Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeepday (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 10 February 2008 (→Question regarding Orson Scott Card: Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Misplaced Pages). 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This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would draw to everyones attention that you have made a mistake or misinformed readers as the page you refer to is not infact the front page I would also point out that the story you point to does contain the name of the writer as has been discussed above. i would ask you to withdraw your mistaken or missleading statements thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 16:40, 6 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)

Any attempts to moderate the language in this article are getting reversed very quickly. Most recently by User:TanganyikaCo.. There's not much point in even trying to re-write it. BlearySpecs (talk) 20:40, 4 February 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)

• • Material was removed on 2 February after discussion and has been stable since Jons63 (talk) 14:33, 5 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

This question is now the subject of an active RFC at Talk:Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Because this conversation is referenced there, I am not collapsing it. Please add further commentary there.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

User:Feedler emerged during the early 2007 edit wars around the use of the Atlantic Monthly quote in the lead of the Ralph Nader article and is in agreement with User:Griot on this and related matters. Often emerges during Ralph Nader-related disputes. FYI, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:06, 4 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)

Subjective judgment regarding width or endurance of Ralph Nader's skin aside, the content does not fit with WP:BLP. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As the IP indicates, the thickness of the candidate's hide isn't really the issue. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a privacy issue so the quoted passage from WP:BLP is inapplicable. According to WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. One fact about Nader's campaigns was that they generated intense animosity toward Nader among many progressives. Alterman isn't being quoted as a reputable source to establish the fact that Nader is a megalomaniac. The point is to acquaint the reader with the effect that Nader's campaign had on many people's opinions about him. It's better to quote Alterman by name than to say "many critics were very hostile toward Nader" -- a statement that's true but that uses weasel words. Whether this particular quotation is the best one to use is open to discussion, but the intensity of the opposition to Nader shouldn't be whitewashed. JamesMLane t c 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The section regarding criticism in BLP does not relate to privacy, but to the necessity that BLPs be written in a neutral, non-partisan manner. I agree that intensity of opposition to Nader should not be whitewashed; nevertheless I do believe that quoting this one critic's assertions that Nader is an idiotic, delusional megalomanic violates that section BLP. Giving undue weight to his opinion implies that he represents a majority view. I do believe it would be better to say "Many critics were very hostile toward Nader" if that were followed by "with Alterman saying blahblah and Otherreputableperson saying blahblah,<ref><ref> while opponents of this perspective maintained that insertopposingviewhere".<ref>. If there are no opposing views, well and good, but I see nothing in the article at this point to indicate (much less substantiate) that Alterman's aspersions on Nader's character and intelligence are anything other than the opinion of one man, whose views should not be given disproportionate amount of space lest we run the risk of seeming to promote a point of view. A digression into Nader's intelligence and pathology would seem to need much more support than that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There can be no serious dispute that the hostility to Nader among progressives is widespread (not universal, but widespread). To state that, and to quote Alterman as an example, as you suggest, is one reasonable way to present the information. (Again, I'm not passing judgment on whether this particular quotation should be selected as one example -- only that some such opinion should be reported.) We don't need "support" for discussion of Nader's intelligence and pathology because the Alterman quotation isn't being presented for its value as a reliable source on psychiatric issues. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's simpler than that; the issue is whether we need a pundit's gratuitous insults in an article that is already chock full of indications of the "hostility to Nader among progressives," (unless by hostility, you mean cheap insults rather than opposition to his campaign, in which case we should just add a cheap insult section). The notion that this is in any way being "whitewashed" in the article just ain't borne out by a simple glance at the article. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll also note that it's not properly placed. The section in which it appears refers to "Spoiler warnings prior to the election", not aftermath. (Much in the article seems to need restructuring; given how embattled it seems to be, I imagine keeping order is hard.) That's a digression, though. :) On the specific topic of the appropriateness of this particular material for inclusion by BLP, in stupidly simple outline form, it should be quite appropriate to say, "Nader ran. People said his running would give a win to the Republicans. The Republicans won, and a lot of people said it was Nader's fault because. They got mad. Other people said it wasn't because. They got mad, too. Nader himself said this." Building an article from the ground up, it would certainly be possible to include Alterman's quotes as partial evidence of how outraged some people were by Nader's decision and to balance this with the viewpoints of his defenders. However, without context these quotes stand to speculate not just on the impact of Nader's campaign, but on his state of mind: the implication is that he isn't smart enough to know better, and he is too self-important to realize his legitimate chances. Their use would require positing them as simple expressions of umbrage; I share Boodlesthecat's opinion that there seems to be sufficient attention given to negative viewpoints of Nader's campaign in the article without that. Hence, adding the context would, by my reading of BLP, seem too weighty. To boil it down, I think the sentiments without context are wholly inappropriate by BLP. I think it could be possible to contextualize them so that their use was not inappropriate, but that doing so would require restructuring what's already in the article so as to avoid unbalancing critical perspective. In the absence of that restructuring, I believe that Alterman's descriptors of Nader should be removed. --Moonriddengirl 19:30, 4 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_LaGrotta&oldid=183004782

Another editor administrator 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)

• (break in) Nyttend, I should have been more explicit, and I will apologize now as I did before. (1) The article you created was created in response to your reading the newspaper. (2) The political nature of the article you read indicates apparent political interest was involved, but (3) WP:AGF and your edit history leave the matter "inconclusive" in your favor. My summary above did not make this clear, and my summary did have the effect of attributing an apparent motive to you, and while I explicitly said "apparently", it still comes off as speculation, and your protest against my characterization here is well founded.

• However, to be clear, the article absolutely and almost immediately became a "political magnet" for a number of "politically interested" (in some cases, single issue) editors, and very quickly the article went way overboard on the WP:UNDUE scale, for example the article went from November into January without any balancing information. Along the way, a month after the LaGrotta "news" first appeared on Misplaced Pages, a tangent article appeared, created by a single-issue editor, and this IMO supports the assertion that neither LaGrotta, nor the larger investigation were WP:NOTABLE enough for Misplaced Pages on the day the LaGrotta article was created. What I wish to point out (as I have before) are the "unintended consequences" that result from creating articles solely to report the news. Note above that my use of the plural "contributor histories" was meant to refer to those editors who worked the article between November and January, and not to you exclusively or in particular, and in that group of editors some are clearly politically motivated. If you say you are not among them it's good enough for me, should be good enough for anyone, so again, my apologies to USER:Nyttend. WNDL42 (talk) 20:02, 6 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)

• He pled guilty today. End of story --RedShiftPA (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue presented here has nothing to do with what he did or didn't do today. The issue here is WP:BLP in the context of WP:NOT#NEWS (read point five), see also WP:HARM#TEST. This is the only issue raised in my original post. Please don't Straw_Man my intent.

I still have not heard a definitive position statement from a BLP expert on the creation of this article in the context of the policies above. A simple answer to the question "was the article created in violation of these policies?" is all that is needed, and a simple "yes" or "no" will do (as long as the admin has reviewed the case history, with reference specifically to the creation of the article in November 2007). Again, "yes" or "no" will suffice. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"No". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Will. Now, if we can reverse administrator ≈ jossi ≈'s original opinion, apparently to the contrary, so as to create an administrator's consensus of two, then I will feel comfortable knowing how to understand and apply WP:NOT#NEWS in the future. I do, sincerely appreciate your patience with my questions about WP:BLP in this context. WNDL42 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made that comment the article was very unbalanced. Now it includes substantial information about the person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, I agree the article is better now, but that is not the question I raise(d). I guess I'm still confused, and will remain so, about the creation of articles solely to report the news, specifically, in the context of WP:NOT#NEWS, "do no harm", and for living persons who are otherwise not individually or categorically notable enough to merit an article, as happened here edit. Also, I apparently misinterpreted your cite of "NOTNEWS"; "can put it in after he's convicted" apparently this was not intended by you to apply to the creation of a BLP for reporting news. Anyway, it's a dead discussion now, other than for my remaining confusion. WNDL42 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (revised) WNDL42 (talk) 20:02, 6 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)

This article has now been deleted, as it had been created by a banned editor - Alison 07:27, 4 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)

I would let the AfD process run, unless it does so it sets up persistent folks to then run it through DR or quickly renom to AfD. The subject may be notable and the article just poorly written as well but AfD goes for a week so that might inspire some constructive editing to mitigate poor sourcing concerns. Benjiboi 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ilchi Lee article

I could really use some help on the Ilchi Lee article. I was the one who originally added it. At the time, I kept the controversy section very minimal, in keeping with the "do no harm" policy about living people. The essential problem is that the controversies have not been covered by reputable journalistic sources, but plenty of allegations have been made on various finger-pointing sites, like Rick Ross' and Steve Hassan's. One editor came in and completely deleted my version of the section and then rewrote it using highly questionable sources, including quotations from a highly derogatory court document from prosecution in a case that was ultimately dismissed. He/she also added a number of unsubstanciated accusations from the finger-pointer sites. I really have a hard time believing that most of this information is appropriate for a biography of a living person. I would really appreciate someone with experience with biographies of living people to chime in on this.Nicola Cola (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no! Nicole, a great person by all means, has it all wrong. We want to bury this controversy. Don't all of you out there understand- it will be too difficult for us to gain new membership if this so called controversy persists. Therefore, I would like to ask that all unsubstantiated controversies related to Ilchi Lee or Dahn Yoga be terminated as soon as possible. Thank you all for your time, may you have bright futures!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing- Hassan and Rick Ross must go!! Find just one other source on Misplaced Pages that quotes Ross or Hassan. You can't find one! It's not possible!!!!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Diane Francis considered a reliable source?

One editor in particular deleted citations from Diane Francis based on the fact the citations had the word 'blog' in the url. "Blog" in this case seems to be more of a newspaper marketing ploy than anything else. Here is another example of a "Blog" attached to a newspaper: Freakonomics

My point is the interpretation of WP:RS is too narrow in these cases.

Who Diane Francis is:

Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'

IMO Diane Francis answers to someone within the the National Post organization she works for should therefore be considered a reliable source in the same way as any other reporter in a reputable newspaper. I am seeking comments from other editors.DSatYVR (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The portion of WP:SPS which states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." seems to apply here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Misplaced Pages an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

E. Annie Proulx‎

E. Annie Proulx‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated addition/reverting of controversial and uncited section by 76.167.197.251. Also POV, Original research, against long-term consensus on talk page and undue weight on trivial episode. Anon editor at 76.167.197.251 refuses to discuss edits on talk page and blanked user page when contacted.--Escape Orbit 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger - new issues

Heath Ledger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the last few days, one editor has dominated the editorial decisions on this page, unilaterally making decisions that conflict with content-related discussions on the article's Talk page. Attempts to discuss issues with this editor have been met with dialogue, but general resistance to collaboration; the discourse on the Talk page is particularly bogging down into long diatribes about appropriateness of content in the Death section. I hope it's not premature to bring this up on the noticeboard, but it's a live issue that shows no signs of bettering on its own. Townlake (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to this presentation of my editorial work (and work it has been). I have spent much time correcting formatting problems in citations and adding sources and updating. I have also discussed any of my own changes that relate to controversies on the talk page and have provided editing summaries. My attempts to improve the article are exactly that. I've moved the discussions of the article from my own talk page to the talk page of the article, where they are more appropriately placed. This is an article about a person who died on January 22, 2008, and it is important to be wary of the still-living persons who are being referred to in the article and on the talk page; WP:BLP and especially WP:BLP#Sources pertain to them, as it did to Heath Ledger until very recently. See the templates on both the article page and the talk page. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help to reference what material is problematic as the issue seems to be about content rather than a user one. Benjiboi 05:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone could look at this section, to me it seems BLP-violating. There does seem to be some WP:OWNership and WP:TENDitiousness issues with NYScholar in regards to the lengthy Heath_Ledger#Memorial_tributes_and_related_public_statements section. Benjiboi 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I myself am the editor who has called for total removal of the section that appears to me to be violating WP:BLP in Talk:Heath_Ledger#For_futher_discussion--moved_to_talk page ("this section" above). I moved the section from the article to the talk page and have asked for the entire quoted material there and discussion of it to be removed. I added an "Alternative proposed" subsection for one to consider, though I myself would prefer the whole matter left out of the article, due to the way that the tabloid news sources (now in talk) violate Misplaced Pages's WP:BLP if cited and linked in the main article or its talk page.
• The second claim appears absurd to me: I do not feel or think that I "own" the article; I've just spent a lot of my own time trying to "clean up" its citation problems (which have been many; many of which remain); my editing summaries and talk page comments explain my reasons for providing two block quotations in the talk page (I centered them so that the illustration would post better: I did not originate putting in these quotations; they were already there as block quotations just prior to my centering them; ) I have not engaged in violating any Misplaced Pages policy (including 3RR) in my editing of the article, and I have explained my edits throughout. The article has been subject to considerable vandalism ever since Jan. 22, 2008. --NYScholar (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Agree that issues are persisting. Townlake (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly let's get rid of the BLP-stuff and those interested can produce a non-BLP-violating text w/exceptional sources to reintroduce any of it. Secondly, NYScholar, the issue since I've posted there seems to be a strong consensus to greatly reduce or remove entirely the memorials with quotes section with you countering removing any of it. I also added a {{too short}} template as the lede is ... too short and you removed that. Personally I'm not familiar with the article so am not familiar with the content. The talk page was quite full and thus I mistakenly started a new section to trim the quotes when at least one already existed. I'm sure there's some handy policy guide that says that wikipedia is not a memorial. If that doesn't suffice perhaps we could lean on that we don't, "out of respect", generally print entire quotes and statements, we use the parts needed within context to move the narrative along. Benjiboi 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith efforts at addressing the concerns. Benjiboi 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see the reversion of my recent dev. of the lead by another editor, who is beginning to attack my edits in a personal way; the reversion is unwarranted, given the development of the article (currently), which it summarizes, and the sources cited there and throughout the rest of the article. Thanks. --10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYScholar (talk • contribs)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

• Michael Lucas (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• David Shankbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor David Shankbone has removed reference to Michael Lucas having been a prostitute and substituted the comparatively benign term "escort" in its place. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution..." Misplaced Pages defines hustler in this sense as a male prostitute. Shankbone has also removed reference to Lucas's real last name being Bregman. The source cited clearly states: "Lucas was born Andrei Treivas Bregman in Moscow in 1972." There are many other sources on the internet supporting the facts that Lucas worked as a prostitute and that his real last name is Bregman. Coincidentally, the changes Shankbone has made were specifically requested by Lucas on the bio's talkpage. --72.68.122.108 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you using your username? It's hard to communicate with anonymous users. What are the sources for these assertions? Do they meet the highest standards of reliability? If not then they should be removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This has already been resolved. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Michael_Lucas_.28porn_star.29. Benjiboi 23:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is a separate noticeboard. This board discusses content which is what is being discussed here. Yes, both sources in the bio meet reliability requirements: the first is Yale Daily News, and the second, New York Magazine. Other equally reliable sources can be found on the web by searching "Michael Lucas, prostitute" and "Michael Lucas, Andrei Treivas Bregman." The preponderance of sources state that Lucas had been a prostitute and that his real last name was Bregman. --72.68.122.108 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing that resolved flag with a comment: the resolution at COIN was to refer the IP editor here. The editor proceeded instead to AN and was again referred here. The merits of the BLP argument haven't actually been addressed yet, and this is the place for it. Please do not trap this person in a Catch-22. There actually is an issue worthy of examination here: did David Shankbone pursue too conservative an interpretation of BLP? The use of prostitute in the article is arguable on the basis of multiple reliable sources. I do not endorse this editor's use of inappropriate fora or refusal to use a registered account or stable IP address, but the issue he or she raises actually does deserve examination and this is the proper place to examine it. Durova 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Anon editor 72.68.127.152 added this gem to the LGBT Wikiproject talk page and I thought this was simply more of the same. The COIN item was from anon 72.68.122.138 so this could all be a coincidence. Benjiboi 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And actually wouldn't the talk page of the article, a RfC if needed, be the place? It's here now so fine but the editors have shown a willingness to discuss issues and lean on reliable sources when in doubt. To me this still smacks of a veiled attack against Shankbone who's gone above and beyond for wikipedia and now for wikinews. Has anyone mentioned this to Shankbone by the way? Benjiboi 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Update. I've left a message for Shankbone on talk and found this in the process. Benjiboi 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you have one person behind an IP who is evading detection by using a range of IPs (who are so familiar with Misplaced Pages rules, guidelines and administrative pages that they may be a banned user - I assume NO good faith). They do not deserve our attention, and if you'd like to see some of their handiwork you can go here (,, , , , et. al.). Regarding Durova's allusion to an substantive issue, that was already addressed at COIN. I will quote Becksguy, who hit the nail on the head:

Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City." The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this person has an issue with Michael Lucas, and we need no indulge them. --David Shankbone 00:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocked - the 72.68.0.0/16 IP range is blocked for 72 hrs due to ongoing, widespread harassment of David Shankbone originating from differing IP addresses in that netblock. I had already blocked 3 addresses individually for 72 hrs, I am extending this to the whole range at this point. This campaign of harassment is unacceptable behavior, whoever it is who's doing it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ew! If I'd seen that diff of the personal attack before I would never have unresolved this thread. It's one thing to pursue a complaint at the wrong fora, which can be understandable in a relative newcomer. Quite a different thing to post graphic insults. Clearly, BLP was a smokescreen for a personal vendetta. I apologize for the inconvenience my post caused. Good block. Durova 01:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's my understanding this post is for the discussion of content issues related to the Lucas bio.

I found the following sources that reference Lucas's work as a prostitute:

- Wall Street Journal
- glbtjews.com
- amazon.com (see Editorial Reviews from Booklist)
- AVN Media Network
- and the article sourced in the bio itself .

And the following sources reference Lucas as "Andrei Treivas Bregman":

- Gay.com
- Advocate.com
- Wall Street Journal Blog
- NYTimes
- BUTT magazine
- Lucas's own blog
- United States District Court
- and the article sourced in the bio itself .

These show that Lucas was a prostitute and that his real name is Andrei Treivas Bregman. --72.76.94.214 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

David Allen - editing his own page.

David Allen seems to have made the most recent edits to his biographical page, including adding a picture with an erroneous fair use tag.

Requnix is the user name used by Allen on the various sites he's owned/operated over the years. see and see.

I'm not suggesting he's committing a terrible crime and needs to be executed for it, but I thought I'd point this out just as a heads-up. Peter1968 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I glanced at his changes to the article. I saw that the editor changed a statement about the subject's being fired to the more neutral released. When I went to check the source, I found it a deadlink (blocked by bot, no less) and removed it altogether. Otherwise, his changes seem innocuous. I see that the question of his picture has been addressed at his user talk page with (as yet) no response. At this point, I'm not sure further intervention is required. :) If he persists in editing the article, you may want to drop him a note either consisting of or borrowing language from {{uw-coi}}. If that doesn't discourage further editing, you can tag the article with {{COI2}}, unless his edits seem to unbalance neutrality, in which case you'd tag it with {{COI}}. In that latter case especially, you might open a section at the conflict of interests noticeboard. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Insight (magazine)

This site seems to be being used partly as a coatrack to repeat false charges against Barack Obama. I wrote an article about the issue, which was deleted after a heated debate. Redddogg (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• (breaking in) I am the editor who raised the issue wrt BLP on the talk page, thanks Redddogg for posting the issue here. The coatracking is repeating Insights false/unsubstantiated charges against BOTH candidates...to be clear.WNDL42 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the real BLP issue is that one editor (not Redddogg) seems to think that there is a consensus in RS for his opinion that Jeffrey T. Kuhner lied about his anonymous source in order to smear both Clinton and Obama (which was the Clinton campaign's initial response to the Insight story). And he keeps trying to force the article to treat that opinion as fact... Which of course is a BLP violation against Kuhner, since no one (except, if it is true, Kuhner) is a RS for that statement. He's just gone over 3RR again, btw. Wrong noticeboard, I know, but I don't have time now to pursue this. Andyvphil (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue Summary

I would characterize the above comments by Andyvphil as a mischaracterization. The article is being used to coatrack both the "obama's-madrassa connection" and the "clinton-investigating-obama's-madrassa-connection" rumors. The BLP issue has to everything to do with the use of the article as a coatrack for repetition of both of these unverifyable "internet rumour mill" claims. Apart from being widely known, the fact that event was an anonymous smear on both candidates has also been clearly established by extensive Google NEWS ARCHIVE analyses to be widely discredited, desc "smears", "lies" and a "double splatter smear" on both candidates. All based on nothing more than idle speculation by a politically motivated outfit. Insight's owners are (really not kidding) identified by Colombia Journalism Review as being "the media arm of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church". No editor is claiming that "Kuhner lied", but the consensus view among WP:RS sources is that it was a fabrication. In response to carefully constructed search query analyses of "Google Scholar", "Google News" and general google, it was established that the overwhelming consensus views (including Columbia Journalism Review itself) was that the whole thing from madrassa to "clinton campaign's thinking" was a political hoax. The "majority" is resisting the prominence of the WP:RS views and promoting the "fringe" viewpoint that Kuhner's anonymous sources were "legit".

Conflict Summary

The conflct exists between the (minority) opinion that the article should be structured and presented according to the categories in which it is presented, namely "media" and "journalism" as opposed to focus on the "politics" of the victims of the smear. The "majority" view point editors seem to have either or both of (a) WP:COI issues (including USER:ED_Poor and USER:Steve_Dufour, and others) via the Unification Church, or (b) have histories of single-issue tendentious political editing in support of coatracking Insight's "take" on the issue, in several other related articles. Insight's "story" on the story, is that their report "meant to focus on the thinking of the Clinton campaign". The conflict is manifesting in the form of recent edit warring by the "majority" in support of the Insight POV that means to now give undue weight to "the thinking or the Clinton campaign". This is clearly seen in Ed Poor's extended editorial on the talk page, and throughout the talk page. The article has been a long-term target of coatracking, including several instances of Insight's editor USER:jkuhner himself and other Insight accounts attempting to "spin" the article. For all I know, one or more editors may be acting on behalf of Kuhner, I'm normally a trusting editor, but we HAVE seen this happen at least three times already. This is a "hot" article and the matter is very serious here in the midst of an election cycle. WNDL42 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The worst offense, a long block quote calling Obama an Indonesian Muslim, has been removed. I don't object to the article on BLP grounds anymore. Redddogg (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree There is some small movement in the right direction (there appears to be a new heading) but there are still major problems with the presentation, and with the article in general. For example, the first sentence needs to describe the whole event as the vast majority of Reliable sources do. Newsweek (Jan 27, 2007) called it a "madrassa hoax", and other reliable source characterizations are "double smear", "a rare double splatter smear" (MediaWeek), "the start of a scandal designed to harm both candidates", (Colombia Journalism Review) etc. Right now the discredited Insight "storyline" is still being presented first, and the most notable element, the consensus view among reliable sources, is relegated to a "media criticism" setion. What is notable about this story is that it's only element of fact was immediately discovered to be false, and the "speculations" given were all based on the primary falsehood that Insight used to construct the "double splatter smear". The headlines used by reliable sources were such as "The first anonymous smear of the 2008 campaign" (New York Times), a "Madrassa hoax" (News Week), etc, etc. should form the majority weight and should appear first.

Our portrayal should represent in character and weight, the overall "opinion" of reliable sources, and this indeed must "trump" and overrule the opinions of the individual editors, especially where (a) polar opposite and tendentious political POVs, (b) Unification Church COI's and (c) surreptitious interventions by Insight and Kuhner have all been involved in the formation of every previous instance of an apparent "consensus". Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT not a democracy. WNDL42 (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My "mischaracterization": "...one editor... seems to think that there is a consensus in RS for his opinion that Jeffrey T. Kuhner lied..."

Wndl42: "No editor is claiming that "Kuhner lied", but the consensus view among WP:RS sources is that it was a fabrication."

I repeat, any assertion or assumption that Kuhner either "fabricated" or "lied" is a BLP violation. He claims he had a source. No evidence one way or another has surfaced. It's not particularly implausible that some flunky tasked with opposition research shared his "discoveries" with Kuhner. In fact, internal evidence (I'm thinking of the bit where Kuhner says his source doesn't know if the "seminary" was radical) points against the hypothesis that Kuhner was lying, IMHO. But neither my opinion nor that of some writer for the NY Times or Mediaweek constitutes a RS capable of transmuting opinion into fact. "Fact checking" doesn't function in the absence of facts, and there is no such thing as a RS for speculation or tendentious conclusions. Andyvphil (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:BLP. The central BLP idea is "do no harm". Reliable sources have characterized Insight and Kuhner in the ways they have for over a year now, and therefore Misplaced Pages "does no harm" by reflecting the majority view of what reliable sources say. We should feature this first and it should be given the same weight as it is given by reliable sources. Now, if reliable sources have widely discredited Insight in general and it's report of this topic specifically, then Misplaced Pages does indeed "do harm" by giving WP:UNDUE weight to (or even repeating) to Kuhner's idle and unproven "speculations" about a "candidates thinking". WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if Mr. Kuhner didn't lie about getting a leak from the Clinton campaign it was still bad journalism since he put out the story without waiting for both Clinton and Obama to have a chance to give him their views. He said that he called the Obama camp but they didn't call back. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, agreed, and if that "bad journalism" was so bad that Kuhner was villified by virtually 100% of reliable news and journalism sources (even Fox News VP John Moody), then that villification is notable.

As the evidence provided at the talk page is mired in the noisy arguments there (and AVP's reiterations above appear to be likewise talking around the evidence), FYI, here is a brief summary of the data (per WP:GOOGLE) presented there:

• (a) www search query results for "kuhner" and "madrassa"
• (b) Google News Archive query results for ("Insight magazine") and (obama OR madrassa)
• (c) Google Scholar archive search on Insight's parent organization

see also Misplaced Pages entry on Misplaced Pages entry "U.S. journalism scandals"WNDL42 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was "bad journalism". (Opinion, not fact.) That doesn't mean Kuhner lied and in the absence of any facts showing that he lied there is no such thing as a "reliable source" saying he lied. (logical deduction from policy, i.e. fact) Andyvphil (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Andy, I'm not sure there is any argument here anymore. You are 100% correct in that Misplaced Pages should not editorialize or speculate that Kuhner "lied", and I am not advocating that we do. However, if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication, our job is not to "mitigate" what reliable sources say. If it's true that Kuhner's behavior has landed him in the "hot seat", then that is a fact of life for Kuhner and Insight and we "do no harm" to anyone. Misplaced Pages represents the 'facts of life', in terms of what reliable sources say, and our job is to let the facts speak in a clear, encyclopedic and unmitigated tone, and let the reader decide. Anyway, at this moment it looks like all the conflicts are now "up front and on the table", so thanks to redddogg for having the presence of mind to put the issue here where it belongs, and to everyone who has spoken up. WNDL42 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in again, but continuing from above, let's all remember that the threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is "verifyability, not truth". Kuhner's claims about the "thinking" of the candidate are well established to be unverifyable, even by Kuhner himself, and so per WP:BLP they should not be repeated at all on Misplaced Pages, except to the bare minimum extent that is absolutely necessary to establish context, and I believe that the highly critical reliable sources we're already quoting are absolutely sufficient to establish what Insight's claims were, and that they were unverifyable. WNDL42 (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

===(Slightly O.T. from WP:COAT, but relevant side discussion===

OK, "Misplaced Pages should not editorialize or speculate that Kuhner 'lied',..." If you meant it, it would be progress.

But, "if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication...". Please supply one RS "fact" that gives "weight" to the "view" that Kuhner "fabricated" (i.e., lied). Be succinct. Andyvphil (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is not relevant to WP:COAT, so I will repost and respond on the talk page...thanks WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

===(end side discussion)===

The subject, as I wrote at the very beginning ("...the real BLP issue is that one editor ...keeps trying to force the article to treat opinion as fact.") is not merely whether the article is a COATRACK, but whether a BLP violation is in progress. Your argumentative headers seem to reflect an attitude that you are entitled to WP:OWN this section, Insight 's article, and perhaps all of Misplaced Pages. So I have struck them. And, while I'm on that subject, I will ask you to never again insert your point-by-point rebuttals into the middle of someone else's post and to consider carefully where you place any post that inspires you to write "(breaking in)".

Your "response" on the article discussion page spirals off into a misuse of search engines (you pointed to WP:GOOGLE, but you show no sign of having read it) and various penumbras of your previous assertion that the editors opposing you might be agents of Kuhner and the Moonies. It's not worth transcluding here.

Let's try again. You made the argument that "the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming reflect common view that the entire smear was a fabrication". By "reflect" you have shown you mean that that should be the assumption behind how the material is presented.

My position is that it is not at all obvious that Kuhner "fabricated" anything. Here's an alternative hypothesis: Obama's statement in one of his memoirs that he had attended a "Muslim school" (Obama's own words) reaches the ears of a Clinton volunteer who notices that Obama is saying he was "always a Christian" (he said that in South Carolina, I'm supposing it's not new). Somewhere along the line "Muslim school" gets changed into "madrassa" which in turn is misunderstood as "Muslim seminary". And the eager staffer, like the two who later forwarded emails with false allegations, brags to Kuhner "He was a Muslim, but he concealed it... hope this will become a major issue in the campaign... The idea is to show Obama as deceptive." And Kuhner, who's basically writing a political gossip column (that's what "political intelligence" really means, doesn't it?), believes it and runs with it. Bad journalistic practice, no doubt, but not "fabrication".

The question is what weight we give the POV that Kuhner "fabricated"(lied) vs. what weight we give the POV that Kuhner did not lie, but merely reported what he was told and failed to detect that some of the things he was told were wrong. The latter, btw, is a very common theme in this story. Examples (there are more): Obama's top strategist told the New York Post that Obama's classes in "the private school"(sic - he meant the public one) were in "comparative religion", and no RS has noticed the howler. ABC News showcased a clip of Obama saying "The notion that somehow at the age of six or seven I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading is ludicrous" and didn't notice their own film clip of Muslim kids -- like "Barry" -- training in Muslim prayer. A wealth of RS have accepted Obama's denial that he ever prayed in a mosque without inquiring what he was doing when everyone else was praying on the occasions that his sister says, they did go to the mosque "occasionally". And no reporter following Obama "noticed" that when Obama was campaigning in the Bible Belt his declaration that he'd always been a Christian because he'd been raised by his mother, a "Christian from Kansas" was contradicted by his own memoir ("professed secular"), his sister ("agnostic") and his mother's best friend in college ("outspoken atheist"). This from "journalists" who've had ample resources and opportunity to learn their subject. The same "journalists" who you claim are RS for pillorying Kuhner.

Consult policy. The New York Times, e.g., is a WP:RS only for "facts" ("Interviewed, Kuhner said...") not for opinions or tendentious characterization ("Kuhner smeared Obama..."). This elementary distinction is lost on you.

And you haven't produced the single WP:V fact indicating that Kuhner "fabricated" that I asked you for. Try again. Be succinct. A "fact". One. Without a "fact" to be subjected to a fact checking process there is no such thing as a "reliable source". Just a chorus of opinions. And Misplaced Pages takes the NPOV on opinion. Especially regarding BLP material. Which this is. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your entire post above, beginning with an extremely deceptive misquoting of me (which I have struck), is an argument against a Straw Man of your own creation. Continued straw man attacks based on fabricated quotes of other editors are personal attacks.

Misplaced Pages is not a "Court of Law" where we prove or disprove whether Insight or Kuhner are guilty or innocent of anything. We merely reflect, in content, balance and overall tone, what reliable sources say. The issue here is the use of the article as a coatrack for Kuhner's speculative views on someone's thinking, pure and simple. WNDL42 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't get to tendentiously define what the issue is.

Again, you don't have any "reliable sources" for the allegation that Kuhner was expressing "speculative views on someone's thinking". In his original article (the cite to which has now, unbelievably, been censored from the article) he puts those "views" in quotes (see immediately above, where I reproduce them, in part). Either he made the quotes up (lied) or he reported them. You don't have a single fact to support the assertion that he "speculated" rather than "reported". Or you would have produced it, by now.

Again, my "mischaracterization": "You made the argument that 'the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming reflect common view that the entire smear was a fabrication".

Original Wndl42:"...if the weight of the facts presented by, and opinions given among reliable sources is so overwhelming as to result in an article that reflects a common view that the entire smear was a fabrication, our job is not to 'mitigate' what reliable sources say."

This is the second time you have accused me of "mischaracterization", this time further characterized as "a fabricated quote", when a side-by-side comparison reveals clearly that I have merely subtracted some of the verbosity and incoherence with which you habitually express yourself. Now, stop screwing around inside my posts. Andyvphil (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Bath

This article is constantly being vandalized and reformatted, making it hard to read and understand.

I ask you lock this article for a period of time because the article exhibits constant bias and misinformation.

Thanks,

A student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.228.223 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. If it is vandalized further by variant IPs, it may be appropriate to protect it. --Moonriddengirl 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cecilia Cheung

The section about the "Scandal" is extremely poorly written, and potentially liabilious. Should be edited heavily or removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders80 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed that section, which was only about nude photos that might or might not be her. I also removed the "personal life" section was was uncited and trivial. If she is notable as a singer then that is what the article should be about. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a whole article on the scandal, see Edison Chen photo scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'd expect similar passages appearing in the articles for Gillian Chung, Bobo Chan and Yu Chiu, if they exist or are created; and of course, for Edison Chen, too. -- TJRC (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone else will deal with it. As I said on the talk page, everyone takes off their clothes sometimes -- that is not notable enough to be the focus of an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't make that decision, reliable sources do. Relata refero (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that. WP does not need to repeat every story the press does, otherwise no real need for WP at all if it is just a mirror for other media. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not every story. Those reported in a significant number, yes. Once we decide people notable for pop culture are encyclopaedic, we have no choice. Relata refero (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If the "scandal" changes the person's life significantly then it should be mentioned, if it is just a trivia then it probably does not deserve a place in the person's article.--Skyfiler (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding Orson Scott Card

There's a minor content dispute at the above article, regarding the use of the word "homophobic" in reference to Card. A link to the discussion thus far can be found here. I find the term itself quite incendiary in a BLP, even when sourced, but especially when it's only sourced (as it is) to an opinion piece from Salon.com. I'm of the opinion that if the article clearly elucidates his views through his own writings, and secondary sources reporting on his writings, that the reader should be left to judge whether or not these views constitute "homophobia." We've agreed that seeking an outside view from the regulars of this board is the best course of action here. Thanks in advance, and best regards, Bellwether _C 21:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When the article is not calling him that, but merely reporting the accusation, I don't feel it violates BLP. (And believe me, there are lots of sites and publications out there for whom "homophobic" would be flattering compared to what they do call him.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are directly involved in the discussion/minor dispute at the talkpage--and have clearly made your position known there--I'd rather hear some outside views. Regards, Bellwether _C 03:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the comment does not pass the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid test. There is only a single source offered by the editors wanting to included the content and that one reference does not appear to be clearly a reliable source and there is no indication that it is anything more then a titillating claim that does not add to the articles quality. Jeepday (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday, your comment appears to be based on incomplete information. There are three (3) sources cited in the proposed edit, and none of them fail to meet the standards of WP:RS in any way I can see. Furthermore, I don't see anything "titillating" abut reporting that many people have characterized Card's views as homophobic.

To follow up on Bellwether's original comment here, he states that "secondary sources reporting on his writings" are valid for inclusion. Well, the proposed edit is exactly that: secondary sources reporting on his writings. RedSpruce (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. That many people say Card is homophobic because of his publicly-expressed views, carefully described by quotation in the article, is not at issue - that's substantated by multiple references. That Card has been attacked for being "too tolerant" is not substantiated except for Card's own claim in the Salon.com interview, which is also linked to. That Card thinks of his position as "the middle way" is substantiated by quotation. When Card himself acknowledges that his views lead people to describe him as homophobic, I can't see any reason for an encyclopedia article on Card not to quote those views and note what people say of them. Yonmei (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• He said that only in disputing this characterization. The author herself admits she'd never heard this charge against him before (though she clearly thinks it's true now). It would seem that before readding the information (as you've now done), you'd wait for something like consensus from a few people who frequent this board. So far, two have weighed in, one thinking it's not necessary to include the word, and one saying it should be included. Why would you think it acceptable to add it back after such a short discussion? Bellwether _C 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Orson Scott Card has asserted that he does not believe that it is homophobic to want to have LGBT people criminalised and harassed for their sexual orientation and denied equality under the law. We should certainly include Orson Scott Card's assertion in the article, and it has in fact been included. I'm still not seeing your problem here: consensus was reached in January via the Talk page, and your new objection seems to be to an editor adding a list of references to provide a cite to the assertion that people say Card's views are homophobic.Yonmei (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two of the sources are at about.com, the Misplaced Pages entry for this site starts with About.com is an online source for original consumer information and advice, and WP:V says self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.. That leaves you with one potential reference at Salon.com, and I could find nothing that suggested that salon.com was a third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally the default for any questions of WP:BLP where there are questions is to not included it, and 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. As presented the content does not meet the requirements of WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:RS. As to the comment "show how it's NECESSARY" from Bellwether BC in the edit summary given, I am not aware of any requirement that puts a burden on an editor to show that content is necessary before including it in an article, that would put a whole new spin on WP:AFD. The question is are there reliable sources and is it relevant to an encyclopedia article given that there is sub section "Homosexuality" that is not currently questioned at BLP, I would say that well referenced content on the subject of homophobia would be relevant if it was referenced in multiple reliably sourced. If any of the content at Orson Scott Card#Personal views is relevant for an encyclopedic article is another question. Jeepday (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also added the link to the article in the School Library Journal about the issue of his homophobic views with regard to his winning the Edwards award. With regard to the argument that this section should be eliminated entirely, I think that the controversy over Orson Scott Card being awarded a "lifetime achievement" award by YALA demonstrates that the issue of his homophobic views will constantly recur. To simply not include them means that the edit war will happen again and again every time the subject comes up, someone looks at Orson Scott Card's wiki article, discovers they're not referenced, and adds them in again. This is public information about Card which is sourced in material Card has himself written, and it becomes a public issue which people expect to find in a wiki article, because Card's views are regarded as homophobic by many people. Yonmei (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday -- Although some of the columns on About.com are called "blogs" as you can see here, the authors are not self-published. The authors (called "Guides") are selected via applications, undergo training, and are salaried for their work. Whether or not the site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is difficult to answer, but it's a very large and well-maintained site, run by The New York Times Company. RedSpruce (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather then entering in to a discussion about quality of questionable sources, do a search for better reference. At the top of the list of 25,900 is "I have been savaged both for showing too much sympathy for the "abomination" of homosexuality and for showing too much "homophobic" opposition to the political agenda of the radical homosexual community." The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, Copyright © 1990 Orson Scott Card Jeepday (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite has been quoted from and cited six times in Orson Scott Card's page: the discussion here is not over sources to establish that Card holds these views, or what Card thinks of them, but a reference list of citations for the point that these views are considered homophobic by some of Orson Scott Card's fans. This is an issue because - as the recent controversy over the Edwards award established - these are views Card holds publicly and has defended publicly, and can't really be dealt with by ignoring them or ignoring the controversy around them. Deleting all reference to them, the previous solution, only means the edit wars continue/recur. 80.192.75.201 (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I learn more about the facts here, I beleive that if IP 80.192.75.201 is correct in the statement "the discussion here is not over sources to establish that Card holds these views, or what Card thinks of them, but a reference list of citations for the point that these views are considered homophobic by some of Orson Scott Card's fans". Then Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism applies and the view should be included in the article also Misplaced Pages is not censored so inclusion of material just because it is offensive to some is not in of its self reason to not included it. The problem as I see it is this statement in BLP Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles. The quality of the references offered are questionable, and while I have come to beleive that that assertions are probably true the content runs up against The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source.. No other disinterested parties other then myself have chimed in here at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so we can assume my assessments are not to far from community consensus. To include "the point that these views are considered homophobic by some of Orson Scott Card's fans" you need high quality references, without the high qualtiy references you can't get past If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. The difference in hits on a Goolge search for ("Orson Scott Card") verses ("Orson Scott Card" homophobic) is huge. In summation all of the road blocks to inclusion can be over come with reliable sources that are not currently being provided and the burden rests on those who wish to include the content to provide the references. Jeepday (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way do you consider The New York Times, Reed Elsevier, and Salon.com to be unreliable sources? Those are the sources cited which reference how fans of Orson Scott Card consider his views on LGBT people to be homophobic. If the views were those of a "tiny minority" why would they then have caused a controversy with the Edwards award? Indeed, simple logic says that it's improbable that Orson Scott Card's views on LGBT people would not be regarded as homophobic: his belief that LGBT people ought to be subject to legal discrimination and harassment falls within the definition of homophobia as agreed-to on that page on wikipedia. It's kind of like arguing that there's no evidence a member of the KKK is racist, just because they argue that black people ought not to be allowed to vote! But you've chosen to argue on the basis of "reliable sources": I await your explanation why you consider that material published by he New York Times, Reed Elsevier, and Salon.com is not reliable. 80.192.75.201 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) no references are found that are published by the New York Times About.com is not the New York Times. About.com and The New York Times are both assets owed by The New York Times Company see List of assets owned by The New York Times Company. Arguing they are the same is like saying a Ford Pinto is a Lincoln Town Car because both are products of Ford Motor Company Jeepday (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

About.com is not the New York Times, 80.92'—hyperbole will not do your argument any favors. I've commented on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday, Salon.com is a reliable source, period, full-stop.

More to the point, Mr. Card's views that laws prohibiting homosexuality should exist and be enforced, is essentially the definition of homophobia - as much as holding the view that segregation laws should exist and be enforced is a racist view. To say that his critics believe he is homophobic is factual, neutral, verifiable and, because Mr. Card has publicly spoken on his views, is certainly necessary to discuss. FCYTravis (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that." David Talbot founder, chairman and editor-in-chief of Salon.com. "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia" Jimmy Wales Founder of Misplaced Pages. Jeepday (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com is widely accepted as a reliable source across Misplaced Pages. It is a journalistic endeavor, and cherry-picking quotes isn't going to change that fact. FCYTravis (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended towards Salon.com but the general consensus at Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Misplaced Pages seems to be that at a sole source for a BLP concern it is not great on its own. For non BLP concerns it would seem to be generally acceptable as a reliable source. As we know the threshold for BLP concerns is a bit higher then any other article type. Jeepday (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see also D. Michael Quinn, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example, U. of Illinois Press, which discusses the contrasts in Card's attitudes to same-sex relationships, especially in the 1978 Songmaster, pp102-3. It specifically uses the word "homphobia", but is a much more nuanced analysis than that would imply. Relata refero (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - do you think you could add this reference to the OSC page? There is a list of the citations (it's currently 16) of the sources in which Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuality/homosexuals have been identified as homophobic/anti-gay. Quinn's book sounds like it would be a useful addition.Yonmei (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable adding it to one 'side' of an argument, as it were. As I said, its a nuanced description. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? You say you have a citation to a source in which Orson Scott Card's views are referred to as homophobic. An article on Misplaced Pages needs citations to confirm that Orson Scott Card's views have been referred to as homophobic. You don't want to add your citation to the article because people are arguing over the quality of the current citations, and you don't want to "take sides" in an argument by providing a good-quality citation? I will never understand Wikipedians. Clearly, also, I will never become a Wikipedian. The notion that, in an abstract kind of way, an article ought to be improved for accuracy's sake alone, that Misplaced Pages ought to be a useful information resource - that was why I thought I would like to edit Misplaced Pages, before I actually did. To discover, over and over again, that Wikipedians see Misplaced Pages rather as a battleground in which fights are had for the sake of having them and people with useful information to add to articles won't add it because they don't want to take sides in a fight and providing information is seen as "taking sides". Oh, never mind. I'm off, again. Yonmei (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hill (journalist)

Peter Hill (journalist) was subject to a slanderous revision from an IP, which led to a complaint from the subject - I've deleted the revision (and spoken to them and relations are good :-), but if people could watchlist this and keep an eye on it for rubbish that would be good - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

An unusual BLP notice in that the concern here is that a number of editors (of whom, I hasten to emphasize, User:Jossi does not currently appear to be one) are insisting on a bizarre interpretation of WP:BLP whereby no criticism may enter the article (there also appear to be some editors who would like the article to be a blatant BLP violation, but they're losing). The result is that the article is a blatant whitewash. This is especially problematic given the publicity this article has received recently, since people are going to read the article, see that it's a whitewash, and lose all regard for Misplaced Pages. I started participating at the article today for the first time, but people like me and User:David D. still seem to be outnumbered by the zealots on each side. Experienced BLP-types' participation would be very much appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Brief_history_of_editing_principles_used_for_this_article for an explanation why the article has become one sided. Mediation between me and Momento had been rejected by the mediation committee. Andries (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox

• Bobby Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated inclusion of uncited controversial material about this person by several authors. Repeated removals of uncited items by myself and references to WP:BLP have not worked. One author has already violated WP:3RR as well in readding uncited info.// Roswell native (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipopuli.com

What is our opinion of using http://wikipopuli.com/ to transwiki non-notable bios? I've seen it done on at least one article. If we do accept it, then it should probably be incorporated into the db-bio and afd-bio cats and templates. MBisanz 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipopuli seems to be a worthwhile experiment. But regarding transwiki, see m:Help:transwiki. It appears that wikipopuli.com has only one sysop, and just 49 bio articles at the moment. The operation 'Special:Import' can only be performed by administrators, even on a wiki that permits it. It is hard to imagine that transwiki between en.wp and Wikipopuli will soon be a big-volume activity, and perhaps simple re-creation of an article by its sole author on the other wiki is better. In case of a non-notable bio created here, you could suggest they go over to Wikipopuli and create the same thing. If they are the sole author, all the license-compliant machinery of the transwiki step becomes unnecessary. If there are multiple authors, they might be able to satisfy the GFDL requirements by dumping the en.wp edit history into the Talk page of the newly-created bio on Wikipopuli. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. My main concern is that its not a Wikimedia operation, and should we formally (at least by template) endorse 1 outside project over others. And given that it only has 1 admin, I suspect it couldn't handle our daily load if it was made policy. Maybe an optional statement somewhere in the Bio Notability standards, with other sites like WIkia Annex, that serve similar functions. MBisanz 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Andre Vincent

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

At first glance, this article seems to be full of questionable and unsourced material. I've removed a claim that he voiced Dobby in a Harry Potter film (that was Toby Jones), but the style seems to suggest that much of the material may be tongue-in-cheek. Could someone take a look and see what they think? --Tony Sidaway 14:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's highly suspicious that neither of the external links on the page works, at least for me. :) The myspace link is dead. The biography links to a different person. I'm going to poke around and see what I can come up with. --Moonriddengirl 14:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There. I've done what I can for him. --Moonriddengirl 15:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

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

This article has become a battleground in recent weeks over various criticisms of Joseph Massad, a Palestinian professor at Columbia (like Nadia Abu El Haj, who is in a definite non-coincidence listed higher on this page). At issue are both specifics of various allegations - whether they are notable, whether they are really sourced or constitute synthesis - and also the overall balance of the article, which is presently in bad shape. I am not aware of any serious violations of Misplaced Pages policy by any individual users, but the article could definitely use some intervention by outside users without a stake in the fight. While I have only become involved today, I can't really claim to be neutral, having edited the article more than a year ago and having strong and relevant political opinions. Kalkin (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a little (hopefully) balanced trimming before seeing this notice, but it still needs outside help; removing some of the more malignant bits leaves scars! Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

On it. Relata refero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

T. Rajendar

Many IPs have edited the article and inserted dubious claims without references. The filmography section is completely unreferenced. The article is in disrepair almost since its creation. - Cenarium (talk) 14:41, 10 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