. Not everyone who disagrees with you about the appropriateness of this source is part of a conspiracy. --Moonriddengirl 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I was trying to alert people to the fact that it appears that in the past the editing of primal therapy has been compromized by editors with an obvious stake in primal therapy. If you look back in detail at grahame kings edits, you will see a pattern. Not only has grahame king done that, but he/she also started the ridiculous argument that debunkingprimaltherapy wa libelous or didn't mean BLP, which is a bogus argument but one that influenced a few people who didn't take the time to look up 'libel'. In fact it is a sourced critical website that grahame king wanted an excuse to remove. It would be a tragedy if it was removed, and due to idependence, it may well be a more accurate assessment of primal therapy than Janov's himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent>The requirements of WP:BLP are a bit more stringent than the requirements of libel. As I mentioned above, I believe the source is inappropriate because it does not meet the requirements of sourcing at the verifiability policy. BLP requires that all ELs comply with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". (For Misplaced Pages's definition of questionable sources, see here.) This website in particular is self-published, and as WP:V notes, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". (There is a footnote at that policy setting out the exceptions; this is not one of them). This website clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:V; however, User:DGG did not feel that the specific subpage represented a serious enough concern to warrant immediate removal under WP:BLP. Lacking clear consensus that it violates BLP, its removal is no longer imperative. I stand by the suggestion offered above (where you called me "destructive", though I suppose there's some consolation in being also "clever") that the editors who want this material included should seek sources that do qualify. It seems like, if the material in it is accurate, that there should be plenty. --Moonriddengirl 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I don't want to get involved in the personal arguments of the previous contributors. What I do want to comment upon is that the mentioned site debunking primal therapy seems to crticize the therapy and theory, and is not derogatory to any living persons. Although some of the content of the website in question would not be appropriate to quote in great length directly on the wiki page (although some of it could), it does not actually violate wiki BLP rules for external links. The argument that it violates BLP rules is very subjective and open to interpretation. I think the links should be allowed to stay. Compare with the scientology wiki entry (where criticisms are also found) and compare with other pseudosciences wiki entries. Primal Therapy is a widely criticized mode of treatment that is seen as invalid in the field of psychological science, and in fact is rarely mentioned in the field except for examples of pseudoscience (in the same way scientology auditing is rarely mentioned in said literature). the website mentioned does not go into Arthur Janov's biography and focuses on criticizing the treatment which sometimes involves discussing outcomes that directly shine light on contradictions to the theory, it also discusses some contradictions that are essential to the argument but that may seem contentious to those uneducated in the subject but is actually important evidence. Whatever is mentioned on the site seems to be relevant to primal therapies efficacy, and is never just mentioned to personally attack anybody. I'll go into more detail if somebody disagrees with this and they still think the link should be removed. Aussiewikilady (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary

Sir Edmund Hillary, more affectionately known as Sir Ed has passed away this morning at 9 AM at Auckland City Hospital, his wikipedia page has been changed to announce his death in New Zealand Time but people have been changing the dates and times from what its supposed to be (11th January 2008 9:00AM) to Hawaii time or even other time zones, ppl have been warned in the article discussion not to do so but i think it happened a couple of times. In respect to this great man i wish for his article to be semi protected or protected against changes made to any details of his death. Thank you.

203.109.215.123 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably will settle down when January 11th arrives for more of the timezone unaware. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After Everest "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on further visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." would be more correct to say: "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." He was an adventurer and as such understood the distinction between distance (as in further) and time (as in later)! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about further.

These two words are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a difference between them.

"Farther" refers to physical or geographic distance.

Example: The apartment I want is farther from my office.

"Further" is more abstract. It refers to time or degree or quantity. It's another way of saying "additional."

Examples:

I have to look further into the question of moving farther from my office.

There was no further discussion.

ladyjane | Sep-28-05 10:24AM

Use farther when you're talking about physical distances.

Farther down the road.

They're further along in their plans than I expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyor Cohen

• Lyor Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Negative information keeps on getting reinserted, and the "sources" are gossip columns, blogs, and what not.// brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at it. As a first step, footnoting seems a valuable way of quickly determining if the sources are up to par. --Moonriddengirl 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can for it. :) The controversy is properly sourced. I've also watchlisted the article for a while, and if improperly sourced material reappears will attempt to deal with it or return it here for further input. --Moonriddengirl 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

T._U._Kuruvila

This article appears to be referenced, but contains allegations that may be defamatory, therefore it probably needs to be inspected more closely by someone who's familiar with the subject matter (Indian Politics). It didn't have a Living tag on it until a few minutes ago, so it's been escaping living person patrol until now. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Examining it. I'm familiar with the situation. Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Schlutt

Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marcel Schlutt&diff=prev&oldid=184593509 – The user Aussie2 changed the content of the Wiki article three times without featuring any new facts and sources! Repeatedly Aussie2 writes that Marcel had won several prizes at equestrian sports at an early age of four but he never shows any references to proof it. In an interview for a tiny privately-operated homepage in Berlin, Marcel just claims to have won those awards but he was unable to proof it. In addition, Aussie2 erased the known facts about Marcel’s various jobs! Marcel is very well known in Germany’s gay scene because over many years he loved to appear in public jobs. He worked successfully for a Pay-TV’s gay sex show, several porn companies and escort websites. But Aussie2 repeatedly erases the proven job descriptions ‚escort’ and ‚porn actor’ because he only likes to mention the more accepted jobs, like i.e. ‚fashion model’, ‚author’ and ‚photographer’. In reality, Marcel never wrote a book, he only wrote several short articles (columns) for a gay magazine. Marcel never made a living as a photographer but a few of his snapshots were printed a compilation book about skaters. Since 2004, Marcel announced twice to end his porn/escort career but even though he appears in new adult videos; the last one so far in 2007. Therefore Berlin’s biggest gay city rag Siegessaeule and Europe’s gay sex rag Erexxion already made fun of this bizarre farewell/ comeback/ farewell/ comeback career. Aussie2 obviously tries to eliminate Marcel’s real profitable money-making professions by emphasizing the little part-time jobs. It looks like Aussie2 is trying to smoothen Marcel’s biography. Wiki better should stick to the facts! Thank you very much.// Germany2799 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This may not yet require intervention, and, if it proves that it does, this may not be the best board to seek it. This sounds like a content issue (although lack of sourcing is problematic). The dispute resolution policy recommends that you civilly discuss the issues on the talk page with the other editor to see if you can form consensus on what material to include. That policy lists several different avenues for seeking wider involvement if the two of you cannot come to an agreement. If only the two of you are involved, you might seek a third opinion. If there are more, you might wish to file a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies or ask for feedback at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Many of the volunteers at this board (me included) are more used to resolving issues where the subject of the article is having controversial information added without sourcing rather than the other way around. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Icelandic media is reporting that Bobby Fischer has died. Could we have some experienced eyes on that article for the next few days? Haukur (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at black humour? BLP noticeboard might not be the place to raise this. Lobojo (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that BLP policy can still apply to the recently deceased and therefore Haukur was entirely correct?Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that it might since it would be unseemly if all the information that could not previously go on due to BLP was dragged up while the body was still warm. But where does policy say this? Lobojo (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears the BLP policy doesn't explicitly mention it at the moment. Apparantly there isn't consensus although, as you say, it seems reasonable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a WP:BDP. —Ashley Y 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Howson Autobiography?

User:MichaelBergman when uploading Image:Website_shots_036.jpg on 00:32, 6 January 2008 stated "I, Frank Howson, own this image of myself as it was a self-portrait." thereby claiming to be Frank Howson! Since User:MichaelBergman has been a major contributor to this article (and an editor to numerous other Biographies of living people associated with Frank Howson) this may present significant problems: Autobiographies tend not to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and contain Conflict of Interest (COI) issues. Since 09:41, 12 August 2007 I have also contributed significantly to this article wikifying it and providing references. I have also edited other articles visited by User:MichaelBergman and so do not feel sufficiently unbiased to resolve issues involved. I request intervention by a suitable Administrator. I suggest also considering contributions by User:124.190.242.6 and User: 124.190.244.2 as possibly by same author. I have placed this same notice on User talk:MichaelBergman page and Talk: Frank Howson but believe that User:MichaelBergman may not read these pages (numerous notices seem to have gone by without any response).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with {{COI2}} and left template {{Uw-coi}} at the talk page of the editor. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but as a regular contributor trust that you will be keeping an eye on it. :) If you feel the problem persists, you may have better luck addressing it at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where volunteers are more accustomed to dealing specifically with this issue. I know it recommends at the top bringing BLP issues here, but I do see other autobiographies addressed on that page. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that they mean a COI where an editor is deliberately defaming the subject of the article rather than promoting him. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama media controversy

I have no involvement with this article and not a great deal of knowledge of the subject, but I feel that it could do with some oversight from BLP regulars. It's essentially about those "Obama is a Muslim" smears that seem to have been going around lately. Some editors plainly want to use the article as a coatrack to propagate the smears - see e.g. from a user who's now banned. To be honest, I'm uneasy about whether we should have an article of this sort at all - is it really encyclopedic to document smear campaigns, given that WP:IINFO#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take took a look. The article needs a much better lead to present the fact that these rumors have been thoroughly debunked, as well as to make the article rather than a piece that repeats the innuendo and rumors, concentrate in the media controversy around these rumors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this article has now been nominated for deletion (not by myself) - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

This article needs a good hard look at it, due to possible non-neutral point of view sources, undue weight, and BLP violations. The result of a recent AfD on this article was that the subject had satisfied the notability criteria for membership, but there were numerous expressed concerns about the article and possible BLP violations. Could everyone give this the proverbial once-over (if not three or four times over) to determine what needs to be in the article, what is superfluous to the article, and what needs to be relentlessly scourged from the article? ArbCom member FT2 stated that this board would be able to effect any changes needed to comply with BLP, even though the article is part of a case currently before ArbCom. Link to diff. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your perception that each individual source must itself be neutral or rather, is our mission that *our* complete articles remain neutral? That is, can we not cite two contradictory sources to show that a conflict of opinion of fact exists. Or is your point that no conflicts can appear within a living biography? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many editors now closely monitoring the article and Arbcom case as yet in process. Benjiboi 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Marr

A Blog recently posted a story about his private life. I don't think that it counts as a reliable source so I have been removing it from the article whilst others put it back. Could we have a few more eyes on the article for a couple of days? --RicDod (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put it on my watchlist.--Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I resent not being considered a reliable source and suspect you will have to eat your words very shortly. Guido —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.141 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, my comment was badly phrased. Please have a look at the Verifiability policy which explains it better, especially the bit about self-published sources. Basically any negative information about a living person needs to be very well sourced in order to be included. --RicDod (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. --Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Amy Macdonald - false info

Someone is repeatedly trying to add a section to Amy Macdonald(singer) wikipedia page. The section 'controversy' has been removed by many various times as the information is poorly sourced and reflects badly on Amy Macdonald.

Could you ensure that this section is never added again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.65 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The information is solidly cited by a national newspaper article. So is neither false or poorly sourced. The only possible problem I can see with it would be its notability and the slight exaggeration in heading it "Controversy". --Escape Orbit 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

User:Wasted Time R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is preventing me from making edits removing impertinent information. The article is infringing on a few rules and all my edits are being undone by him.

Rule: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article.

The current article has information such as "He had his share of run-ins with the faculty and leadership; each year he was given over 100 demerits (for unshined shoes, formation faults, talking out of place, and the like)". Information about John McCain's demerits in school is not very important. John McCain's life is not defined for having unpolished shoes. This extra information is not important and should not be in an encyclopedia article.

Another example of trivia, "McCain has a history, beginning with his military career, of lucky charms and superstitions to gain fortune. While serving in Vietnam, he demanded that his parachute rigger clean his visor before each flight. On the 2000 campaign, he carried a lucky compass, feather, shoes, pen, penny and, at times, a rock. An incident when McCain misplaced his feather caused a brief panic in the campaign. The night before the 2008 New Hampshire primary he slept on the same side of the bed in the same hotel room he had stayed in before his win there in 2000, and after winning carried some of his talismans forward into the following Michigan primary while adding others. His superstitions are extended to others; to those afraid of flying or experiencing a bumpy flight, he says, "You don't need to worry. I've crashed four fighter jets, and I'm not going to die in a plane crash. You're safe with me." Here, the reader learns about his various superstitions which are not necessary facts that need to be told. Although there are various citations, all this information adds nothing to who they are for an encyclopedia.

A third example is the amount of information on his grandparents and family. The end of the article has an entire paragraph on his sons and grandsons. The beggining of the article explains his parents and grandparents and their role in the Navy. All this information is not about Senator McCain but just extra trivia. One comparison to another article is George W. Bush's article. There are few mentions of his father who was also a president and did not go into detail with who George H. W. Bush did as a person.Yialanliu (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule:NPOV

The current article is also not written in a neutral point of view. The goal of this article is trying to portray someone as a maverick. Every thing about McCain is his actions that differ from the norm. This characterizes McCain as someone who is not normal and leads to an impression that he is deranged which is against NPOV. All the trivia makes him look unique and is not pertinent to his fame. In the cultural and political image section, there are numberous reports about his missteps. The criticisms are blown out of proportion. Everyone makes mistakes but I believe there are over representations in this articles leading to bias. // Yialanliu (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule: Brevity

This article is less like an encyclopedia article than like a biography. Misplaced Pages has a goal of maintaining articles to under 50kbs, preferably around 32kbs. However, currently, it's 150 kbs. The reason for this is the excessive details from various books. Although there are many books written about John McCain, it is not necessary to quote from all the books. If you look at George W. Bush's page, there are few quotes from books if at all. That is not to say no books have been written about Bush, but brevity is key to an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a compilation of books but just a summary of who a person is.

Regarding the claims of trivia, nothing I have included in this article is trivial. Every piece of material and every piece of detail goes towards describing the full character of the biographical subject. His family's naval heritage is a key aspect of his life, as a read of Faith of My Fathers and outside biographies readily reveals, and was of operational significance in terms of his educational struggles and his time as a POW. His Academy demerits are part and whole of a personality that continues to affect his political stances and behaviors today. His superstitions are frequently noted in the press and are part of depicting his full character. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claims of POV, the 'missteps' in the article are all conceded by McCain himself, as the article makes clear. The "maverick" persona is one that is described by all biographies and newspapers profiles; you can hardly escape it. I don't know how Yialanliu gets a "deranged" depiction out of all this; most people reading this article would probably consider McCain heroic. If anything, I've short-changed criticisms of him. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the length, yes, the article's long. But he's had a long career; he's been a nationally visible figure since 1967. In writing this article, I haven't paid any attention to the George W. Bush article, so I can't comment on that, but this article does touch on the same elements and key episodes of his career that several biographies do as well as the multi-part Arizona Republic series that's frequently cited. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a career that spans 40 years is a major accomplishment. However, in comparison to Joseph Stalin, who's career have also been that length of time. But more importantly, even more globally visible, the leader of the Soviet Union for 30 years. One look would see that the page is around 50 kbs and stick to main facts about ther person's accomplishment. Stalin is not insignificant yet the reason for this is because the article keeps to major fact. It is well written but more importantly sticks to the point. Yialanliu (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Joseph Stalin is currently 140Kb. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know how I got the 50kbs. And I checked on chinese wikipedia and not even that is 50. So my bad. But my point remains the same. There are people that have had a greater impact in the world and have a more concise article. Yialanliu (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

Patriarch Alexius II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article had reach an equilibrium, in which accusations about Patriarch Alexei's past involvement were documented in a manner that was in mostly in keeping with NPOV and WP:BLP, although an administrator had noted that too much of the article was focused on accusations against Patriarch Alexei, and that it needed to be more balance, however, Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to expand the article by expanding the accusations into the rest of the Biography, and asserting them as biographical facts. I attempted to deal with it via edits and the talk page, but am taking it here as the only alternative to an edit war on the matter. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WP:COI noticeboard here. Biophys (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No it has not. That thread has been in regards to an accusation of a conflict of interest against me. This thread is in regards to the violations of the WP:BLP policy, and more specifically to your edits.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has inserted yet more negative rumours/controversial information, this time into the 'Career' section rather than the 'Controversies' section, certainly a violation of WP:BLP IMO. The article is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as about 90-95% of this article is devoted to negative rumours.--Miyokan (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not inserted anything yet since the posting of this message by Frjohnwhiteford. Perhaps the article is one-sided. Frjohnwhiteford and Miyokan are welcome to add more sourced and presumably positive content about the person to improve the article. I only object deletion of well sourced (supported by multiple reliable sources) materials they do not like, which would be against WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Information about career must be in section "Career". Let's use article talk page for discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"..yet more" referred to your latest additions to the article, I did not say since the posting of Frjohn's message here.--Miyokan (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you assert things as fact that are in dispute, and which were already covered in the controversy section. If you take a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find that these accusations are not even noted... much less asserted as biographical facts. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the information Biophys added to the 'Career' section has already been covered in the 'Controversies' section. It is totally unnecessary to repeat it in the 'Career' section. Even if you say it is "supported by multiple reliable sources" (the reliability of these sources is dubious), it is still fringe theories and rumours that are heavily controversial. By doing this, it is an attempt to assert it as biographical fact.--Miyokan (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I am not sure whether the view that he was a KGB agent is fringe. controversial yes, butnot fringe.DGG (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue that this is a fringe view. But it certainly is, as you say, controversial, and should not be asserted as biographical facts when they are disputed facts. This controversy should not permeate the entire article... particularly when, as I said, respected encyclopedic sources not even find such accusations worthy of note. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The remedy from the Admins I would request here is this: Roll back this article to this edit. And ask Biophys to engage in constructive edits that do not violate WP:BLP and which provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, while we are waiting for some outside intervention, the article is only becoming less balanced, as more slanted and biased. Is there an Admin in the house? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to review the article at this time. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here is another example of Biophys engaging in POV pushing and clearly violating the WP:BLP policy from an article I have had nothing to do with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Edward_Kennedy_as_a_KGB_collaborator

Interestingly, once again painting people with the KGB broad brush is the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo

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

John Yoo is an individual associated with the US government who is accused of being responsible for government wrongdoing. There is a section of two paragraphs (War crimes accusations) that is being re-inserted that only cites a court-related document at the Center for Constitutional Rights web site (which is currently an invalid page) and (indirectly) a book called The Terror Presidency. One of the editors used a minor edit summary to re-insert the paragraphs, and one of the paragraphs was written by a user whose edit history consists of two edits: one to John Yoo, and one to Talk:John Yoo. As a side note, is there a Times v Sullivan style exception for BLP? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We may not like it but WP:V allows us to add information even if it is uncomfortable to certain individuals. Nomen Nescio 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time that the issue was raised, there was no citation for the "uncomfortable" information. Andjam (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Andjam what is your specific question for us? That John Yoo was sued should probably be more properly cited *first* to a newspaper account (of which a quick Google shows there are several mentions) and then further illuminated by citing the Federal court case number. This allows a secondary source to introduce the issue, and a primary one to add specification. Perhaps you have a different question. Citing a court case is fine, but shouldn't be the main source of information on the paragraph.Wjhonson (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

American Jewish Congress

American Jewish Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The material about allegations against Israel Singer goes much further than the Israel Singer article does, and, I think, beyond the sources cited. Please see the article's talk page. David in DC (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Done. Fixed and corresponding template protected. --slakr 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since he reportedly just died, tons of vandalism has occurred. It'd probably be best to either lock it or limit the editting. 24.211.23.77 (talk)

Indeed - the current entry says high levels of heroin were found in his bloodstream, which is impossible to determine considering his body was only found 1 1/2 hours ago. A toxicology report can usually take weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.143.2 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And now there's a penis. Fun times.143.246.7.155 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

offensive

please can you remove the offensive comment following heath ledgers death "WHO CARES HE PLAYED A GAY GUY" cheers, Rhee

NEW VANDALISM- huge penis!

Vandalism removed. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE LOCK THAT THREAD, THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF RUDE AND TYPICAL SOCIOLOGICAL DISTORTIONS BEING USED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.37.167 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

heath ledger

Someone has posted a rather large picture of their penis on the heath ledger page!!!

Heath Ledger

Someone has put a picture of erect male genitalia on this page that pops up when you enter it.

Erect Penis Image on Heath Ledger page

Ah the joys of the internet. Just wanted to make people aware that the page has been vandalized with an image that covers the entire page.

Someone has edited the Heath Ledger wikipedia page so a large-size photograph of a penis scrolls with the screen. Please remove this, it is extremely inappropriate, especially for any young females who may be looking at the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.120.179 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary-Kate Olsen

Due to Heath Ledger's death, this page is undergoing frequent vandalism and the frequent addition of unverified rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Black

Minor vandalism adding dubious claims with unverifiable refs. Likely a sock or troll of some sort. If other could watchlist, please do. Benjiboi 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you mean Don Black (white nationalist). The other Don Blacks seem quite peaceful at the moment. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. sorry about that. Benjiboi 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Kozeny

There is never a dull moment with this article. See previous reports at: at COIN, and on this noticeboard back on 17 October. The subject of the article, Viktor Kozeny, has been chased by various courts and governments due to financial misdeeds that were widely covered in reliable sources. Last time around, someone promoting the interests of the subject insisted on reverting to his preferred (innocuous) version. That editor was eventually blocked. This time, an IP editor who wants to gild the lily insists on adding nasty and defamatory wording to what is already there, without adding any new sources. I have reverted his latest change, but would appreciate if others can keep an eye on it. If he reverts back, I suggest that semi-protection or a block might be considered. (Naturally, you should take a look at my change to ensure that I didn't overdo it). EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay-Jay Johanson

there is a controversy in the article about j.j. johanson. it says that "there is a change in his music with the album relased in 2002". on the contrary the same album is shown as been relased in 2003 at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.222.24 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've tagged the problem at the article so that the editors who maintain it can straighten it out. --Moonriddengirl 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Monica Bellucci

There's conflicting evidence regarding Monica Bellucci's age and date of birth. It's being discussed on Talk:Monica Bellucci#Age, sort-of, but anon IPs keep reverting and there is no agreement from sources on the accurate age. Note this statement at the NNDB, which I don't think is incredibly reliable, but it's the only explicit discussion of this I've seen. Help! WLU (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the changes to the page reach the status of edit warring, you may wish to request page protection until consensus of how to handle it is reached. --Moonriddengirl 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not, every couple days someone changes it, then someone else (usually the same IP address) changes it back. I'd really just like to know what can be said, based on the sources we have and the limitations imposed by BLP. WLU (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a small group of IP addresses, you can drop a friendly note on their talk pages alerting them to the conversation at the discussion page and inviting them to join. You might also consider addressing the date discrepancy within the article itself, perhaps in a footnote, with the more reliable date in the parenthetical introduction with a "c" as recommended for uncertain birth dates at the MOS and the note indicating something along the lines of "Year of birth is given as 1964 by blah and blah, while blah and blah assert 1968". If no agreement can be reached at all on which year of birth to use, you can indicate a range, c. 1964-1968. It may forestall the constant reversion (which may constitute edit warring even if quite slow :)) if rather than choosing one of two (or more) uncertain options, the article simply notes that the uncertainty exists. This seems more a matter of content dispute than a BLP issue, since there are sources for multiple sides. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only source I have for this is the NNDB, which I don't believe is reliable. Still, I'll have a gander and try your ideas on the talk page. Thanks for your suggestions, it's very appreciated! WLU (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Crime family primary research in userspace

• User:Little Joe Shots

Onorem asked me about this. That took me to Special:Contributions/Little Joe Shots, which in turn took me to all of these (Special:Prefixindex/User:Alexbonaro/):

There's nothing wrong with using userspace as a platform for article development. Indeed, that's one of the things that userspace is there for. But the way that this development is being done, by the users themselves and by editors without accounts, is somewhat troubling. This appears to be less article development and more a collection of primary source materials, being written and collected by Misplaced Pages editors directly and hosted in Misplaced Pages userspace as a supposedly "reliable resource" for people to consult.

The pages appear to be collections of accusations that specifically named people are criminals, or dead, sourced solely to discussion forum postings by people known only by pseudonyms such as "Pogo", or obtained directly by primary research. Particularly troubling are things such as the notice at the top of User:Alexbonaro/Bonanno crime family circa 1991, the I-got-this-information-from-a-guy-named-Jiggy statement on User talk:Alexbonaro/LA chart circa 1954, and the responses to accusations of inaccuracy at User talk:Alexbonaro/Timeline of Detroit mob murders and User talk:Alexbonaro/present day Milwaukee crime family.

Alexbonaro (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since September 2007. Little Joe Shots (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since November 2007. Various modifications to the pages, including some that dispute the pages' contents (example), have been reverted as vandalism since. My first inclination is to just blank all of the pages. Please discuss and take appropriate action. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• All of these pages should be deleted. If the user or users in question want to continue their research outside of Misplaced Pages, then an administrator should email them the page contents on request. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Please place this list of articles in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion so that these pages can be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Done - FYI these were nominated on 24 January 2008 at WP:MFD#Userspace original research on organized crime and have now been deleted. --Doug. 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Irvine22

Can someone please talk to Irvine22 (talk · contribs) regarding his BLP-violating and counterfactual edits to the Misplaced Pages article about me, David Eppstein? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left him an {{Uw-npov2}} and have watchlisted the article in case escalation is required. --Moonriddengirl 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom

• Kevin Alfred Strom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Numerous BLP-ish issues, I've removed a few items but would appreciate others taking a swipe at it. Also some of the refs seem dodgy. // Benjiboi 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Claudio Teehankee, Jr.

This looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. There doesn't seem to be anything else notable about this person other than being a relative of a famous person. If this had been any other crime, there wouldn't be an article here. Opinions? Corvus cornix_talk 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcos_Baghdatis

Would somebody take a look at Marcos_Baghdatis#2008_Australian_Open_controversy? It needs a POV-ectomy. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As of its current reading it seems balanced and sourced. Is there anything specifically that still needs addressing? Benjiboi 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Laming

Users have removed outdated media speculation however other users insist on keeping the speculation current in an attempt to further damage Laming's reputation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue - all claims are factually referenced, and nothing on there disparages the subject (it's been carefully rewritten in the last 2 days to ensure Laming's own side of the story is given due attention). The matter was of considerable news value throughout 2007, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. Orderinchaos 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Page has blatant untrue information throughout it. Please fix ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet2934 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look at it, but, if you know what is wrong with the article, be bold and start fixing it yourself. Jons63 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read through it and do not see any blantantly untrue information, maybe you could point out some of the problems with the article Jons63 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organized crime articles

As a result of the userspace issue mentioned above, I looked over a few of the Misplaced Pages articles on organized crime. These articles are terrible, an absolute hotbed of blatant BLP violations. In less than 5 minutes I found the following: Colombo crime family — unsourced allegations that specific named individuals are "capos," "leaders," "soldiers" and so forth; Genovese crime family which includes a long list of names sourced to a Geocities page; Chicago Outfit with 50 to 100 unreferenced names. Frankly, some of these articles are so bad that they should probably be deleted entirely and started over. At the least, I think they should be stubbed and all BLP-infringing content removed. *** Crotalus *** 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil Ford

This edit is sourced to a mainstream sports columnist, which might satisfy reliability but might still be of concern per WP:NPF. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. alanyst 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agrred. I've re-removed and added a note of explanation to talk thread. Benjiboi 02:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Material has been re-added, could someone look to see if it seems problematic? It sure doesn't seem relevant to me. Benjiboi 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting another look at this. I've had past conflict with the editor who is re-adding the material so I think he might take it the wrong way if I were directly involved in fixing the BLP issues. Is there anyone who can help with this? alanyst 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Samantha Bee

Several edits like this Diff have been made by different editors tonight I removed it twice suggesting that a written references was required for BLP. Please give me a reality check. Jeepday (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is on the Daily Show as a news source, but would we cite something like NBC's Nightly News as a source on something? If so, then the specific episode (airdate, etc) could be cited as a source. I can find one blog that confirms that she did announce it on the show, but that's a blog. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the person herself uttered the statement then I would consider writing "on January 30, 2008 Bee announced _____ on The Daily Show." Benjiboi 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Applications for the Dead or Recently Deceased

I tried this on the BLP talk page but not a lot of activity occurs there so I will try here.

It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the {{BLP}} template from the talk, It looks like many editors are watching over it now. If there is something else please reply with details. Benjiboi 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I also got some replies on the main BLP talk page and created {{Blpo}} to help articles in this situation. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Rancic

An I.P. is insisting on inserting the adjective "struggling" into this article to describe the show that Rancic hosts. Initially, the I.P. was doing so without references; and I reverted it as a blatant WP:BLP violation. References have since been inserted, and I'm at my 3RR limit anyway. My opinion is that, even sourced, this information violated WP:BLP, but I told the I.P. that if she/he provided references, I'd try to solicit some other editors' opinions (and, like I said, I'm at my 3RR limit anyway). Eyes would be appreciated - the conversation between the I.P. and me is centralized here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops - he/she just cleared her/his talk page. Here's the last pre-blanking version, which includes our entire conversation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor did finally provide multiple references that supported, what would appear to be a true description of the show. But on review only one reference is close to meeting WP:RS and that being www.nydailynews which was from 2006. I made a couple changes and am leaving a note at User talk:70.108.122.10. Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Clemons - Porn site link

Link #4 goes to an internet porn site where a copy of an article on Clemons from the Bartlesville, Oklahoma Examiner Enterprise has been placed.

The link to the original article: http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2006/01/25/news/2578.txt

I'd change it myself but assume those responsible for the article would rather do the deed.

207.68.209.19 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, but another time do feel free to be bold yourself!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

Pistolpierre (talk · contribs) who has numerous blocks for trolling/soapboxing and edit warring has been re-adding WP:BLP vio accusations on the article for Jimmy Page. He keeps labelling Page as a pedophile because he dated a fourteen year old girl. His relationship with the girl is already mentioned in the article. It's a well documented fact. But another well documented fact is that Page has never ever been charged... or so much as questioned about his relationship with Maddox. Pistolpierre is persistently re-adding his POV skewed content(he is up to 6 or 7 reverts by now) and labelling a living person with a crime that the living person was never charged for. He is also trying to add original research that Page wearing a Nazi General's hat during a single performance in Chicago has some sort of derogatory hidden meaning or implication about the artist. He wore a hat. He was pictured wearing the hat. But the fact is... beyond that simple fact... 'he wore a hat'... there is no verifiable evil misdoing that Pistolpierre keeps trying to imply. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the Jimmy Page (it expires 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)) to prevent further edits by either party. I have left a message on Pistolpierre's talk page noting the previous blocks, asking him to read over Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons and consider if he is being genuinely Neutral.--Alf 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise on the article talk page where we put the section back in but do not name the photographer. --RicDod (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

George Galloway

21stCenturyBuoy, who has only ever edited this article, is continually adding material suggesting that Galloway deliberately misled Parliament. The evidence he cites does not appear to establish this defamatory, and apparently libellous claim. RolandR (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have written a note to 21stCenturyBuoy directing the editor to various policy pages. The offending material was not in the article last time I checked. --Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus

An edit war is ongoing at Elizabeth Loftus. The dispute is over what details concerning academic articles published by Loftus should be included in the article. My position is that the articles are not pertinent to her biography, but I'm trying not to enter into the edit warring myself. -- Donald Albury 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as dry as that report sounds. Albury above is an OTRS volunteer, and his attention was drawn to this bio. Loftus is a major figure in psychology, one of the eminences of that field. She investigates memory and suggestibility, and one of her most famous papers is a study of the lost in the mall technique. This is relatively central to her notability, as she is frequently therefore considered an expert from a legal point of view on the implantation of memories, or the unlikelihood of repressed memories. (And may or may not have called herself "the Oskar Schindler of the falsely accused".)

The section Donald Albury removed discussed a paper that appeared in a peer-reviewed psych journal attacking the structure of the experiment and the presentation of the results. By the standards of academic journals, I must say the language was startling. The critique was notable enough that Loftus felt the need to reply in a later article in the same journal.

I do suggest some input in that talkpage. It is far from a clear-cut situation. Relata refero (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, while Albury's removal may turn out correct, I don't know how he could possibly defend the statement that an academic's published articles are not pertinent to her biography. Relata refero (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid putting a slant on this notice. Anyway, the problem in my view is that an editor is quoting abstracts of her articles without any evidence of having actually read the articles in question. This editor made it clear early that his intention is to discredit her work. He reintroduce the text of the abstract for "Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Remembering and Repressing" after I removed links to a couple of blogs using the the text of that abstract to attack Loftus. And I will repeat, I do not think it is appropriate to quote from abstracts of her articles in the way that is being done. Discussion of her work and the significance of her work should come from third-party reliable sources. Trying to illustrate the significance of her work by selectively quoting from abstracts of her articles strikes me as being original research. -- Donald Albury 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, then I am not sure I disagree with you completely. I would much rather third party RSes discuss work. However, I think abstracts are by and large less OR-y than quoting large parts of text, as abstracts are clearly set up as a summation of the main thrust of a paper. Sometime soon I will ask people at RS/N what they think.

I hadn't seen the version with blog links. That is, of course unacceptable. I don't see why the editor can't read the paper, its archived outside a subscriber wall and its very accessible in its language.

I hope you don't think I was in any way accusing you of a slant or even doing something incorrect. I don't think so at all, though I do think that there are good reasons that a major, if negative critique of a significant part of her work should perhaps be in the bio. Relata refero (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A critique from a reliable source would be very appropriate. It is the mostly selective quoting from abstracts to try to create a novel evaluation of her work that I object to. -- Donald Albury 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson

An IP editor has been persistently inserting mounds of negative information into the biographies of Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson, and edit-warring it in against a number of other editors. A quick read shows that at least some of it is sourced to blogs and personal websites. Based on the editing style and the continual promotion of Johann Hari I'm guessing it's David r from meth productions (talk · contribs). I've removed the material and semi-protected first and protected the second for now; if it is David r from meth productions and he logs in and continues to insert this material, I might have to full protect the first too. Alternatively, I could start blocking the editor, but I'm hoping that protection will calm things down for now. Jayjg 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it justifies allegations sourced to blogs and the like, but man, that Steyn article pretty much is a total hagiography. I'll see if I can put together something more balanced, properly sources, and less reliant on paragraph after paragraph of Steyn quotes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than quickly looking through the material that raised BLP concerns from various editors, I haven't really read either article. My only concern here is BLP; if you think the articles can be improved in other ways, please do so. Jayjg 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read it very well, did you? Try a slightly slower look next time. A bad decision in the Ferguson case. I've commented on the talkpage. There were three critics mentioned - a tiny number, really, let me tell you, given how controversial this chap is among academics and popular commentators alike - and all criticism was sourced to major papers/reviews, and all of it was notable enough for Ferguson to respond personally. There was an over-reliance on quotes, but hardly the sort of giant BLP violation you seem to think it was.

I haven't looked at the other article, and I don't intend to, because I don't know much about the Canadian. I do know something about Ferguson. Relata refero (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, I must again warn you to observe WP:CIVIL. I didn't read beyond the initial insult in your statement, perhaps you'd like to try again without the personal comments. Jayjg 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think that pointing out that you didn't read it very well is incivil, that is a problem. You did not read it very well, you have yourself admitted it, and its not incivil to point out that you shouldn't be conducting administrative actions without due diligence. Now that I have explained that the only one violating WP:CIVIL is the one who gets his back up at no provocation at all, let me repeat what I said: " A bad decision in the Ferguson case. I've commented on the talkpage. There were three critics mentioned - a tiny number, really, let me tell you, given how controversial this chap is among academics and popular commentators alike - and all criticism was sourced to major papers/reviews, and all of it was notable enough for Ferguson to respond personally. There was an over-reliance on quotes, but hardly the sort of giant BLP violation you seem to think it was. " In other words, you made an error. (Is pointing that out a similar violation of WP:CIVIL now?) Relata refero (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ramadan and Banu Qurayza

I don't know where to ask this, so I'm asking it here. On Talk:Banu Qurayza, Tariq Ramadan has been alleged of various things, e.g. "bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder". While I'm grateful that this has stopped, there are still allegations that he is an "Islamist". This is quite a controversial allegation.

My question is: is it alright to make such statements about a living person on a talk page, especially if they are a bit off topic?

Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm seems to suggest that the answer is no.Bless sins (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote is "The Islamist is your Muslim brotherhood friend Tariq Ramadan and you know that." That also seems to be a bit of a personal attack to me, unless Bless Sins has self-identified as an Islamist/member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't think Ramadan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself. I don't think he would consider it an insult though, as his grandfather founded it and his father was a prominent member. So, perhaps not a major BLP vio, though perhaps a personal attack. Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I interpret that as saying that TR is in some sense BS's friend, not that BS is a member. DGG (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina

There is no reliable biographical evidence available to substantiate the claim that she is in fact of Somali heritage. The only information widely reported is her home country(Russia)and city of birth (Perm). This wikipedia entry seems to be the only evidence people are able to refer to as evidence of any Somali heritage. The claim of Somali heritage has no verifiable basis, aside from claims based on a mystery interview that has never been provided.

Maybe its in Russian. Remove it if there are no references provided. If one is provided in Russian, bring it here and someone will translate it. If none is provided, remove her from the list of Somalis as well. Relata refero (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a {{unreferenced}} tag, as the articles has zero references, and removed all referernces to somlia as unreferenced Jons63 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. She definitely does not look half-Somali, as is claimed on some blogs. This Russian source (actually, the text about her is in English, search for "somali"), claims that she once said her father, who left her when she was three, was half-Yemeni and half-Somali. Now that would be easier to believe (note that it is not a reputable source, by the way, that it does not mention an "interview" and that I found only two blogs in Russian claiming Somali heritage, none about a mystery interview), if not for the fact that many inhabitants of the former Soviet Union and Eastern block (like Ricardo Franchini, who is actually Ryszard Kozina) have in the recent past claimed that their unknown or absent father was a foreigner, usually Spanish, Italian, Greek or if nothing else works, Turkish or Arab. In fact, most of these fathers were probably from the Asian republics (Kirgizia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan): Soviet gastarbeiter brought in for some important construction work - needed because of the male shortage in Eastern Europe. If Katya Shchokina (yes, that is how her name should be Romanized) was really fathered by a non-Soviet foreigner, why do none of the Russian news articles about her, mention that? (for instance). These models are a nuisance for a serious encyclopaedia. Most of what our articles mention is taken from "their personal web pages", usually in the hands of a fan and therefore based on hearsay. The birth place of Élise Crombez should obviously be quoted as Moeskroen (since she is Flemish, quoted "Moeskroen" herself as her birth place and Mouscron is a "commune à facilités"), but neither French speakers nor Flemish nationalists can leave that alone. This Shchokina's birth place is not certain either. I found one source from Perm claiming she was born in Kudymkar, a place where the immense majority of the population are Russified Finns! Shall we call her Yemeni-Somali-Russo-Finnish? I think we had better remove that thingy about her heritage... (and change the Cyrillic version of her name too!).--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary source, or secondary source?

There are some articles that were deleted recently, were many of {{afd}} participants justified delete opinions based on their perception those articles violated BLP.

In particular they characterized "Summary of Evidence" memos that contained the allegations against these individuals as "primary sources" -- and thus noncompliant with BLP.

Since the {{afd}}s were closed as delete I took a closer look at our definition of the difference between a primary and a secondary source.

These "Summary of Evidence" memos, are, as the name says, summaries. The authors compiled information from multiple documents, produced by multiple agencies.

To my way of thinking they constitute a canonical example of "secondary sources". I am considering requesting an undeletion review. First I thought I would ask for some opinions.

I already asked, over on primary source, or secondary source?

If you have thoughts on this, and time to offer them, it probably makes sense to offer them there. Thanks!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

Related to the question above, I have also asked a related question, over on WP:RS/Noticeboard -- under the heading What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

Some of those who had a concern that those "Summary of Evidence" memos were "primary sources" also voiced a concern that they weren't from an "independent, third party source".

As with the question whether these memos are "primaary sources", or "secondary sources", I think it would be best if anyone here who has an opinion puts it over on WP:RS/Noticeboard, where it was first raised. So, briefly, it seems to me that the arguments to suppress the use of these sources, because they weren't "independent" are based on unsubstantiated "gut feelings". It seems to me these arguments aren't based on anything that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER.

My thanks, in advance, to anyone who cares to offer their thoughts on these two questions!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

British National Party

There is an insistence on including the term Fascism in the info box. This is a term frequently used against the party by critics and it is sourced. However, the term is not discussed in the main text (where it certainly should be), and there is no statement that the Party promotes itself under this term, so there would be divergence of viewpoints by different analysts as to its applicability. Used in the infobox without any wider context, it stands as a definitive editorial statement which reflects on any individuals in the Party and particularly those mentioned by name in the article. I believe this contravenes the need for caution mandated by WP:BLP, and have pointed that out on the talk page to no avail. The sources provided are authors, not an official body. The BNP are not a prescribed party, but hold local government office. This should not be taken in any way as a reflection of my own views on the Party. Tyrenius (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "critics" is inherently misleading. A scholar who upon analysis of the BNP's policies and suchlike should not instantly be labelled a "critic" if he draws the conclusion that the party have a fascist ideology. Regardless of subject, that would mean any scholar who attributes a supposedly positive label would be a "supporter" or similar, whereas any scholar who attirubes a supposedly negative label would be a "critic", which is ridiculous. I (and others) have previously asked for discussion on the term in the main body of the article, see here. How the BNP views and promotes itself is an extreme minority fringe view. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that you link to is an endorsement of the point that this term should be examined in the article, but not stated in the infobox. Tyrenius (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do you work that out? Where does it say that? And regardless, that's simply to prove that it's been agreed it needs to be addressed in the article, and if you read the rest of the talk page you'll see the clear consensus. Admin says..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That edit by User:The Anome shows that NPOV is not served by the recent state of the info box. Why was that changed? Tyrenius (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. Recent edit, which may do the trick. Tyrenius (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that recent, just seems like the disclaimer got lost over the last couple of days. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think BLP applies to political organisation by dint of not being biography of living persons - it only intersects where living persons are mentioned in the political party's write-up. As far as it goes, I supprot "Fascism" being in the info box and in the article, and I am prepared to go along with "Denied by BNP", but would ask for a BNP citation to that end.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course BLP doesn't apply to political organisations. The problem with this article all along has been that certain editors (and it must be said, many of them admitted members or supporters of the BNP) have refused to allow any mention that the BNP is fascist. They have used all sorts of spurious arguments, including that it used to be but isn't now. (Variously, since 2000, or 2002, or 2003 or some other year.) No reliable evidence has been adduced to support this claim, though funnily enough they do not address the point that by implication they are saying the BNP was fascist, even though others deny that as well! I do not need academic references to know that the BNP is fascist, but nevertheless found citations to add to the infobox. Anyone who says that the article does not properly address the fact that the BNP is fascist is absolutely right, BUT it took considerable effort merely to have the citations included - hence the ridiculous qualifier "denied by the BNP". To get coverage in the article itself is going to be a big task and I am an editor, not a writer. Somewhere in there it should say that the BNP denies it's fascist (just as in an article on a murder we would say that the convicted offender pleaded not guilty) or even that some reliable sources do not concur (though none have been produced, and I have searched fruitlessly for them myself). However, being a fascist or a member of a fascist group is not a criminal offence. The BNP is not illegal. BLP serves to protect named individuals from malicious slander; calling someone a murderer with no reliable evidence is such; calling an organisation fascist with reliable evidence is not. Incidentally, with another editor I have been working on a replacement for the introduction following discussion on the BNP talk page - see User:Emeraude/temp for various drafts. Emeraude (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gossip magazines as reliable sources

An anonymous IP editing Huma Abedin insists that Woman's Day is a reliable source. I do not believe is sufficiently reliable per BLP standards as it is a sensationalist gossip magazine of the same time as OK!. The important claim - Abedin's alleged romantic relationship with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - is already supported by the reputable broadsheet The Times. As I have reverted several times to enforce WP:BLP in spite of WP:3RR, I would like expert attention to be directed at the sourcing of this article. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Woman's Day is not a gossip magazine. You make it sound like the National Enquirer. The majority of the magazine is recipes, crafting tips, fashion, food, homemaking things, etc.Wjhonson (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a paragon of journalistic integrity whose repeated rumours we should trust implicitly and repeat with abandon throughout the encyclopedia. Skomorokh 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe that fact Clinton agree to be interviewed for the piece adds to it's credibility.

I would also add that it makes no statement either way as to it fact or fiction it states the allegation was made Clintons response and a third parties (Renta) statement.

It adds no weight to either side but advises the reader that the story was published.

I would also state that wikipedia has many other articles which contain such information including Bill Clintons sexual misconduct allegations for example

Woman´s Day has almost 2.5 million readers, mostly women, who are of all ages and socio-economic groups. They live in cities, suburbs and regions. They are interested in their homes, families, careers and leisure time. They want to be healthy, fashionable, entertained and informed, to have fun, to know what´s going on in the world, what celebrities are up to and what´s new in health, nutrition, beauty, fashion, fitness and food. They want budget-conscious fashion, five-minute beauty routines, nutritious meals in 15 minutes, easy fitness ideas and helpful advice on life´s little problems. They enter contests in their thousands, write, fax and e-mail hundreds of letters every week, share secrets, advice, worries and joys. Woman´s Day gives its readers what they want.from ACP—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The two of you are arguing about different magazines. Woman's Day in the US is a Good Housekeeping clone. In Oz it's an OK magazine clone. One is an RS the other isn't.

The Abedin article already mentions the rumour through a Times article. There's no need for anything else. Relata refero (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Q.
Was Clinton intervied in the times article ? Was Renta interviewed in the times article ?
There are millions of exapmle though out wikipedia were more then one source is nothed and i beleave they ofer different information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fancy they weren't interviewed for this one either, merely quoted. De la Renta was quoted in the Vogue article on Abedin, and Clinton said this at a newsconference, I think. Again, Women's Day (Australia) is not a reliable source. Relata refero (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fancy has little to do with fact! In the Vouge article did Clinton speak of her warm and memories Of the time she and Bill spent in australia ? I fail to see all the fuss why are you so determined to remove what is simply information that there was such a story printed in woman's day ? What is you motivation ? Why do you seek repress a mater of fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'Fancy' is a figure of speech. Articles, especially in non-RSes, pick quotes from elsewhere and frequently do not assign the specific source. Clinton could have been talking about Australia at any point. Please cease your reverts, you now have 5 in a 24 hour period. This article is not a reliable source, and is thus inadmissible, period. Relata refero (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

for goodness sakes, if you're going to assert that a major presidential candidate is having a gay relatinoship with a staffer, you need a better source than that. Misplaced Pages!Not!Gossip column. Wikidemo (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated I am not asserting anything the information I have contributed is a fact which is on December 10 2007 there was an article which stated the following ! Such information is contained extensively throughout wikipedia. I think you have Woman’s Day confused with New Weekly and FYI Australia has its own version of OK magazine

Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home

In regards to the revert you continue to change it how many reverts do you have ? The mater was put here to be decided upon. A presidential candidate has no right to special treatment! Article states Hillary Clinton speaks to our own Angela Mollard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP's reverted someone else now. Thats 6/7 reverts in the past 36 hours. Can someone with the tools block him please? Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Times reported in November 2007 that a dirty tricks campaign was underway intimating that Abedin and Clinton were engaged in a lesbian affair. Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home.

While the mater is being delt with you and your friends continue to change it ! Look at how the article is now and always was structured. I fail to she your point ? you do not make a case and just change it ! why ? please note i fixed spelling due to your reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for 3RR. Eventually. I had to go on IRC and whine a bit first. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When you can't make an argument to back up you opinion you try to block people ? Thats very sad! Why dont you leave the page alone until a decision is made ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I would approach the situation. We already have an article on Woman's Day, the US Magazine. That's confusing as we've seen if there are multiple publications of this name. We need someone to add the {{otheruses}} template which will redirect to a disamg page. Then we need someone to write up an article, even a stub on this other Woman's Day and link it up to the disamg page. Then and only then we should have a discussion on the article for that publication to form a consensus for whether or not it is a reliable source. And if consensus cannot be reached, the publication should then be relisted at the reliable sources noticeboard for further community input. As it stands, those of us not living in Australia, really have no way to give input. Wjhonson (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What, we can't determine a magazine's a tad unreliable unless we have an article on it?

As a kicker, I see the front page of Women's Day Aus today is "Kissing Dad Just Feels So Right: Julie Is Madly In Love With Her Own Father". The site's online. Its a supermarket checkout rag, and I don't see why we need an article on it to determine that. Relata refero (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Coren

Can someone take a look at the article. I just got this message. I will email him to see if he has a specific complaint. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of Coren before, but these 9 edits by User:LagunaBeachCA look like a further trash-job on top of the trash-job the article already is. --CliffC (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that an Verizon IP is interested in the article here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In general the article is badly written. I removed one bit of OR but don't feel like doing more right now. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Abu El Haj

Hi, I'm concerned about the repeated insertion of unsubstantiated claims that Abu El Haj slandered an archaeologist on both this page and the page for facts on the ground. This text is inserted in a separate section on both pages, but the source of the claim seems to be a separate writer and whose accusations are not supported by the person supposedly being slandered by Abu El Haj. The inclusion on Misplaced Pages of potentially false claims that Abu El Haj slandered another academic could ITSELF be considered as slander, and so it is potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the talkpage. A long description of the controversy and the tenure decision, and then this particular accusation, which neither fits in with the rest of the discussion nor seems to be really very notable. Removed it and asked for justification on the talkpage for its notability. Relata refero (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Medved

On the Medved page, he is listed as a "self identifying homosexual". This is false and slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted: thanks for your help.--Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michele Sinclair

Michelesinclair (talk · contribs) created the page Michele Sinclair several days ago. I ran across it when it was slapped with a copyvio tag, as the text was a direct copy of what was on romancewiki, and also of text that appeared on various other websites. I cleaned up the article to rely only on the one source I could find about the subject and deleted the information on future works, and left a message on the talk page of the user to explain why I did that along with a link to WP:COI. Said user reverted my changes, so I reverted them back, and then today a random IP 67.34.42.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added back in the same romancewiki/copyrighted nonsense, deleting what was there. I suspect the IP and the user are the same, but I also am pretty sure it is the subject of the article, so I am not sure what to do about this. Even if she owns the copyright to the text, the information she keeps adding to the articleis not encyclopedic. I could have a checkuser run and get her blocked for repeatedly adding copyrighted text, but I'm not sure that's the best way to go with the subject of the article. For now, I've got the page watchlisted and will revert the copyvio when I see it. Advice on what else (if anything) to do would be very welcome!! Karanacs (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a tricky one. Many wikis release material under GFDL, just as Misplaced Pages does, in which case the only thing that needs to be done to satisfy copyright is provide a direct link to the source. I couldn't find any information on copyright anywhere on RomanceWiki, so I logged in and edited a page to see what kind of copyright advisement they offer. It's pretty skimpy; definitely no mention of GFDL. I have left messages at the talk page of the IP and the editor backing up your copyright advisement with specific steps to follow if they want to copy from this source. These two (this one?) have been explicitly warned, and if they persist without following outlined procedures, blocking may be the only option. Meanwhile, if the IP and/or the creator add questionable content, you might want to consider filing a notice at WP:COIN. I see other autobiographies there from time to time, and they ought to be able to help follow up on that one. (Also of potential use in that situation, {{COI2}}.) --Moonriddengirl 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Dawes

• Bill Dawes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems unworthy of inclusion. Article could be planted by the subject, his agent, management/PR rep, colleague, friend or "fan." Delete the article? // Lfo01 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to make that determination. If reliable independent sources can't be found about him, you can take this to WP:AFD and let community consensus decide if the article should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look I doubt it would be deleted, they seem to have a number of film credits, even if minor those tend to add up. Benjiboi 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollyoaks actresses articles

• Jennifer Metcalfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roxanne McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sinead Moynihan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ashley Slanina-Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hollie-Jay Bowes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Claire Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All are {{blpdispute}}d, please look into this. Thanks, Solumeiras (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, you added them. With no details as to what is disputed. Two of them are short of sources, but there's no other dispute that I can see. Relata refero (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• It does need investigation, since I'm not really much of a BLP editor... --Solumeiras (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is disputed, deragotory info in those article? Jons63 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• The articles need cleanup, I'm no expert in this field, so am trying to see if anyone else is able to fix it. --Solumeiras (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the articles and can only see one article that has anything contentious in it, which I have removed. I've removed the BLPdispute templates and added cleanup tags to the articles that need them. In future if you see anything controversial that is not sourced, remove it straight away, as stated in the WP:BLP. --RicDod (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Susan Polk

• Susan Polk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I received an e-mail from an editor concerned about BLP violations in this article and went to investigate, finding it does seem to have a history of biased contribution without adequate citation. I spent some time sourcing everything inline and attempting to neutralize the language, but it was immediately again altered to include unsourced negative allegations about the individual. I've left a warning at the IP of the most recent changer (whose edits in the past have included unsourced references to speculation of incest between the subject and her son), but this behavior has involved multiple editors (seems to be mainly IP). I'd be grateful for extra eyes to watch for unreferenced or poorly referenced controversial material. --Moonriddengirl 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you did a good job cleaning it up and sourcing most of it. I'll watchlist it, but if there are continued problems with IP's reintroducing BLP violations, you could semiprotect it or ask me to do so. MastCell 19:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Gonzalez

I removed both a "criticism" section that contained one unsourced criticism, as well as vague complaints that were not sourced to any actual critics but was basically original research. As well, I removed a seriously gratuitous red-baiting section under the heading "Ideology" which does not discuss Gonzalez' ideology at all, but simply was put in for sensationalism and well-poisoning. User Griot has been serially reverting attempted fixes on this a number of other Green Party related pages, offering false claims I've reliable sourcing and equally and demonstrably false claims of consensus in previous discussions. He often reverts contra numerous editors and admits a long standing personal grudge against Ralph Nader. I'd appreciate a look at the Matt Gonzalez page and its talk page. I am resisting being provoked by this editor.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some problem items and added context to address some of the other concerns, formatted refs and cleaned up the talk page. There does seem to be strong POV-pushing. If it persists re-post here for support. Benjiboi 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway disappearance

I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. Thanks. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Please do not move pages without first discussing the move. It is especially inappropriate to move a page, then ask for help here. Numerous prior discussions have occurred, and never has a consensus to move the page developed. - auburnpilot talk 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This simply reinforces my request for more eyeballs. This is not a biography and violates WP:BLP as indicated in my edity summary: (moved Talk:Natalee Holloway to Talk:Natalee Holloway disappearance -- This is definitely not a biography. If you don't agree, please ask at WP:BLPN or discuss at WT:BLP. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact) Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Natalee_Holloway&diff=prev&oldid=188303744

If anything is inappropriate, it is reverting without discussion at BLPN. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Try the article talk page, and do not move pages without discussion. - auburnpilot talk 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try the policy talk page, and do not violate WP:BLP. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A policy page is not the appropriate place to discuss a page move. We have article talk pages and things such as Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for that. Again, feel free to comment on the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this a biography? What are your arguments that trump WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event? Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. It is not a biography, and it has been returned to Natalee Holloway in violation of WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. AuburnPilot, please let this request stay at the bottom of this section so that others will check it instead of suspecting the usual drama. This is core WP:BLP. What do you have to lose? If I'm wrong, others will inform me. You have not provided me with a single argument in a whole string of edits. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since for some unknown reason, you refuse to comment on the article's talk page, I'll make one comment here. Your arguement is contradictory, as the section of BLP that you reference states we should not have biographies on people who are notable for one event. You even state, the article is not a biography. 1+1=2, and if it is not a biography, it is not in violation of that section. That section never mentions article titles anywhere within its text. The name of the article is not a BLP violation, but is a topic for discussion that is appropriate for the article talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And for examples of what I'm talking about, see Category:Murdered American children. There are dozens of articles within that category and all over Misplaced Pages, where the article resides at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two different considerations here (at least until and unless they're merged): WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E. The differences between the two are subtle, but substantial. In terms of BLP intervention, WP:ONEEVENT is the one that would seem to matter. It does not say that articles cannot be created about people noted for one event, but only that a separate article is unlikely to be warranted. I interpret the BLP guideline to indicate that where a person is not low profile, an article about him or her is not problematic with regards to BLP; sometimes a person's connection with a single event itself raises his or her profile. Take, for example, Sirhan Sirhan, Fusako Sano & Erica Roe. This is in contrast with individuals who remain low profile in spite of their connection with an incident, such as the various victims (including survivors) of serial rapist murderers John Duffy and David Mulcahy. An article about their first survivor, mentioned by name in the parent article, would be inappropriate. I don't believe Natalee Holloway is low profile, and hence I don't believe that the article about her is problematic with regards to BLP, which is intended to protect individuals from invasions of privacy and Misplaced Pages from allegations of defamation. I am inclined to agree with you that per notability guidelines the page should be moved, but I also agree with User:AuburnPilot that the first place to discuss that is the talk page of the article. I don't believe this is a BLP concern. --Moonriddengirl 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E are reasons why articles such as Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe have all been merged with and/or redirected to Natalee Holloway. They are notable only due to their connection to this one case, and do not warrant biographies of their own. Hopefully Mira Gambolputty will take the discussion regarding the article title to the article's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no time for this, that's why I asked others to have a look. Casting Natalee as "well known" in WP:BLP terms contradicts the very "Well known public figures" policy language, qv. Whatever happened to the likes of Uncle G? This is exactly why these rules exist. And this is exactly the type of problem handled by this board very often in the past. If Natalee is well-known for other reasons than the disappearance, it should be easy to write a real biography. This isn't it. As a newbie I studied the rules and precedents on this board before filing a request myself and I suspect that I'm not being taken seriously because I'm a newbie. By the way, this was not the only BLP problem with the article why I requested some more eyeballs. Someone might want to remove the rumor supposedly leaked from De Vries' website which has been reinserted into the article after I had removed it. VKMAG is not a reliable source at all and the accusation regarding Joran (however much everybody seems to think he did it) is currently another BLP violation.

I think the existence of WP (its content) may well change the course of history. However, if this is how WP is being built, please don't count on me to help. I'm a professional editor and have others things I can do more efficiently than defending the encyclopedia's rules against other editors. Bye. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disregarding your comments because you are a "newbie". I have no idea how long you've been editing, as I haven't checked your contribs. The mistake you've made is ignoring the article's talk page, and again bringing up an issue best addressed on the article's talk page. There are several editors who have extensive knowledge of the case and its article. If you have concerns, they are best addressed (surprisingly) on the article's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mira Gambolputty and a few other accounts controlled by the same person(s) seem to have retired. Benjiboi 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

• Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Peter Tatchell is a longtime LGBT campaigner whose bio is now being compromised in regards to apparently to his human rights efforts in Africa. Dubious statements and sources both in lede and text suggest POV pushing but I would prefer someone else take a look as I have previous contributed and would like a fresh set of eyes to help ensure objectivity. // Benjiboi 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Long quote in lead removed. If it is reinstated, please revert and then start a conversation on the talkpage, where there has been no discussion at all. Relata refero (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Atkins

• Scott Atkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Partial explanation posted at the AfD. Appears to be a real person (although there's a scant amount of reliable sources identifying him). Page is highly negative, identifying him as a con man and describing various frauds and scams he supposedly ran. User has communicated with me by email, verified his lack of third-party sources, and just said he's got "physical evidence" that he's taking to newspapers. Article raises many significant BLP concerns; I want a few extra eyeballs on it. // Gromlakh (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Janet Reno

• Trojancowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - adding defamatory material to BLP, not supported by source cited.// Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Raoul Lowery

• Trojancowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - adding unsourced, defamatory content to article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Austin Weird

• Keep Austin Weird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User insisted on including what appeared to be a section of poorly sourced original research about "Famous Austin eccentrics", former section title of "Austin Weirdos". After I removed the section as not being sourced well enough per WP:BLP, it was replaced with an edit summary stating that it's all found in an old Chronicle story in the Austin History Center stacks . I doubt this, but have no way to verify myself. Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section and left a note on the editor's talk page. Disparaging remarks about non-notable people will require consensus for notability and inclusion as well as exceptional sourcing. Benjiboi 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

James McConvill

• James McConvill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IP users (or one user with variable IPs) have repeatedly removed well-sourced material about a controversy in which McConvill was involved (see Drew Fraser). I've been reverting it, but don't want to violate WP:3RR or WP:BLP. Could someone take a look at this, please?JQ (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to be covered by WP:ONEEVENT and the article should therefore be deleted. A separate article on the controversy may be necessary but from what I can see it would not be notable enough. --RicDod (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

I have suggested per the category living persons that she be removed from that category since she is listed under the disappeared persons category. There was BLP concerns about monitoring this article that was discussed. I was told to take it up with the "BLP patrolers" who ever they might be. Can this category please be removed. There seems to be plenty of eyes watching this article to help avoid any BLP issues as well as all other policy and guideline disputes. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that just because someone is missing, that means that they are not living. I believe she is dead, but until she is declared dead by a reliable source, we need to continue to assume she is alive for the purposes of her article. Now, since she is alive, the category living persons is appropriate along with the category missing persons. Jons63 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But that category, disappeared persons, syas not to include those people in the living category? How do you reconcile that?--24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong, you are correct. I removed the article from the Living person Category with a very descriptive edit summary. I will watch and see what happens. Jons63 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Crozier (guitarist)

This article has been the frequent target of a lot of nonsense editing. I reverted the trash to a mini-stub, but none of what's there is sourced, and the nonsense editing continues. The article needs a lot of eyes due to the repeated vandalism. If there were still a BJAODN, the crap that was in the article would fit, though it would obviously fail BLP. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and also dropped a modified {{uw-unsor1}} at the talk page of the last IP to edit to supplement your note by explaining sourcing requirements. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly gratuitous insults in Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns

One of the numerous compilations of criticisms of Nader's campaigns in this article, in a paragraph listing criticisms by Eric Alterman, concludes with this sentence

He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac.

Does this article need every byte of hostile verbiage ever tossed at Nader, or can we draw a line at gratuitous and malicious insults like the above that don't seem to add much to the subject or Misplaced Pages, other than a peek into Alterman's mindset.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would remind this editor that first, this article is not biographical. It's about Ralph Nader's role in different presidential campaigns from 1972 to 2004. Second, these quotes come from very reputable third-party sources. They are strident. They are not gratuitous (since journalist Eric Alterman made them in a thoughtful manner) and they are not malicious (I'm certain The Nation and MSNBC, where they appear, would not tolerate malisciousness on their pages). Moreover, the quotes appear in this article in context. Feedler (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to remind everyone of this quote from WP:BLP

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

I am not saying that the material does not belong. We do though, need to be just as careful on this article as we are on Ralph Nader's biographical article about ensuring the material is properly sourced and weighted. Jons63 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Feedler Boodlesthecat that the material reflects undue weight. Reporting that critics felt his candidacy unbalanced the election seems appropriate; slurs against the candidate's character ("a deluded megalomaniac"?) are neither necessary nor helpful in representing that controversy and seem problematic to the article with regards to Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism. --Moonriddengirl 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is Feedler who is arguing for the inclusions of the slurs, and has been reverting them back into the article; this is why I brought the issue here). Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my name use error. I do recognize what the players are up to, though I copied & pasted the name incorrectly. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For context, here is the full quote:

On 26 October 2000, Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation, "Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish. After the election, Alterman said Nader was partially to blame for the election of George W. Bush because of vote splitting. He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac.

I include the full quote here because the short snippet quoted above needs to be viewed in context. Alterman criticized Nader prior to the election; the other quotes are followup to his analyses of Nader's campaigns. Feedler (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's put succinctly enough without the entire last sentence. This is not a matter of softening criticism, but presenting information neutrally. Alterman's opinion of Nader's influence of the outcome of the election seems very important. His opinion of Nader's character and/or intelligence doesn't, really, and, again, seems quite weighty. --Moonriddengirl 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. Griot (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta

A while back an editor was reading a news story about Frank LaGrotta and decided to create a BLP page to report the news of Mr. Lagrotta's legal troubles, apparently the editor had political motivations for doing so.

Another editor had already cited "Misplaced Pages is not news", to no avail.

The editor who created the article subsequently acknowledged that his reading the newspaper account of LaGrotta was the reason (s)he created the page, and created it on the very same day the newspaper story hit. Despite my removal of the potentially harmful material from the article, it was restored. I added and cited balancing material to indicate that Mr. LaGrotta's legal troubles were the result of a politically motivated procecution. These were removed.

I posted extensively to inform the editor who created the article about Misplaced Pages's policies for BLPs, to no avail.

A look at the edit history and the contributor histories indicates this "Wiki-expose" is politically motivated.

I am "courtesy" blanking the article and talk page per WP:BLP, and awaiting review.

See

• article history

I will post other diffs shortly riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for blanking the article. The motivation of the original editor is irrelevant so long as the end product is NPOV and verifiable. The material is well-sourced. If there are sources that say the prosecution is politically motivated then those should be added. The impeachment of Bill Clinton may have been politically motivated too but it still happened. While poorly-sourced material, if any, should be removed the article itself should not be blanked. WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't to apply to incidents that have lasting notability beyond a brief flurry of coverage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Bill Clinton was notable before he was impeached. (2) Evidence for lack of notablilty here is the fact that PA legislators generally do not have Misplaced Pages articles. (3) are you suggesting that Wikipedians should, as a general rule, create Misplaced Pages BLPs immediately upon the appearance of a name in a newspaper, or from police blotters? Especially as the report of an arraignment, not a conviction. I think this article, and the timing and motivation for it's creation clearly "does harm", by spreading nationally/globally what is merely "local news" in Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the policies differently, specifically with respect to (1) creation of an article specifically to report news about an arraignment of a person who was not formerly notable. (2) pleae read my post, the "balancing info" was removed. (3) in a BLP, the burden of proof for "lasting notability" is on the person adding the potentially damaging material. Additional background here riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

More diffs to follow, please be patient.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who created the article or why. All the matters is the current state of the article. What specific, unsolvable problem requires that the article be blanked? If you think the subject is not notable then bring it to AfD. In regards to a person's life story, being indicted for criminal charges is a notable event. I fail to see what harm is done to the subject by mentioning he indictment in his biography. He's a public figure who has been indicted for actions he took while a public servant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, if you are ready to make the call, make it. Whether you wait for the diffs, or investigate further is up to you. I blanked it and posted here because this is where the experts are...and I'm not going to waste another two hours researching balancing material and seeing it tendentiously deleted for political reasons. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The page appears fair and balanced to me, including references to the political side motivations. If the politician is not notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, then the article should be suggested for deletion. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue to impugn my motives, despite my denials of any political motivation? I have said multiple times that I had no political motivations in creating it — I simply believe that we have too few articles on state legislators, and when I find a bit of information about one, I'm apt to create an article on one (see Bob Lyon for another example). Who made the last edit to the page before it was blanked? I did — restoring a cited comment (originally added by Wndl42) that supports LaGrotta. Anyway, this article has been debated back and forth (the talk page is over 28KB), and we've worked hard to ensure that the article is balanced. As was stated before: blanking is not the solution, especially since a lot of the article is altogether unrelated to the indictment. Finally, regarding the notability question: Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) lists politicians as inherently notable — unless it can be proven that he wasn't really a state legislator (something I believe that would be quite difficult!), there cannot be any notability question. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

E/C If the issue is the deletion of "balancing material" then let's focus on that. Blanking the entire article isn't the right solution for an edit dispute. Regarding your points above, 1) Many people become notable for doing bad things. Creating an article in response to reports of bad activities is not, by itself, a problem. If that were the case we would not have an article about Seung-Hui Cho. 2) If you don't think he's notable then the correct action is to nominate the article for AfD. In fact, that was done three weeks ago and the community decided that he was sufficiently notable for an article. This is the second time you've blanked the article. Continued blanking of sourced, NPOV material in the absence of a consensus becomes disruptive. 3) It's the job of Misplaced Pages editors to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view in order to create an encyclopedia of articles on notable topics. This article appears to meet the description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, or other BLP admin, please comment on people notable for only one event

Although I'm not a BLP admin, please note my opinion that as a state legislator he's not notable for just this one event. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the allegation is that he engaged in a longterm criminal endeavor by hiring his relatives as ghost employees. The court case has already been going on for months and probably won't be finished for many more months. So the criminal charge, which is only one element of his notability, is much more than a "single event". Lastly, that section specifically refers to a "relatively unimportant crime". Felony corruption charges against a career politician are not relatively unimportant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the article was created specifically to report news of LaGrotta's indictment. I said the motivation "appeared" political, as the following discussions on the talk page and your following comments seeemed to indicate. I find it difficult to believe that I'd be sitting around one day reading the local Beaver County Times, read about a local politician's indictment, and think "Misplaced Pages needs an article" in the absence of a political motivation. Also, please note that "politicians are inherently notable" at the statewide level and above, and LaGrotta is not a statewide representative.

I really don't have a "horse" in this race, I just can't believe that Misplaced Pages should be used as a million watt national bullhorn for spreading the news of a politically-motivated prosecutor's charges, innocent until proven guilty.

Will, make the call if you don't see a problem with using Misplaced Pages as a "news amplifier" in the context of WP:BLP, I'm outta time.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we really need to unindent! You are correct that he wasn't a "statewide representative", but the listing includes "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature," and he is a former member of a state legislature. And yes, occasionally I do read something and think "Misplaced Pages could use an article on that". Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Google news analysis: For all this time, Lagrotta did not merit enough notability for an article on Misplaced Pages (yellow timeline bars indicate hits for "Frank LaGrotta" from Google's News Archive through 2006). Then, a politically motivated prosecutor files politically motivated charges for stuff that (as I understand it) has been commonplace in PA for years in both parties. Now, Misplaced Pages was used in November to "bullhorn" Corbett's charges nationwide. Could "wiki-bullhorning" Corbett's allegations have damaged LaGrotta's case, or weakened his ability to negotiate? THAT is how using Misplaced Pages to report/amplify the NEWS specifically "does harm". LaGrotta could make case against Misplaced Pages on this basis, and that is why this noticeboard is here, and THAT is why BLP is so strict.

Will, if you have a horse in this race, you should probably recuse, and let an uninvolved admin have a look. I will do one more revert and suggest that only an uninvolved ADMIN weigh in with a definitive opinion. If that admin wants my opinion, please leave a message on my talk page.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no "horse in this race". You've repeatedly asked me to "make the call" and I've repeatedly told you that blanking the article is inappropriate. The community has already given a strong response to to your assertion that the subject is not notable. Ignoring the consensus and blanking the article is disruptive. I've protected the article to prevent disruption. When it expires please do not make wholesale blanking of neutral, sourced material against the community consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are any specific sections of text that you think must be removed to comply with BLP, please give the exact text and justification here or on the article talk page so an admin can make the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll not make any such edits while it's protected: not as a matter of spite, but because as an involved party, I don't think I should be making any edits of any sort to the page while it's protected, even though as an admin I can. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in some editing of this article. Mr. LaGrotta is a Pennsylvania State Represenate (that makes him prima facie notable), and is currently under indictment by the Pennsylvania Attorney General for corruption. A while back, certain editors tried to have mention of this indictment scrubbed from the article, citing WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, even going to the point of an , which was overwhelmingly KEEP.

Frankly, I am annoyed at the failure to assume good faith here by User:Wndl42. Just because someone created an article on the day he was indicted does not prove that it was solely to be mean to him. There are 203 State Representatives, and very few of them have article. This guy was in the news, so why wouldn't he get an article before some 1 term backbencher?

I even went so far as to add a bunch about his bio and prior electoral history to balance against the WP:UNDUE concerns. If someone is indicted by the Attorney General, why wouldn't we mention it in his article? --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the editor's argument that the subject is entirely non-notable and therefore the article constitutes news rather than encyclopedic content? Or is the argument that while the subject is notable, the ongoing investigation makes inclusion of the article completely invalid? Those would seem to be the only logical arguments.

One would think that if the argument was the former, then efforts to delete or blank pages of virtually all PA State legislators should be underway. That would certainly be an interesting undertaking.

If the argument is the latter, then at what point does the "news" become history and therefore encyclopedic? I can only assume the conclusion of the case. So maybe the discussion should be put on hold until 9:00 AM EST when LaGrotta appears in court to plead guilty. Or does conclusion of the case occur after his sentencing or completion of the sentence?Montco (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just wait until he pleads. Either way, "not guilty" or "guilty" it should be in this article. For those editors that still think that the article should not mention this episode: Do you really think that a wikipedia should have a higher reporting standard than the grand jury, the magistrate who gave the original warrants, the state Attorney General, and the trial judge who has refused to dismiss the charges? Come-on!

Maybe we should also blank Michael Jackson's article, since he was never actually convicted of anything. Is that the standard we should have?--RedShiftPA (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Article by obituary

I'm sure this isn't the proper noticeboard, but I'm also not sure which one would be. There is an editor who is on an article creation spree using obituaries as the starting point. Recent examples include Jennifer Davidson, Beto Carrero, Lovie Yancey, Shell Kepler, Bernie Boston, Andrey Kurennoy and so forth. Many other examples can be found here. Some of these articles have nothing more than the obit as a source (and some of his other articles don't have any sources at all). This seems to be contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not a memorial if not it's absolute letter. Any thoughts? Pairadox (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My first thought. They are dead. This noticeboard is for the living ;) Ok ok I'm being snarky. Perhaps one thing would be to the great Google check to see if these people are actually... anybodies? If they are, then I'd suggest other editors will be along to expand the articles, maybe even yourself! Probably you want to go to the Talk page of Notability to seek input. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I aknowledged this wasn't the correct board; give me some credit for that, at least. :P Thanks for the pointer to a better location. Pairadox (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On the general point, I think an obituary from a good newspaper can be the best source for biographies on people about whom we should have articles. Every week I read obits about notable people with interesting lives. Being lazy I've rarely done anything about it (or have been glad to see an article already existed). I think the distinction should be made between obits written by the editorial staff (the NY Times is famous for theirs) and paid obits submitted by survivors ("He was a loving husband..."). In small newspapers this distinction may not be clear, or the fact-checking may be inadequate or nonexistent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Will but you wouldn't even need to elicit V policy, N would be enough to scuttle articles on non-entities.Wjhonson (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

N? NPOV? Notability? WP:BIO says that a single significant profile may be sufficient to establish notability. An obit may be that profile. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this shows me that I'm probably just being too sensitive to the "morbid" factor of combing obits to create articles. Thanks for the feedback. Pairadox (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

James Loney (peace activist)

He is a pacifist who was kidnapped in Iraq, and supposedly rescued by a commando operation (although in all probability, ransom was paid.) He stated that he would rather have died than been rescued by violence. Rightwing commentators made a lot of noise about how ungrateful he was for that, and how awful he was to refuse to co-operate with the Iraqi investigation because he believed it was corrupt and anyway he wouldn't co-operate with a death penalty case, etc. That POV keeps creeping in as objective fact to his biography. And just in general there are a lot of uncited statements including controversial quotes. For some reason the other 3 kidnap victims don't attract the same vitriol. Anyway, keep an eye out. <eleland/talkedits> 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Myrna Williams (politician)

Myrna Williams (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are three statements towards the end of the article:

1. Two days before the 2006 general election, Chris Giunchigliani her opponent who won the election, accused Myrna of being part of Operation G-Sting.
2. Williams was the only commissioner in office in 2006 who served alongside Erin Kenny, Dario Herrera, Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and Lance Malone who were charged and convicted in the case.
3. All four were indicted in 2003 of accepting cash bribes from then strip club owner Michael Galardi in what was called in some quarters Operation G-Sting. This relationship may have been one of the reasons she was not reelected in 2006 outside of the fact that she had been ineffectual and unresponsive to her constituants' needs.

The second statement seems to have a reliable source and is not too controversial. However the first and third statements seem controversial and have the source of americanmafia.com which does not seem a sufficiently reliable source to back up these allegations. I do not want to change this myself as I have being involved in removing a PROD tag and commenting on an AFD for a related article. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Ayaan

• Holy Ayaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a new article on a documentary about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm concerned that the article drifts from a discussion of the documentary to commentary on the subject's life. Because I've never dealt with BLP issues before, and because she is a controversial figure, outside views would be appreciated. // Dchall1 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Also, as much of this information appears to be recounted in the main article, this might qualify as a POV fork. Dchall1 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment following this line of reasoning, the article Infidel (book) (a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is a POV fork too. Andries (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Bertorello

• Pablo Bertorello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pmrbertorello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• See also Estangle (talk · contribs) and Bertorello (talk · contribs)

Relatively new users appear to be writing an autobiography. Was cleaned up once, but is now full of citations to blogs. This seems to be the last version without blogs. Some of the refs added after that may be good, but it's going to take a bit for someone to sort out. Gimmetrow 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow was nice enough to inform me of this post after I had started an AfD nomination.. I'm not sure of how to proceed now. Suggest a speedy keep or see the nomination through? Rehevkor (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Eric Alterman (September 16, 2004). "Bush's Useful Idiot". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Eric Alterman (March 22, 2001). "Tweedledee, Indeed". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Eric Alterman (June 6, 2004). "Phew". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Alterman, Eric (October 26, 2000 ) Note One Vote! The Nation.
5. Eric Alterman (February 8, 2006). "Dancing days are here again". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. Eric Alterman (September 16, 2004). "Bush's Useful Idiot". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Eric Alterman (March 22, 2001). "Tweedledee, Indeed". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. Eric Alterman (June 6, 2004). "Phew". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Inactive project pages
• Misplaced Pages archives