Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:59, 10 April 2008

• 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.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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

What about this case?

• Desi Arnaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Note - this is reposted from BLP page.) Wanderer57 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm posting this here because, though the subject of the article is no longer alive, I believe his children are.

This diff has just been posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Desi_Arnaz&diff=198326795&oldid=197729277

I don't have the reference material at hand tonight but I am 'assuming' for the moment that the information in the edit is true.

Question one - how does one decide if the episode described is 'important enough' to be included in the article?

Question two - should the information be left in or taken out of the article in the interim?

I would appreciate feedback on this. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first this should be at the BLP noticeboard, not here. See WP:BLPN. That said, I don't see any serious concern since the children are mentioned only in passing in this context. I'm not sure that the incident justifies mention at all though. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a BLP concern. Presuming it is merely a content dispute, the first place to discuss whether the detail merits inclusions is probably at Talk:Desi Arnaz. I'd request feedback there, and if there are no objections remove it after several days. If wider opinions are sought, you might look for one of the other dispute resolution avenues, like WP:3O. Since it is not a BLP concern and it is sourced, I would not remove it until consensus to do so is reached (or until it is obvious that there are no objections.) --Moonriddengirl 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think with celebrities there is a tendency for editors to take an "if it's negative, include it" approach. Is this just me being "negative" or do others here find the same tendency? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that seems to be the way of things - "if it's negative, include it". To my mind, this is tabloid material, unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The incident received no publicity, that I can find, and is not a notable event in Arnaz' career. Its inclusion seems to serve no other purpose but to paint Arnaz in a negative light. The vieled implications regarding his living daughter strike me as an invasion of her personal privacy. I've removed it. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. Let the editor who inserted it defend its relevance and importance to the article. Cleo123 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jon Courtney (closed)

Michael Ratner bio--repeated insertion of material below that editor has removed

• Michael Ratner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the material under controversy had been removed quite a while ago---despite the editor it keeps going back in--here was one of editors earlier comments

Preceding paragraph reformatted to fit page. Cheers, Lindsay 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

comment removed:

Controversy

Michael's Brother, Bruce Ratner, heads Forest City Ratner a company which has been accused of having undue influence in New York politicians which has resulted in controversial building projects in Brooklyn, and of eminent Domain Abuse. Critics have accused Michael Ratner of making contributions to politicians that help his brother, to the extent where his offices are used for meetings and as 'drop offs' for campaign contributions including one to Roger Green who was indicted. In short, critics accuse Michael's concern for human rights ends where Ratner family interests begin:

Michael Ratner and his wife, Karen Ranucci, both Greenwich Village residents, have recently made campaign contributions using Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn building as a return address. Ranucci has matched many of her husband's contributions. And Bruce Ratner's girlfriend, Pamela Lipkin, as well as other Ratner family members, have made contributions engineered by an FCR lobbying firm.

"For Bruce and Michael, however, business in Brooklyn comes first. That's why Bruce's company has required gag orders of those selling property for the Atlantic Yards project, thus clamping down on criticism and even requiring sellers to say that Forest City Ratner treated them honorably.

That's why, even though Bruce and Forest City Ratner (FCR) stopped giving political contributions years ago - apparently to dispel suspicion that the donations helped win projects - Michael and his wife Karen Ranucci, the development director of left-wing radio show "Democracy Now," stepped in to fill the breach. Though residents of Greenwich Village, they reliably wrote checks to Brooklyn candidates from the county Democratic machine. Some contributions, according to state records, even had the return address of Forest City Ratner headquarters in Brooklyn. Michael, who apparently has an office there, owns a piece of the Nets, the sports team his brother wants to bring to Brooklyn. The extended Ratner family controls FCR's parent company, Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises." [http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/StoryDisplay.asp?PID=4&NewsStoryID=7470 The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawhigh (talk • contribs) 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hello, Shawhigh. I've tweaked the formatting of your note a bit to make it easier to understand for other editors. I hope you don't mind. A quick glance tells me that the editor who is re-inserting this information claims that circumstances have changed since the above note and that the source now meets the reliability standards. I'm looking a bit more deeply now. --Moonriddengirl 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this insertion, in spite of its citation now to a newspaper, is inappropriate as it stands per WP:BLP. Among other problems, the title of the reference is inaccurate (the newspaper article is called "Democracy Now? Ratner Plays Hardball When It Counts" not "The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife)") and inflammatory. The extensiveness of the material is problematic with regards to Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism, which indicates that we are to "e careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one" and also notes that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." This particular newspaper article seems to be an editorial. If there are critics (as the insertion claims), rather than "critic", surely there are more reliable sources that can be cited than this editorial? It may be that the viewpoint of this critic (and we see only one) should be represented within the article, but it will definitely have to be pruned and appropriately presented as what it is: the so-far-as-we-know unsubstantiated allegations of one man. Before making that choice, however, we also need to consider the section of WP:V that is titled "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Newspapers typically do meet WP:RS requirements. Editorials that do not cite the sources of their allegations? Any other thoughts? --Moonriddengirl 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, you claim a. the allegations are unsubstantiated - this is false - the evidence is clearly supported and verfiable (campaign contributions are easily available via the NYState donor database, where the reporter first found them) - and are referenced on the reporter's blog. the article is not an editorial, it is a, I suppose a side issue a very controversial developer (Michael's brother, Bruce) and his tactics, which have raised red flags with a lot of newspapers and editorial boards in the areas where he operates. the basic facts of the article could be put back into the biography - they are easily verfiable: Michael Ratner and his wife live in Greenwhich village - (manhattan) but make campaign contributions to local politicians in Brooklyn (another borough) where his brother is involved in highly controversial development projects. Further since his wife runs "Democracy Now" - many activists and opponents feel this shield Bruce Ratner from further scrutiny 141.157.248.209 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, 141.157.248.209, and thanks for weighing in. If this individual's tactics have raised red flags with a lot of newspapers, then it seems it should be easy enough to find multiple reliable sources to verify this. If multiple reliable sources are commenting on the same issues, then there will no longer be any question of whether this one source meets WP:V or is problematic with regards to WP:BLP in terms of reliability or weight. --Moonriddengirl 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

• Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• user Runabrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• user Curiosity Inc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently overhauled the article for Don Murphy, and the work has been undone by at least two editors. One editor says in his edit summary, "Page reverted back to the Misplaced Pages and Don Murphy approved version." Can people who are more familiar with WP:BLP please review the article and see if the expansions I made are unacceptable? RTFA (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Runabrat has been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity Inc. has also been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banning SPA RTFA from Don Murphy. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark D. Siljander

• Mark D. Siljander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bradley Schlozman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to have been getting somewhat unbalanced after Siljander's indictment in January about his connection to fund-raising for an Islamic charitable organization that was also allegedly a front to raise money for terrorism. Some recent edits seem to be going out of the way to defend Siljander and make defamatory statements about the US Attorney responsible for the indictment, Bradley Schlozman. I'd appreciate some editors more adept at this to lend a hand. older ≠ wiser 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and I am responsible for some of the edits. The original edits were done from articles based on statements later withdrawn.

Much stronger statements of prosecutorial misconduct could be made but not adequately supported. As acceptable sources are only statements from goverment prosecutors, even those facing investigations themselves, as in this case, Misplaced Pages is used as a tool of propaganda and improperly influencing the justice system.

This site: http://www.truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm is a good indication of the type of things we are dealing with. Misplaced Pages is used, due to its popularity, as a way of "getting the word out", even if that word is unsupportable.

In this case, how can a former congressman be indicted for "terrorism" and still receive support from, not only the SG/UN but former Secretary of State Baker and Attorney General Ed Meese, all very conservative?

If you don't detect a serious smell, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is totally open to misuse as a form of propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpduf (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rob Grill

• Rob Grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a dispute in a short bio for 70s musician Rob Grill, who in 2007 was arrested for illegally obtaining prescription painkillers, eventually going into drug treatment possibly to avoid jail time. This is sourced to two Orlando Sentinel articles that are only partially available online.

• Hudak, Stephen (2007-06-05). "Singer arrested on drug charges" (fee required). Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Florida: Tribune Company. incomplete
  • Hudak, Stephen. "Rob Grill - 'Grass Roots' singer arrested on drug charges". Marty Angelo Ministries. Retrieved 2008-02-23. Full text of Orlando Sentinel article, on website of Grill's former manager.
• Comas, Martin E. (2007-07-31). "Drug program may save singer from jail" (fee required). Orlando Sentinel. topix. Excerpt from article not available online. Not used in the article.
  • Comas, Martin E. "Drug program may save 'Grass Roots' singer from jail". Marty Angelo Ministries. Retrieved 2008-03-17. Full text.

The plea agreement is not used in the article since sourcing is was sub-optimal, and to keep this part of the bio short. Leaving it out also helps minimize humiliation of the subject, tho this reference does demonstrate the non-trivial nature of the charge, and that the drug problem is being treated (one way or another) as a serious issue.

Concerns are raised about undue weight, and humiliation of the subject. A pair of anon editors (apparently the same editor as both are SPAs from Naples, FL using similar edit summaries) edit warred to keep this information out (grounds: "defamatory", "inappropriate"). A third editor now argues that WP:BLP recommends it be left out for reasons of "doubt", which is established by the edit war; this editor removes this information accordingly. WP:3O passes this dispute on to this noticeboard.

Some arguments for and against including this information can be found on Talk:Rob Grill. An anon editor was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, but it can be guessed that this editor will resume deleting this information from the article if it is there when their block expires. It would be helpful to establish whether this information is worth including, less it be automatically removed, with windy procedural discussions repeating at each iteration.

I am concerned that the current rationale on Talk:Rob Grill for omitting this information on "doubt" means that anyone can have a BLP sanitized by aggressively deleting unwanted information, edit warring as needed to keep it out, thus establishing a precedent of "doubt" requiring unwanted information to be declared "better left out". / edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback request

Re the issue represented by this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rob_Grill&diff=next&oldid=198764025

I removed the information from the article as I thought it was not sufficiently important to include.

There was discussion between editor edg and myself, which got into procedural issues as well as the substance of the matter (discussion is at Talk:Rob Grill).

A third opinion was requested; the opinion given was to raise the issue on this page.

It was raised here in the above section on 17 March 2008 but to date there has been no feedback. Please can we have some feedback from people experienced in BLP issues. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be simply deleted as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Misplaced Pages's servers but not worth maintaining. Would anyone recommend WP:AFD for this article? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject's notability is probably too great for AfD to be a productive forum for dealing with this dispute. — Athaenara ✉ 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think edg is really out of line here. A cursory review of the sources provided indicates that this matter directly relates to a medical condition. Medical records fall under Misplaced Pages's presumption in favor of privacy. This individual appears to have left public life long ago. Details regarding his injury and medical records should be treated with the utmost discretion and sensitivity.

I'm even more concerned that when edg doesn't get the answer he wants, his next suggestion is to have the article deleted "as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Misplaced Pages's servers but not worth maintaining." Seems to me that this user may have a COI of some sort regarding the article's subject. I think his or her contributions warrant monitoring. Cleo123 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. This is very helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten

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

Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an article about a medical practitioner who, among other things, served time for ordering an assault. An apparent single purpose account is trying to remove some negative material from the article - it could be the person in question. Some of the negative material cites material that might be more primary than third-party sources. Also, I'm concerned about the person's notability. Andjam (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Horror show, deleted and stubbed - please watchlist for further trouble.--Doc 10:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OH, FGS. Do a google search before that sort of thing, please. Mentioning the case wasn't nearly as problematic as all that, the man's highly notable for the assault conviction, one of the most major cases in Australia in the 1980s. Some of the article was sourced to court records, but the vast majority of it was sourced to his own website. Sheesh. Relata refero (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The deletion led to the loss of one of the few reliable secondary sources there, an article from the Sydney Morning Herald mentioning the legal issues (). I'll restore the ref. MastCell  22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Was a valid deletion, though, for all that. An overwhelmingly negative and very poorly sourced article. Interesting guy, by the sound of it. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are Two entries about Edelsten currently on this noticeboard. To avoid confusion, please add any further comments to the Edelsten entry below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Moorcroft (closed)

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey

The article contains quotes attributed to "MindFreedom". If you go to that site, you will see that they are anti Dr. Torrey, and that is reflected in their quotes and their edits. MindFreedom is the citation for the individual who runs the anti Torrey site. The fact they said it on their site, doesn't mean it should become part of the wikipedia record. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.151.119 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity & Hal Turner

• Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hal Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone with BLP expertise take a look at the recent history on the above two articles? I originally noticed the traffic on these articles when they came up high on Wikirage...once I checked them out, it looks like campaign is going on in the two articles to link Hannity, a prominent media figure, to Turner, an avowed white supremacist. I don't know that much about the background, and some sources are being given, but I'm not sure how well the sources can be trusted. I think caution is warranted here given Hannity's apparent high profile in television and radio media in the U.S. Nesodak (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have Turner's article on watchlist. I'm RWIing. Sceptre 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did my best to reword the Sean Hannity claims in a neutral way, included the statements from the other side, and integrated into the main article (as opposed to being in a stand-alone "Controversy" section). Would appreciate any BLP-savvy folks to check my work. Nesodak (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hannity article seems to be undergoing a major dispute. One person wants to quote critics in the first paragraph, seemingly to protect impressionable WP readers from this dangerous right-wing guy. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the brief truce at Sean Hannity has fallen apart and people are back to edit-warring. I'm wondering if protection is going to be required. Nesodak (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user Bear in mind that the outcome doesn't have to be the same in these 2 casec. If Hal Turner has claimed he had a good relationship with Sean Hannity (from what I can tell he has) then that may be noteable enough to include in the Hal Turner article, particularly if the claim has received sufficient prominence that Sean Hannity has responded to the claims. However there is probably no justification to include the claims in the Sean Hannity article if it was only a relatively minor issue in relation to Seah Hannity, which it may be if the claims only received coverage in 2 relatively lesser known sources Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My involvement started as "an uninvolved user" also...I totally agree with you that a case can certainly made for that. I just wish people would discuss on the talk page rather than revert warring. The whole thing is now officially annoying so far as I am concerned, think I'll wash my hands of it. Anyone else want an at-bat? Nesodak (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV

User Venkyhyundai keeps inserting completely unsourced and libellous info on the subject under Criticism and Some Critics Say

Homosexuality

Otto4711 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly reverting my removal of an actor's sexual orientation from Peter Stickles. I have been contacted directly by the subject of this article via unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org asking that this information be removed. There's no debate as to the factual accuracy of the information but there is significant debate as to the relevance of the information. I do not believe this relevance has been established and so I removed it as per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT (not trivia) and WP:BLP (privacy). Despite my request that this information not be readded, Otto4711 has continued to readd this information. I have expressed on Talk:Peter Stickles that I would support readding the information if and only if we have a reliable source indicating that this is anything other than trivia. No such has been provided. Although I am an admin, I would like at least a second opinion on whether a person's sexual orientation should be included in an article given that the subject of the article does not wish it to be there. It is a fact that the subject has disclosed his sexual orientation and it is a fact that he has expressed a desire to have this removed from his article. It is a matter of opinion whether or not Otto4711 has established the notability of this information, though I firmly believe he has not. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The section needs to be reworded - "openly gay" is loaded and unnecessary. But he has talked about his sexuality in a public interview, and if it relates to the content and selection of the films he's participated in, I would find it hard to argue that it's inappropriate to include. I mean, he's a professional actor starring in a gay-themed television series that is produced and aired on a network specifically targeting gay and lesbian audiences. If that doesn't make his sexuality relevant, what would? FCYTravis (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Openly gay" is pretty standard language when discussing people who are, well, openly gay. As for relevance, consider this section of the interview that was used as a source for the section:

AfterElton: Do you have concerns about being typecast as an out gay actor? Peter Stickles: Of course I have — absolutely. The producers of The Lair took me aside and we had a meeting about whether or not I was going to be an "out" gay actor and whether they were going to be able to market me. But they wanted me to take it very seriously, because it's a very big decision and I had to stop and think about it. Because even though it sucks, and it shouldn't matter, it does matter. So yeah, I had to really think about it — not so much in terms of being a horror movie actor, because if I could do horror movies for the rest of my life I'd die a happy man. But being pigeonholed as a gay film actor is kind of weird for me.

Along with the quote from another interview which is linked on the article's talk page:

"A lot of times, it's not good, and it hurts," Stickles says of his decision not to remain in the closet in order to build a mainstream career. "A lot of time, people can't watch a gay guy playing a straight role. I was reading an article about Rupert Everett, about how his career is not happening, that won't hire him for the lead because he's gay. It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different. "It's nice to have a little bit of success with a very small group of people. I live in Chelsea, which is the gayest neighborhood in the world, and people recognize me, but there will have to be a time when I can show that I can be more versatile."

This clearly establishes the relevance of the information. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think we're past the point when we have to say "openly." Just say gay. FCYTravis (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, I don't really care whether it says "gay" or "openly gay." Otto4711 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that an actor's sexuality is relevant to the roles they choose. Many straight actors have taken roles where their characters are homosexual and vice versa. Anyway, the key point here is that the subject of the article requested the removal of this content as he personally did not think it relevant. He could be wrong and if the consensus here is that the information should be added, I would be happy to revert my removal and unprotect the page. Note that the subject of the article has claimed he has been misquoted in the interviews but this does not meet our requirements under WP:RS. Once again, if people believe this actor's sexuality is relevant under WP:NOT and WP:BLP then it should be there. My concerns are that it does not meet the criteria outlined by those policies. --Yamla (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite know what WP:NOT has to do with it. A person's sexuality is definitely not "trivia."

He has chosen to take roles in a gay-themed TV show on a gay-themed network, and do an interview with an entertainment news site run by a different gay-themed network, in which he discusses his sexuality.

But there is definitely a problem in that having a whole long paragraph about it is undue weight on that aspect of his life, given that the rest of the article is two sentences about his roles. FCYTravis (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and should be there. On the other hand, we removed (after much debate) all mention of Jay Brannan's sexuality from his article, because of his preference. Aleta 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• First, I don't believe for a second that the person claiming to be Peter Stickles really is Peter Stickles. Email me a jpg of his drivers license and maybe then I will. Second, this claim that he's been misquoted is ludicrous. He was asked by AfterElton "Are you gay yourself?" and his one-word answer was "Yes." What, he really said "no" and the reporter wrote it down wrong? Pfft. Third, even if we are to believe that not only did the AfterElton interviewer somehow "misquote" his one-word answer or the two paragraphs about his decision to come out, and if we are to believe that the other interview quoted here is somehow fabricated or "misquoted," that still leaves the question of the podcast (episode 91) recorded in his own voice in which he speaks extensively of being gay. Is he suggesting that the voice recording is being "misquoted" too? Not to mention that his sexuality was part of why he was cast in the part that he was in Shortbus. I'm sorry if Peter Stickles, if it is Peter Stickles, is having some second thoughts about deciding to come out. I'm sorry if he feels bad about having his sexuality mentioned in his Misplaced Pages aricle. I wrote the article and it certainly was not and is not my intention to cause him distress by writing it. But the information on his sexuality is factual, verifiable and relevant and his personal wishes should not dictate the content of the article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I, through unblock-en-l, have confirmed that this was indeed Peter Stickles. --Yamla (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view: I think his sexuality is relevant exactly for the reasons he cites in the interview, viz., it may influence the roles he is offered and how the audience views him. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the article, but we have to careful how we phrase it. Starting the article with " Peter Sticles is a gay American actor from New York" is clearly unacceptable; adding a whole paragraph on the issue would be undue too. Perhaps we can add a sentence along the lines, "Sticles has expressed concern that his being gay may lead to him being pigeonholed as a gay actor." (may need rephrasing), which not only says that he is gay but also explains how it affects him professionally. Abecedare (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The same discussion has taken place in relation to Simon Amstell. Read the 'Personal Life' to see an example of how this could be worded. I don't like articles that say "John Doe is gay" but mentioning why it's notable is a good idea if a person's orientation is included. IMHO, it seems notable for the subject we're discussing. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:Abecedare, and think that a small discussion of it would be more than appropriate. I do understand where the subject of the bio is coming from, and I sympathise, and we need to present information in an acceptable manner, but we shouldn't leave out something if it seems relevant to the roles he's being offered or choosing. Relata refero (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare's idea seems to be pointing the way forward, in my view. Orderinchaos 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is it snowing yet? Otto4711 (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed. I will immediately unprotect the page. Thank you, Otto4711, for keeping your cool and working within Misplaced Pages's framework for resolving this matter. I am not going to revert my removal of your content because the consensus seems to me to be that it was too long in the context of the article, but I will not revert your readdition of the information on his sexuality, appropriately cited (as your additions generally were) and I apologise for making you jump through these hoops. I hope you understand that I felt I needed to err on the side of caution. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Section "Entertainers with Crip affiliation" on the article Crips

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

I'm concerned about it if we really need to have this section. I don't see no relevance to the article, the section is cited with mostly no-reliable sources. I removed it but some user claims it should be included because "it has been since 2006" diff.
A category "clasifiying" these people was also deleted. See CfD. Tasc0 04:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated. Tasc0 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a horrible section, chock-full of BLP violations. We've got gang affiliations being sourced to Tripod sites, freely-editable sites like IMDB, and so forth. I've removed it and if anyone puts it back I will take it out again. *** Crotalus *** 13:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I also removed the "same" section in the article Bloods. You may want to have it on your watchlist. Tasc0 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt (redirect only) on DRV

See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to create another section. A simple update would be sufficient, even unnecessary, as those originally interested and monitoring this noticeboard will have followed the links to the DRV themselves. Relata refero (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten - Serious BLP, Libel, Coatrack Issues.

There has been heated discussion on the article of Geoffrey Edelsten.

The article has the following serious policy issues. WP:COAT - Coatrack, WP:LIBEL - Defamation, WP:BLP - Biographies of Living Persons, WP:NOT - What Misplaced Pages is Not, WP:HARM - Avoiding Harm.

Negative comments have been removed consistently and then added back by aggressive users. The administrator Doc glasgow has already deleted the comments in question but as mentioned, they continually come back by this selection of users.

Please block users who are performing vandalism and protect this article. It is probably best for deletion. --Wikifactsright (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. It's at WP:ANI#Serious and Continuous Misplaced Pages Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism and on the talk page of a user and at talk:Geoffrey Edelsten. You aren't receiving the answers you wanted elsewhere, and I highly doubt that continued pestering of others and edit warring will do much good. seicer | talk | contribs 13:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All statements at Geoffrey Edelsten are appropriately referenced from independent, third-party sources. Wikifactsright wants to totally bias the article so that it is just a rosy, feel-good story. WWGB (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that editors in the ANI thread have made a pretty good case for the current form of the article, and have shown that the negative information is in proportion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The information seems to be in proportion. The user who reported it here has been blocked for 3RR over the article and appears to be a single-purpose account. Orderinchaos 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stevens again

The editor claiming to be Ben Stevens is back removing stuff from his article. Stephens is apparently a Alaska state politician under an FBI investigation. Previously I reported this here a month or so back, and the article was stubbed for careful rebuilding. This time User:Bostonb5 has removed an unsourced section about Stevens' personal life, a link to Stevens' web page (with the edit description of the link as being out of date), and most importantly, an apparently well sourced section that had been restored about the FBI probe. This last section needs close scrutiny before it is re-added. but if the sources do hold up, then IMHO it should remain, reguardless of the wishes of the article's subject. But I'm not a great judge of sourcing and BLP, so here I am asking for assistance in dealing with this situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the "Alaska fishing rights" section and it is validly sourced. I have removed the section listing the names of his wife and children as it is not clear they are public figures. If Mr. Stevens has further concerns I think he needs to take them up with the WMF. Jfire (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Bostonb5 has left a comment on my talk page. Jfire (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Erik Prince

There is a potentially defamatory statement in the article, sourced to John Edwards. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Erik_Prince#Philanthropy_and_political_donations The offending material was removed from the Erik Prince article by someone else, but it has since been reverted by another user.--Davidwiz (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. This is a noteworthy criticism by a major U.S. political figure. In fact, Edwards is far better known than Prince himself is. If we were citing bloggers or random local opinion columnists, then there would be a problem. But as long as this statement is properly attributed and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article (per WP:UNDUE), then it should be fine. *** Crotalus *** 00:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes - coatrack issues

The article on Daniel Pipes is dominated by two subjects: Pipes' views on various issues ("Views and positions" section) and other people's views on Pipes ("Praise, criticism and controversy" section). Both these sections comprise the bulk of the article, each of them easily outweighing the section with biographical information, so that right now the article is not biography, but a collection of quotes, either from Pipes or about Pipes. One section ("Campus Watch") is not even about Pipes, but about a certain project started by a think tank that Pipes runs. The article thus suffers from serious WP:COAT problems, which probably put it in violation of WP:BLP as well. The easiest solution would be to: 1. Cut sections "Views and positions" and "Praise, criticism and controversy" to only those views held by Pipes and comments about Pipes that clearly add to his notability. 2. Remove section on Campus Watch as irrelevant to Pipes' biography.

Beit Or 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The "think tank" in question, according to reliable sources, consists of Pipes and one other full-time researcher. Basically, the think tank and Pipes are interchangeable, and the think tank is actually only notable as a conveyor for Pipes' views. That being said, it certainly is the case that some trimming of views is possible in that article. I note, however, far from being a BLP vio, some of the more frank reviews of Pipes' work by academics are actually not in there. Relata refero (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mary DeMoss

• Mary DeMoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparently this individual has recently left the Church of Scientology and its intelligence agency, the Office of Special Affairs. This per a post by Mark Bunker at YouTube and a message board post at the website enturbulation.org. As this is a significant development both for Scientology and for this individual, editors should keep a close eye on this article, to make sure that new info is sourced to WP:RS/WP:V sources. Anon-IPs have already attempted to add this new info in, sourced only to the YouTube post and/or the message board post. // Cirt (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The notability of this article subject is extremely questionable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Update: After a request I put in at WP:RFPP, the article was put under semi-protect - this should address the issue of new editors/IPs adding unsourced info to the article, for the time being. (My thanks to Luna Santin (talk · contribs) for responding to my request at WP:RFPP). Cirt (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aqsa Parvez

Aqsa Parvez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Blatant violations of privacy (of family, not of subject herself) added twice. Please watchlist and delete/oversight inappropriate edits if possible. Andjam (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orl Unho

Orl Unho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is no evidence that this person exists. The one "source" is a YouTube video. There is also a WikiQuote page with an unsourced quote. // ivan (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Prodded. No reliable sources found during a Google search, just some more blogs, mirrors, and Youtube crap. *** Crotalus *** 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Papoose (rapper)

Repeatedly reverted edits are based on either the editor's interpretation of songs or postings to internet forums that interpret the songs. In either event, the interpretations make claims about a shooting and an alleged assault. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Full names and birthdates?

Re Kathy Hilton#Family

Should this article include full names and birthdates of "non-notable" family members?

I don't think so but there seems to be a general tendency to put every celebrity-related thing we can find into Misplaced Pages, whether or not it is significant.

I would appreciate both an answer to my specific question, and comments on the "general tendency" I sense. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this question is addressed by Misplaced Pages:Blp#Privacy_of_personal_information. We have no articles on the sons, so I suggest including only the year of birth for them. The birthdays of the two famous daughters may already be widely included in secondary sources. If that's the case, then they may be kept, but if not, they too should be reduced to just the year of birth. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know we don't have an article on Barron Nicholas, and I'd suggest that while he's not sufficiently notable to rate an article, he is enough of a public figure due to his DUI arrest that including his birthdate, or maybe just birth year, is not particularly intrusive. 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I pulled the birthdates (leaving the year) for the two we don't have articles on, and undid the redlinks as well. A DUI arrest does not make someone a public figure. FCYTravis (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Craig Cheffins

Craig Cheffins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A student newspaper is being used as the sole source to spread a story about Cheffins conduct as a teacher (allegedly neglecting his teaching duties). Cheffins is notable as a politician, not a teacher, and I feel this is irrelevant, unencyclopedic, and poorly sourced. IMO, few student newspapers are reliable, particularly on matters of fellow students. --Rob (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Student newspapers are definitely reliable sources. They are generally well-written publications of record for their universities, have established policies for fact-checking and sourcing, and most importantly, take responsibility for what they publish. A lot of important journalism is done by students at college papers.

However, I think the issue here is undue weight - as you said, he's really only encyclopedic for his (brief) career as a politician, and a minor dust-up at a university does not seem to me to be relevant to his political career. FCYTravis (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lobster Boy

• Lobster Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This disturbs me a little. The tone is too weird for Misplaced Pages, and it's been tagged as inappropriate for months. I'm too busy with other stuff to do a cleanup, but I would be grateful if somebody else could at least put it on his watchlist, if not clean it up right now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article should be renamed/moved to Lobster Man forthwith. Another Misplaced Pages subject, Grady Stiles, has been known far and wide as "Lobster Boy" for years. Google gives us 28,600 hits for "Lobster Boy" without the word Carnegie; that would be Grady. Under the article's current name, we risk confusing young knowledge seekers. --CliffC (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced criticism of John Aravosis at Americablog

There have been several recent edits with unsourced criticisms of blog founder John Aravosis at Americablog. With multiple editors posting negative information, and interspersed less POV edits, it is hard to see how far back to revert without losing possible good edits. See , , , . This article needs someone familiar with its subject and with Aravosis to straignten out whether he is a Republican or Democrat, let alone the other BLP issues. Edison (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did some cleanup, issues seem resolved for the time being. Edison (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Post-arbitration BLP article is under arbitration probation and full protection. Seeking independent review for a proposed job title update.

Currently the article calls Mr. Sanchez an embedded blogger. The proposed change would be embedded journalist, to be substaniated by a citation to the Weekly Standard. Five separate sources support the proposed change, also including humanevents.com and nationalreview.com.

No editor has produced a citation opposing the change, but the proposal has not received unambiguous support. Reelm objected when the first two citations were offered and has not commented after three more citations were supplied. A brand new account called Dale720240 showed up today and argued against a different warning that had not been proposed. An odd thing is that this is the account's only post and the article talk page is semiprotected. Multiple sitebans have been implemented in connection with this article, so it is likely that a banned editor created that account and waited four days for the specific purpose of complaining.

Talk:Matt_Sanchez#Change_embedded_blogger_to_embedded_journalist

In compliance with the article probation I ask for an uninvolved editor to weigh the merits of this proposal. Yes, I'm posting this thread just to ask whether we can change one word blogger to journalist. Durova 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response requested. Durova 02:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of property ownership records as source to support residency

A web site that provides property records in New Jersey has been used as a source to document residence of notables in a number of communities -- for Missy Elliott in Kinnelon, New Jersey and for John Madden in Montville, New Jersey -- which raises a few questions.

The first question is the validity of the source. Does the fact that there is someone named John madden who owns property in Montville satisfactorily demonstrate that this is the same person named in the article? For Missy Elliott, the circumstantial evidence is a bit stronger, with the name on the record matching her given name and the owner's address near her hometown in Virginia. Should this be used as a source on this basis?

The bigger question is the propriety of a source that provides an individual's home address, and not just their city of residence, which raises privacy concerns. While I am baffled as to why people who almost certainly have an unlisted number not doing anything to protect this information (say by using a corporation or trust to own the property), this information is in the public record. Is there a privacy issue with this information? Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the residence is very well-known, I don't see any good reason to provide residential addresses. That sounds like an appalling privacy issue to me. The sort of exception I'm thinking of might be, for example, the Neverland Ranch. I wouldn't have any problem with property records being used in that sort of article, where the property itself is well-known.TJRC (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the use of the source, but why would this be any worse than using a phone book entry as a reference? Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this is speculative synthesis. The fact that someone owns a property somewhere does not necessarily mean they live in that location. They could have bought the home as an investment, or for a friend, or for any number of other reasons. Ownership isn't equivalent to residency. FCYTravis (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As a top rated website, we would be putting into widespread circulation information that otherwise would be a bit less prominent. We don't publish the birthdates of less notable people, and we do not publish the (listed) phone numbers or certain other information that could be found in other databases. Then, too we are extremely likely to publish as the street address of a celebrity the actual address of the celebrity's elderly relative for whom he bought a home, or the address of someone else with the same name. If the person is the target of kooks or assassins, this could lead to serious harm. Even if the address is accurate, it is unlikely to be relevant and might aid stalkers. This smacks of original research if it comes from someone's database rather than a published source. Edison (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Two words: Rebecca. Schaeffer.. TJRC (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Property records cannot be used as per BLP " Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. ".Momento (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Wells (again)

• Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Proxy User seems rather obsessed with somehow connecting a minor ex-Gilligan's Island actress with marijuana use, to the point of creating an entire section heading entitled "Marijuana incidents" and repeatedly reinserting uncorroborated, recanted claims. I have reverted to last good and protected; more eyes and a cluebat would be handy. FCYTravis (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why use full protection, instead of a blocking the offending user (and maybe semi-protect to stop socks). No other user seems to be causing a problem in that article, so why stop others from editing. --Rob (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Avigdor Liberman

• Avigdor Liberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation can be found here - related diff is the following and can be found at the bottom of the explanation also.
• p.s. editors have collaborated on tag-team reverts though Nickhh has claimed his "Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}"' suggestion (Pedro Gonnet responded by reverting) was meant as a joke.// Jaakobou 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected, you've made an editprotected request, its been mentioned at WP:AE and WP:AN; how many more eyes do you want on it? Relata refero (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AE was a 3RR report by Pedro Gonnet, I'm not aware of an AN report but I'll give it a look.

On topic, we can't have articles locked with BLP violations. Jaakobou 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any noticeboard you haven't taken this to yet? Jaakobou, we really do have a policy about consensus here, and it's just as much policy as the other ones. You can't go around removing whole sections of sourced material with a frankly incomprehensible rationale, even if you do think it's based on WP:BLP. <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins may give a look at the section and decide on their own if there's a BLP violation. Consensus, btw, involves the general active members of discussion, not the 3-man clique who joined the discussion with a preconception on how the page should look. Jaakobou 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that even domestic sources sometimes seem to be hard pressed to tell what exactly was said —and what was meant— by Liberman in this or that controversial comment (as a govt. minister these quotes resonate internationally much more than when he was an mK). El_C 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy (2)

Hello, I am trying to expand the article Don Murphy with verifiable information from reliable sources. This is my revision, and I was wondering if any interested editors experienced with WP:BLP would like to join discussion at Talk:Don Murphy to evaluate all aspects of my revision and determine how to best describe Don Murphy's personal life and professional career as significantly reported by published, third-party sources. RTFA (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are a SPA account designed to attack Don Murphy and draw the Foundation into unpleasantness. It was your sloppy revision which led to the revert war and the afd. The fact that you chose a wholesale reversion of the article after all that happened confirms it. You have only edited with this one article and your obsession with this individual alarms me greatly.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Don Murphy article is marked with a padlock symbol. Isn't it usual for locked articles to carry a note re why they are locked? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a topic ban to restrict RTFA from Don Murphy. Interested parties can comment here.--Doc 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

ScienceApologist is engaging in blatant WP:BLP violations on Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), starting with an attempt to make a controversial claim concerning him sourced only to a political attack website , and continuing with the use of original research for the purpose of criticizing Eric Lerner's work justified only by personal attacks against myself , both in violation of Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Though WP:BLP also requires strict adherence to WP:NPOV, ScienceApologist is also engaging in blatantly imbalanced editing by removing information concerning Eric Lerner's theories sourced to peer reviewed journals, including one published by the respected Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, while insisting that personal faculty webpages and blogs constitute good, reliable sources for criticism of Eric Lerner -- please see , which uses and as sources, as well as ScienceApologist's explanation of why blog posts are reliable sources, but peer reviewed journals published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers aren't . John254 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Testicular_cancer#Famous_survivors

Testicular_cancer#Famous_survivors needs better sourcing, or else the entries should be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Maxwell

The Misplaced Pages page on Jordan Maxwell keeps getting reverted back to a highly biased version submitted by Cohan8 where Jordan is basically accused of being a fraud/charlatan.

Here are some quotes: Many view the way he conducts his research as pseudo professional and heavily based on the sale of his own products rather than the objectivity of the "research" itself.

is a self proclaimed researcher and independent scholar in the fields of astrology, theology, religion, secret societies, the occult, and UFOlogy since 1959. He has produced numerous video lectures and documentaries on these subjects.

Also, the article repeatedly puts "believes" in scare quotes so as to demean any claims he makes.

This kind of personal bias reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages as a reputable source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the issue raised above, there are other problems here IMO. As it stands, a significant part of the article seems to me to be a copy violation of one of the references.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_jmaxwell.htm

Will someone else please take a look at this

I removed the section "FBI surveillance" as it had no references at all. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin

I have concerns about the amount of private information that contributors appearing to be trying to put into the article with dubious sourcing. In particularly, people appear to be trying to put her alleged real name in the article, despite the fact the only sourcing appears to be from employment records and IRS records and she has expressed a wish not to have it included. Also, her birthdate is include despite the OR used to derive it (see the footnote). Anyone else agree with me on this Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article because of edit warring over this. On looking into it further, I agree with your points. User:Yeago needs to be restrained here, and is now repeatedly posting a presumed name in bold on the article talk page. Note there has been contention over this article in the past over a different issue, namely an attack site concerning the subject. Ty 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to be restrained in what sense? I'm engaging in a discussion about the matter, just like you. I'm repeating posting a name in pursuit of my points, and I'm not sure if you're implying bad faith in my doing so, but I use bold occasionally to illustrate points. Also, please do not connect me (if you may suspect) to the 'attack site', as I had never read it before today, nor am I a reader of BoingBoing or anything else like that. I'm simply looking for Misplaced Pages standards to be extended to this article.Yeago (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrino theory

• Hydrino theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TStolper1W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michaelbusch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on Randell Mills, the inventor of this theory, was merged into this article. Tom Stolper wrote a book on Mills, his SPA is currently on 1RR (see COI Noticeboard archive). His opponent Michael Busch has just left the project.

After a slow edit war, Tom Stolper has now begun to change only a few things at a time , enabling reasonable discussion. I am concerned about the plagiarism comment. The accusation seems credible, and the justification added by Stolper unconvincing. But our only source for the accusation in the first place is the blog of a physicist who avoids using the word. More blunt formulations can be found in forum posts, but that seems to be all.

I am inclined to remove the accusation, but that will probably be questioned. I'd appreciate it if someone could have a look. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found the relevant BLP passages after all, but as it's not a biography in the strict sense I would still like to have some input, especially concerning the categorisation of a one man show theory as pseudoscience. I have removed both the plagiarism accusation and the potentially offensive categories. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nazi orgies" tabloid allegation regarding Max Mosley

Before I run over 3RR regarding a person I know little about, can I please have at least one sane person look at Max Mosley's page? I believe that tabloids -- Bild, News of the World -- are not reliable sources, and the section that anons and occasional editors keep adding fails our BLP policy. Am I out of my mind? Is anything in this section acceptable? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely completely non-encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Treat as vandalism, revert revert revert, if you get 3RR blocked e-mail me for an immediate unblock.--Doc 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected for a day, fyi. -- Naerii 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in which time its now all over the Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. Sheesh. Over-reaction, anyone? Relata refero (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was quite the correct reaction. As long as our only sources are tabloids, then it is inappropriate to add them. Now that we have better sources, it's fine. The fact things change, doesn't mean we made a mistake, we should always report things after they are published in reliable sources, not before... Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Magdi Allam

Magdi Allam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm involved in a dispute with a single purpose account over the article Magdi Allam. I know almost nothing about the subject of the article, but when I saw it, it seemed to me there were clear problems with it. Before this goes farther, I'd like to get some advice as to whether I'm reading the situation properly. Is this a clearly a POV article with unsourced contentious statements? Should I continue removing the unsourced statements, which the account has reinserted?

Thanks. --Bwwm (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain - John McCain presidential eligibility

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John McCain presidential eligibility.

Two editors are trying to interject original research into articles relating to John McCain that he is inelligble to be president because he was not born in the United States. One of these editors User:2ndAmendment is new account (created March 19, 2008) and I suspect may be a WP:SOCK given their knowledge of WP policy and creation of this article after only 3 edits. The other editor User:Mr.grantevans2 has been trying to insert contentious material into the McCain primary article for some time. With the recent creation of this article, they appear to be performing original research to "prove" their case, and are using an unreliable (and McCain attack source) as a premise for their assertation that McCain does not qualify by this webpage's defintion of a natural born citizen. Discourse does not seem to be working at this time. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources they are using look pretty reliable to me (MSNBC and New York Times) but I AfD'd it on the basis that it's not worth of a seperate article. -- Naerii 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted the insertion of the unreliable part. Look at the history. I don't have a problem with having the article in general, it is a topic of discussion, and I suspect it will become more of an issue as the election draws on. I do have a problem with editors that feel he is inelligible trying to present their research on this matter. Arzel (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I was wondering where your link to WordPress was coming from. I looked at the old revision and the paragraph:

The constitution does not define "natural born Citizen". One definition, however, is "where only the natural act of one being born in a place determines the status of ones citizenship with no additional stipulations necessary to influence that status". The definition put forth by Blackstone in 1765 is "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England".

is almost certainly original research and/or synthesis. Talk:John_McCain#Is_McCain_a_.22Native_Born_American.22.3F is interesting, shows the POV pushers ignoring what seems (to me) to be a consensus that McCain's citizenship is not a significant issue. I'd say drop a note on their talk page about BLP but it looks like they're already experienced editors.. sigh. It looks like the fork is going to be deleted, btw. -- Naerii 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Laura Bozzo and LatinGossip.com

Laura Bozzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I need some help with the Laura Bozzo article, which I believe has been a longtime troll magnet. First off, I had to clean out some dubious info about Bozzo today, sourced with the site LatinGossip.com, practically a self-published blog site that makes no proof of its claims whatsoever. ON a similar note, another BLP page is using the site. I think LatinGossip.com should be blacklisted.

And now regarding the Laura Bozzo page. IP's are continuously vandalizing it so that it's slanted towards her controversial talk show career. Take this vandal for instance. It took about 2 weeks for removal of accurate content to be restored, by me in this instance. (Here's the source documenting the claim about her "women's rights" activism/legal scholarship I restored). Things get worse as days go by. This right here is unacceptable because it fails to give proper sources to such claims. And this was the new lowlight I just had to remove on Saturday. I'm just raising concern over the Bozzo article so that administrators can help in keeping the integrity/accuracy of the article and deal with LatinGossip.com and other libel that may be added again to the Bozzo article, possibly even protect it. Thank you. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK now, and there is no enough disruption to warrant protection. I will add this article to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist too. If libelous edits continue, I'll revert 'em. You can too. Protection may come if necessary. Also, what's Misplaced Pages gonna do with the LatinGossip.com site I just mentioned? Should'nt that site be blacklisted for being basically an unverifiable, inaccurate site? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback needed re Rob Grill article

Please will people with a sense of BLP issues take a look at this?

It concerns the article Rob Grill. There is discussion in Talk:Rob Grill about whether or not to include a particular news story in the article.

We requested a third opinion, which was to come to this page for an opinion. So we are here.

Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Davidson (comedian)

I've cleaned up some questionable stuff from the article proper, but I'm unsure of the policy regarding talk pages. Can someone take a look and redact/excise anything that violates? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Same as with the article, we don't tolerate BLP vios on talk pages either. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Carolyn Farb

• Carolyn Farb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated entry of what I feel is unsourced, questionable material. Need your feedback, please. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good examples of BLP

Im looking for Rated FA-Class or better examples of poets/writers but falling under BLP. One first class rate article for a poet I found is William Butler Yeats. But he is not living... Any BLPs? User:Wikidas 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are none (unless you expand the set to include Bob Dylan). Seamus Heaney is the best of the lot, and you can see the state its in. Strangely, however, Modernist poetry in English is FA-class. Relata refero (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When you say poets/writers do you mean poets or writers or someone who is a poet and writer? If you mean the former then there is J. K. Rowling, David Helvarg, Thomas Pynchon, Bruno Maddox and William Gibson, all of whom are writers of some kind from a quick look (Well I recognise most of them anyway). I don't think any of them are really poets. There are a whole bunch of FA non BLP poets, Chinese, Bengali, American and others. Check out Category:FA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles (which I found from Category:FA-Class biography articles which I found from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography). If Misplaced Pages:Category intersection is ever implemented, then I guess we could just intersect BLP and the above category but in the mean time, you can just look thru the FA list and look for BLPs (but I looked thru the whole list and I'm pretty sure there are no poet BLPs there) Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: may be useful Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neve Gordon

• Neve Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steven Plaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Borisyy and Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Borisyy

Neve Gordon has won a libel action in an Israeli court, confirmed at appeal, against Steven Plaut. Since the appeal court ruling at the beginning of this month, there have been a dozen edits to the article, repeating the substance of the original libels, by confirmed or suspected sockpuppets of Borisyy. I have requested semi-protection of this page, in order to prevent libellous edits by sockpuppets, but this has been refused. Is there any other way to prevent such libellous vandalism and abuse? RolandR (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Plaut article is protected, the Gordon article is not. Interesting. — Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection has twice been refused. The libellous attack has been repeated twice since I commented earlier. RolandR (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Truthprofessor apparently has something to do with this as well. — Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be all the work of the vandal known as "Runtshit"; some of us might hazard a guess as to this person's real identity. RolandR (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Analysing the BLP problem

OK, this should probably be on the talk page. But honestly, would you read it there?

I am trying to define and analyse the BLP problem. I've made a start at User:Doc_glasgow/The BLP problem. But I'd really like feedback from anyone with an interest. Thanks.--Doc 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy (3)

• Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been the subject of intense controversy recently and is currently fully protected following a spate of vandalism. The controversy has not abated and has every possibility of continuing for some time. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could watchlist it to ensure that further vandalism is reverted promptly in the event of its protection being lowered (which will presumably happen at some point). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rick Reilly

• Rick Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In May of 2007, I noticed a certain editor (Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) had a fixation to add info in a biased manner to Rick Reilly's article (My first revert here). My recollection is that he was blocked for 3rr and for using multiple IP's and socks to edit war (An archived ANI thread I found is here). After dealing with the socks for a while and trying unsuccessfully to keep out the material which was, as far as I could find, only linked to one source (unlike the U of Colorado sex scandal, which Reilly criticized; it was subject to much media scrutiny) --I tried to keep the material and the source, but present it in a factual way (change diff). This change did not satisfy the editor as it did not properly impugn Mr. Reilly's character and successfully paint him as a hypocrite as did his earlier version. I have no idea why it is so important to this editor (appears to be the same user) for this info to be included, but s/he has occasionally popped up to re-insert the info (latest diff).

• Could a couple of editors help watch the article?
• Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the info should be included in whole or in part?

I'm thinking just throw out the info all together. My recollection from doing research on it last year is that no further news articles could be found. Also in the only reference for this info, it stated, "Prosecutors decided not to file charges because there were conflicting statements from the teenagers involved and not enough physical evidence to determine who was telling the truth." I'm not even sure if they were talking about charges against Reilly or not, as Reilly was not at his home when the alleged incident took place.

• Thanks in advance for any assistance. This appears to be a longterm campaign, and I need backup. R. Baley (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just came here to report this, but found one already filed. It does not look like any legitimate "controversy" anyway; I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be included at all. The source given does not mention any "controversy" rising from this episode. BuddingJournalist 06:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wow; just had a look at the history for the page; this issue has been ongoing since 2005! BuddingJournalist 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The latest edit to insert the inappropriate material is here and was inserted about 20 minutes ago. My thanks to BJ for his help so far, but I still think there needs to be some more input to resolve this one way or the other. . .more eyes please, R. Baley (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The edit has been reverted again by BJ (diff), but I would still ask that a few people comment, either here or on the talk page. I would like to have a discussion to point to down the road, because this will keep coming up, I think. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • aaand back again. Please help, R. Baley (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page; I explain my reasons on the talk page. Basically, I think this is more vandalism than content dispute, so semi-protection is appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both the removal of the content, and the addition of semi-protection: R. Baley's assessment of the situation is good, and as he said, only one source for the material could be found, and so if no other sources can be found to both further verify this information and allow it to be more NPOV, I believe and agree that removing it is best. In fact, I think the entire "Controversies" section in the article should go as well, as none of it is sourced at all. Acalamari 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moulder

Entire article has nearly no citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0570fchurch (talk • contribs) 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be anything of concern from a BLP perspective here - unless you consider claiming someone worked with My Bloody Valentine is libelous. Which you should. Skomorokh 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Gabrielle Giffords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new user has repeatedly (>6 times) tried to add poorly-sourced OR that, among other things, alleges that the article subject's support of a certain bill shows that she has violated her Democratic values. All attempts to conform to policy and reach consensus have been met by continued reverts and personal attacks. It's a low-traffic article and I could use someone to give an outside opinion, help revert the offending content, and better-introduce the new user Bobheath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). johnpseudo 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice the offending user's talkpage was a redlink as of your writing this; it might have been a more appropriate forum to escalate the discussion, per WP:DR#Discuss. Skomorokh 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I incorrectly capitalized the name. It should be fixed now. johnpseudo 03:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been fully protected. Various other opinions have been given to Bobheath on the talkpage, which will hopefully sink in.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

John Lehman bio

from current text: "Because the Vietnam War was raging in 1968, many people found that they had to have connections or influence in order to gain admission to the Reserves and thereby avoid serving in jungle warfare in Vietnam."

gratuitous and irrelevant with clear intent of malignant inference. delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clanranald (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely right out, and has been removed. The clause was inserted by an anon IP back in February. Page watchlisted. FCYTravis (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lotfi Asker Zadeh

This is not a serious BLP issue, just a minor one, as the claims made are not really controversial, but a third party opinion would be good for resolving the dispute. The dispute is related to the current citizenship of Mr. Lotfi Zade. According to Mr Lotfi Zade himself: "I am the citizen of the United States. I was born in Baku, but I was not Soviet citizen, I was an Iranian citizen. In 1944 I came to the States as an immigrant, not as a student". This clearly means that this person is currently a US citizen and he used to be a citizen of Iran in the past. However according to User:07fan, Mr Lotfi Zade has at present the Iranian citizenship as well, but the aforementioned user fails to present any source to support this claim. While I do not consider this to be a serious issue, BLP rules require that any info about the living person needs to be properly sourced and be accurate. A third party opinion on this issue would be appreciated. Grandmaster (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster is making an WP:OR assertion that that Lotfi Asker Zadeh is no longer an Iranian citizen or that he is "former Iranian citizen", sonly based on the fact that Zadeh also became an American citizen in 1994. However, User:Grandmaster is ignoring the fact that "Voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship does not lead to automatic loss of Iranian citizenship". . Zadeh has never said "I am a former Iranian citizen", he grew up in Iran, moved to US on an Iranian passport, and even after moving to US, lived and worked in US and traveled around the world as an Iranian for decades, and did not acquire an American citizenship until 1994, three years after he had retired, and there is no indication whatsoever that Zadeh ever renounced his Iranian citizenship. Furthermore, BBC, in a recent interview, refers to Zadeh as "an Iranian scientist" and I have even offered User:Grandmaster to contact Zadeh and ask him if he ever renounced his Iranian citizenship, but User:Grandmaster has so far refused to do so. More discussions can be found at Talk:Lotfi_Asker_Zadeh --07fan (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The OR is to assert that a person holds a certain citizenship without any sources to support this claim. Mr Lotfi Zadeh talks about his Iranian citizenship in the past tense, and there's no other evidence to support the claim on his second citizenship. I would be glad to see any reliable source about that. Again, I do not consider this to be a big issue, but for the sake of accuracy this info should be verified. Grandmaster (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Trombino

There has been some debate on the Mark Trombino page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Mark_Trombino) about including a quote from a member of a band he worked with.

It is verifiable, but is not a particularly positive comment. I believe this is allowed by Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality, which clearly allows for opinions if they are sourced and attributed (see specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements)

Can someone please confirm this, because a user takes the quote down, almost daily. I'm completely impartial here, I just found the quote to be very interesting! Mikenosilly (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

libel and defamation on user page

• Cult free world (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sig piped through "talk-to-me!" lately)
• User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two court cases have found the statements User:Cult Free World is making here libelous and defamatory.

The details are described here on the page's "Miscellany for Deletion" page. Thank you for reviewing the actual court case which is provided in the above post. Renee (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India is the current link. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just been moved here: Misplaced Pages talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cult free world/Proposed Sahaj Marg India. Thanks. Renee (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, two different pages: the MfD itself and its talk page. The specifics of the libel and defamation issues are addressed more specifically on the latter. — Athaenara ✉ 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult Free World just posted yet another claim of sexual abuse as fact here, when two courts in India have found such allegations libelous and defamatory. This is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Please, can someone act? Renee (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Tillman

Dorothy Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) unblock-en-l received a complaint about the content of this article, which does seem sketchy to my eyes. More eyes would be appreciated. WilyD 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had a go at cleaning out some inappropriately sourced material, links etc from this article. I think Ms. Tillman is probably more interesting than the current article implies but that will have to wait for somebody who will do the appropriate writing and sourcing. I will keep an eye on it.--Slp1 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of the controversy section after fixing the dead links, and kept the neutral section header. I did this before I was aware of an external complaint, and I'm happy to discuss how we can fix the article while keeping a moderate amount of this material. Tillman is very well-known locally for the incidents listed in the article, several of which contributed to her re-election loss. I think the sourcing is fine now (no blogs, everything is sourced to media with reputations for fact checking), but I would appreciate a review of the writing. Skinwalker (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Goli Ameri

Goli Ameri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Mahmoudg, using his username and possibly at times when not logged in, is consistently adding negative-biased, unsubstantiated information to the Goli Ameri article // Mahmoudg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) // Johndoe555 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP Violation needs attention

Can someone please take care of another BLP violation, described here? It derogates the living guru of this meditation system by taking liberties with translating from non-English sources. The tone of this whole article is to make Sahaj Marg sound as strange as possible when in fact it is a meditation group that is not on any English language cult list and is considered by the United Nations to be a spiritual and humanitarian non-governmental organization. Thanks!! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian Bleisch

Sebastian Bleisch is a living person and shows up in Category:Child pornography with no other real people. Could someone check this our as far a appropriateness of the categories he is listed under. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sylvia Bourdon

Sylvia Bourdon is a living person and is listed under Category:Animal pornography, Her article has no reference ctations. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Marina Hedman

Same problem as above. How do living people become listed under Category:Animal pornography. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ben Modo

• Ben Modo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Subject proposed his own article for deletion here. The entire article is sourced to only one book, and no web sources. Some of it appears to be disparaging.

I am inclined to ask for speedy deletion in order to clear the history. Article could then be recreated with proper references. Is this right?

There is an open RfC as well. —BradV 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Closing this as resolved since the page was speedy deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Carnes

Patrick Carnes, a BLP, is the only person under Category:Sexual addiction. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the category. Are there other concerns? —BradV 01:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! No other concerns. Mattisse (Talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maxine Waters

Is there a way to semi-protect or otherwise stop the inclusion of "Rep. Waters said she's going to cast her Superdelegate vote for Candidate A but Candidate B won in her district and that goes against the will of the voters."

This is irrelevant to Maxine Waters' biography and it misrepresents the Superdelegate process. The Misplaced Pages article on Superdelegates states, "All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's been presented as a controversy, it had better have been significantly covered by reliable sources as a controversy. Otherwise, out it goes. It it's persistently re-inserted, we can evaluate what combination of blocks and protection would be best. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an Obama supporter and I really don't see how it's relevant. Lots of superdelegates have endorsed candidates that didn't win their district's popular vote. George Miller endorsed Obama but Clinton won California CD-7. FCYTravis (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thank heavens for you! (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). I'm so sick of trying to explain to both sides (I happen to support Clinton although I don't work for her as the person who threatened to subpoena my IP address and alert the media said I did) that there in no official correlation to be made between a Superdelegte's district's popular vote and the candidate the Superdelegate choses to support. --Smart Ways (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the "warning" I received:

Please stop your campaign to erase evidence of Superdelegates who are voting for Clinton despite their districts voting for Obama. You've done it more than once, and objectivity and relevance is clearly not your motive. If you want fairness and objectivity you would leave these entries alone and also add similar entries to Obama superdelegates who's districts voted for Clinton.

If you keep up your current shenanigans, I will act to have your IP blocked, and traced. If you happen to have made these alterations from an official computer that is in an office allied with Hillary, or Waters, or Richardson, I will be sure the media finds out. You don't want that kind of press.

Again, the way to tackle this issue with integrity and objectivity is to ensure every superdelegate's pledged vote is noted, along with whether or not the vote contradicts the vote of the superdelegate's constituents.

--Smart Ways (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Haskvitz

This middle school teacher wrote this page about himself as a means of self promotion. If you go on his own website, you will find the exact same content. There are also no citations whatsoever on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astroidea (talk • contribs) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's the text copied from? If it's a copyright violation, we can speedily delete it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the information in the article is referenced, although not with in-line citations (not a requirement). I see no evidence in the history of a copyright violation. Typically when something is a copyright violation you'll see the whole thing created in one edit, and that has not happened here. Also, the article has already been nominated for speedy deletion, and was declined. If you feel strongly about it you could take it to AfD. —BradV 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

• Ashida Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I don't know what to do with this article. If I deleted what I suspected was unreliable sources, I'd have to stubbify it, but when I put the article to AfD, it failed. Any advice? Andjam (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead remove all material that's not reliably sourced. The previous afd called for stubification anyway. This will eventually die in a future afd, but we're not there yet.--Doc 10:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A Massachusetts District Court isn't a reliable source? I agree the article needs tidying, but I disagree with the amount of material you've removed. Thedarxide (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The BLP concerns are addressed now. I don't think anyone would have a problem with putting reliable sourced information back in. —BradV 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How have they been addressed? What reliable sourced information? Andjam (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This was what the article looked like when I made that comment. I see all the unsourced POV has been added back in. —BradV 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted to that version for now. As I said before, verifiable, properly sourced information can be added back in. This is going to need attention by a number of people to ensure that unsourced information doesn't end up back in the article. —BradV 03:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the birth date from the article because there is no source given for it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is still slightly slanted towards the negative and one editor keeps on introducing a section about a move called "Monkey stealing peach" that adds nothing to the page at all. They have provided one link of a person making fun of it online, but it's not from a reliable source. Hell, I could make fun of it on a blog and the person would probably use that as well. Why is it important to note? On top of that, they continue to add that there is a "possibly unrelated" move present in other martial arts systems. That is basically original research because it can not be confirmed that this is true. I have removed that bit, but I'm sure the editor will re-add it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any comment on the talk page or at the least a link here, initially made this appear to be kim fan-boy vandalism. --Nate1481(/_c) 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution is re-writing it as an article about a pen name used buy an 'unknown' author as their is no evidence that a real person called 'Ashida Kim' exists. p.s. Added an advert tag as that's all thats left. --Nate1481(/_c) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a fan. By adding a link to a website ridiculing the technique, the person was pretty much saying "hey, look at what else this nut claims he can do." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the the edits by Bradv, not the random monkey peach thing. That is not amazingly relevent but as he is an internet personality contributing to a meme might be so I left it alone. --Nate1481(/_c) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We're currently disagreeing about the use of court documents to expose his real name. Can someone else look at the issue please? Andjam (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the real name. There's a good rule of thumb for BLPs - if you have to go do a public records search on someone to find something out, it probably doesn't belong in their Misplaced Pages biography. Misplaced Pages is not for investigative journalism. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that others have already done it, the paragraph removed stated that! --Nate1481(/_c) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Braunstein

Peter Braunstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added links. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Peter Braunstein is a living person convicted of a sex offense. I am wondering if this article is adequately sourced for the statements made in it. Also, is it appropriate to have a "Trivia" section in BLP? Mattisse (Talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It could certainly use a few more newspaper articles as references, especially for the statements marked with {{fact}} tags. The article claims that the case received "a lot of media attention", so it should be easy for someone to find sources. —BradV 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia Payne

Cynthia Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added links. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Cynthia Payne BLP article is unreferenced. She in in category:Sex worker and Category:People acquitted of sex crimes . She allegedly ran a brothel. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Matisse: You can fix these issues on you own... Just follow WP:BLP. As we say so fix it ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people#Biographies_of_living_people ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (adding links) --16:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

I'd guess Boris has seen this page before. He is very controversial for many reasons. My call is that the article is ok, using well documented sources, but there is a discussion going on now about BLP concerns. I don't think "compliant with BLP" is equivalent to "whitewash," but others might want to take a look and give their own reading to the situation. Smallbones (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulli Lommel and IMDB as a "reliable source

• Ulli Lommel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Jacques clouseau added a biography to the article for Ulli Lommel which was completely unsourced and a little bit biased as well. I removed it and left a message on the user's talk page (this user, so far, has only edited Lommel's article) explaining the rules of citing sources and POV. He reinstated his edit, citing 90% of the article with edits from IMDB. I reverted it again, saying that IMDB isn't used as a reliable source as users can submit information themselves and its not easily verifiable. So this is what Jacques wrote on the talk page.

"Well, what is Misplaced Pages then? Everybody can submit info to Misplaced Pages, IMDB updates only info from reliable updaters. Is it just that user CyberGhostface hates Lommel and doesn't want that Misplaced Pages, A DICTIONARY, would have anything about him?"

I pointed out that Misplaced Pages ISN'T considered a reliable source, and Misplaced Pages will NEVER cite itself in an article, and that IMDB has posted false information tons of times. (I remember one time they listed Saw IV as starring Jessica Alba and featuring Jigsaw's baby). He hasn't responded yet, but if someone can just back me on this if I'm correct before it escalates any further, that'd be great. // CyberGhostface (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah is a living person but I can not tell from the references what is true and what is not. Is about.com considered a reliable source? I thought it was a mirror site of wikipendia but now it is owned by the New York Times. Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. He has appeared on Most evil a psychology Discovery Channel show, which is a much more reliable source than about.com. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it and removed about.com as a ref. see here, I'll try to get some more sources later. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of answers.com (which mirrors wikipedia), rather than about.com? Andjam (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither are reliable, just look where your about.com link takes us. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a web search and listed some links to news articles on the article talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Plagiarism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Verklempt, in violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, is tendentiously making edits to restore material on alleged plagiarism by Alan Dershowitz. Groupthink (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt is restoring impeccably sourced edits, about a topic that is already the subject of an entire Misplaced Pages article: Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair.Verklempt (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems as notable as any of the other examples in there. (Though frankly I haven't the vaguest idea why there's a list of examples in there at all.) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Runhardt Sander

Runhardt Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Biographical article of a "German lawyer and political functionary" linked to far-right political parties, including placement in the neo-nazi category (now reverted). There are absolutely no references given in this article, the "official" website for this individual is now reportedly "hacked", and interestingly there is no parallel article for this person in the German Misplaced Pages. Would appreciate suggestions on how best to proceed. Risker (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my suggestion: you could try to find references, and if you don't find sufficient, then nominate the article for deletion. Note that the corresponding German article was deleted on 21:20, 9. Okt. 2007 by Michael Sander (same surname), apparently after a deletion discussion. (I'm assuming "gelöscht" must mean "deleted".) In the deletion discussion, they talk about sources (Quellen), relevance, "Original Research", etc., and then Michael Sander posts a message when deleting the page. Eep, I see that I was the one who marked the page as patrolled. Sorry about that. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

this website mentions that the German page had been deleted and gives the text of two deleted pages, that one and Reichsbürger-Union. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the German Misplaced Pages you can find some other references and documents about the activities of Runhardt Sander, see the articles: Freie Wählergemeinschaft Die Nationalen , Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk or Frank Schwerdt . Much articles and deletion discussions in the German Misplaced Pages are dominated of neo-nazis, see the exemples in the german website named Nazipedia . About the background of Runhardt Sander see also this german information . Heinrich8 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I've added some notes and references to the article, most of them are german. I hope it is enough.Heinrich8 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City School District

Salt Lake City School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Dylandude89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editwars to add pejorative unsourced information about a school basketball coach and principal, continuing after being warned on 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC). Please note also this comment posted at AN/3RR about the ongoing real-life consequences. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning message explaining our policies on his talk page; while I think he's acting in good faith, unfortunately he's making unsourced allegations. If he persists, we'll just have to block, unfortunately. FCYTravis (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've explained things to the user on my talk page, and the user seems to have stopped reverting. There were sources, but not proper ones—e.g. a student newspaper, I think. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Student newspapers are reliable sources. Unfortunately, he was linking not to a newspaper, but to his assertion that he was a reporter for the high school student newspaper, and that his reporting was censored by the administration (unfortunately possible at the high school level.) As a student journalist myself, I sympathise, but obviously we can't allow unpublished assertions. FCYTravis (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The user again posted similar negative information, this time with the only "source" given being a broken link. I'm not convinced that student newspapers are a reliable source for this type of thing: I'd have to see your arguments or a reference to a guideline or something. For this type of allegation, very high quality sources are needed IMO. I don't think student newspapers qualify. Even small local newspapers may not qualify. Besides verifiability, the information probably isn't sufficiently notable or relevant, either. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Deseret News isn't a student newspaper in any event - it is the second largest newspaper in Utah, a competitor to the Salt Lake Tribune. The source for that issue is certainly impeccable - but whether that minor incident is really encyclopedic in the broader context of a school district's encyclopedia article, is questionable at best. FCYTravis (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine; I was referring to an earlier source, "Highland Times" or something, which I presumed was a student newspaper. I still haven't seen a proper citation to Desert News: all I saw was a broken link, no title of article or date of publication or anything. Anyway, that would be one source. There would have to be "multiple, highly reliable sources"; it would have to be shown that the information is sufficiently relevant to the article; and per BLP the information would have to be presented as "allegations" (even if stated as fact in the newspaper), since published stories don't always turn out to be true. What is the reason for including the information, anyway? Is it useful to the reader, or is it being included for the sole purpose of defaming someone's reputation? Certainly negative information is sometimes encyclopedic, but I'm not sure that's the case here. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alberto Lugo

Alberto Lugo is a living person. The article is unsourced. There is one external link to an informal article at a boxing website. Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion with prod, after doing a couple of web searches and not finding any sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm happy to be able to help. Actually, it seems that someone has already speedy-deleted the article; I had also considered speedy-tagging it. By the way, the reason I'm here is that I was helping at the 3RR noticeboard and noticed that a page reported there, Salt Lake City School District, had a BLP problem so I came here to report it. I then decided to look around on this noticeboard and now I think I'll start helping here regularly, too. --Coppertwig (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

DataTreasury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Adding links --Coppertwig (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Some lobbying efforts on a patent reform law have turned nasty in connection with a company called DataTreasury and there are lots of accusations flying around about the history and current conduct of the officers of this company. Some of these accusations have found their way onto Misplaced Pages.

I think the article is currently OK, as I've removed the unsourced info and have toned down the sourced info in an effort to present both sides in a balanced way. However, there is an onging discussion on the talk page which might get problematic. Issues of COI have also arisen, but I think have been dealt with.

I don't get inolved in Bio issues often, and would appreciate a more experienced editor taking a look and making sure that the relevant guidelines are being complied with. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on an edit I just reverted, this appears to be an ongoing issue. Additional eyes are welcome. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

• Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is frequently a target by vandals or editors who believe the article is a dumping ground for any or every view espoused by Naik.

• ISKapoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an associate of his, Vikramsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), keep inserting tendentious material aimed to reflect negatively on Naik by focusing unduly on one or two particular opinions of his (~3kb of content in a 9kb article, much of which is already about controversy/criticism). This consists primarily of lengthy quotes derived from youtube websites or interviews. There was a consensus developed some time ago that the article would not become an unencyclopedic coatrack for every opinion he held, either to promote or defame him. It's not relevant to his notability in any way, and I believe it's inappropriate to continue inserting these lengthy passages about what Naik thinks about Muslims or non-Muslims or whatever. I have advised ISKapoor about BLP policy several times on the talk page, but he refuses to get the message. I'd appreciate some assistance. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Adding links to article) --Coppertwig (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding last month's prostitution scandal, the Daily Mail reported that the Duke was a patron of the Emperors Club VIP as Client No. 6. Several other sources also did a story on the allegations. However, the Daily Mail has since removed the article from its site, though I am not aware of a retraction notice having been printed. The Times revised its article to remove mention of the Duke, and many other papers' stories of the Duke's ties to the Emperors Club have been removed or edited down.

Is it acceptable to have those allegations in the article if the main sources have retracted them? Do we have a general rule about how to deal with sources that have been retracted after being cited? Dforest (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not personally familiar with any policy on handling later retractions. It seems to me that the handling of such would be case-by-case. I see that the article doesn't allege that the Duke was Client #6, but rather neutrally reports that the Daily Mail said so (a modest assertion, since it seems that a number of other sources said so as well). It also reports on his lawyers' denial of the claim. I should personally think that rather than removing the mention, the section should be expanded to describe the evolution of the situation, with the alteration of reporting, as set out here. The allegations seem to have garnered some widespread notability, looking at google and googlenews. Withdrawing all reference seems inappropriate to me. Keeping it strictly neutral and factual should not be problematic per BLP. --Moonriddengirl 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the article should say that certain things were reported and that the newspapers later retracted them, etc. If there are a lot of sources like the link Moonriddengirl gives, talking about how the stories were edited down, then it would not be undue weight to talk about it here too. If things are relatively quiet, it might be appropriate to tone it down a bit in the article: shift it to later in the article or shorten it or something, since the fact that the material was retracted could suggest that maybe it wasn't true and that therefore we shouldn't emphasize such allegations too much. Remembering that Misplaced Pages is not censored, though. Just my opinion. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What Moonriddengirl suggested about expanding the section to describe the evolution of the situation, in particular the apparent retractions of the articles, is what I was leaning towards. But I also agree that we shouldn't give undue weight to a scandal if the main sources have pulled their stories. One problem I see is that many of the articles online seem to have simply disappeared online, and others seem to have removed certain statements such as mention of "Client No. 6" or linking the Duke to that label. I believe there's a big verifiability issue if we can't cite the original versions of the articles. Unfortunately with web-based news there is no 'history' function like with wiki. Huffington Post, which is already cited, seems to have the best coverage of the retractions. Probably we should cite the Daily Mail's removal of the article from their website and the Times removing mention of the Duke from their article. Does that sound acceptable? Dforest (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good approach to me. --Moonriddengirl 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary-Kate Olsen

Re Mary-Kate Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Converted to La template --Coppertwig (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

The ref given in the first paragraph of this article is to a 4 year old story about an eating disorder. The paragraph is not about that at all.

The photo of Olsen is quite unflattering, IMO. Should we use such a photo of someone of whom there are thousands of good photos? I know we can't just pick a good photo and use it. My point is that if this is the best photo we have, we should not use any photo.

IMO article is off-policy in both regards. Opinion please. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion: the photo looks OK to me. She's smiling. It's an ordinary photo, not a studio posed photo, that's all. (Maybe I'm missing something.) If it can be replaced with a better one, fine, but I wouldn't just remove it.

Re eating disorder: I think the article is being used to verify the statement that they're twins. It does that. So I think that's OK too, although it would be better to replace it with a different source because it could draw undue attention to the eating disorder. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the photo is particularly unflattering; it's just a candid shot from a rather odd angle. Is there a better picture of her that is not copyrighted? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We should use the best free picture available unless it is truly awful (in which case we should use no photo at all). That photo is certainly not awful - it's just a regular shot of her looking normal and everyday. If she or her publicists wish a better photo, then they can certainly donate one as many celebrities have done.

I don't think we should be removing a source simply because it mentions her eating disorders (which are, besides, widely publicised). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to be removing it, but I replaced it -- Naerii 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box

It has been claimed that a review of this book that states, in part, "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance and that within it systems were labelled 'irreducibly complex' if Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked" constitutes a violation of BLP. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not in the least a violation of BLP. It's a statement of opinion in a book review. FCYTravis (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, a shade more accurately, its a rather petty extract of a one-liner from a devastatingly critical but otherwise scholarly review in a self-published source that makes rather direct implication's about the book's author. Please. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, this isn't a BLP issue. It's calling the book "an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance." That's called criticism. Whether or not you think it's "rather petty" is immaterial. FCYTravis (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed? "His book is an exploration of the frontiers of ignorance...a system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if _he_ cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system" does not say something about the person rather than the book to you? The pronoun is even in italics....

Quibbling. It's supposed to refer to the book, but actually is being used to make a comment about the person. (In a manner not representative of the original very critical usenet posting, I might add.) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are stretching this beyond comprehension. My head is spinning. An author who writes a book on such a controversial (and discredited) postulation as intelligent design, can expect to receive criticism from academic sources. The review is criticizing Behe's well-known defense of the irreducible complexity fallacy.

There is nothing in BLP which says we exclude any and all criticism of someone. This is a controversial book and it's going to receive critical reviews. The review is written by an academic expert, published in a reliable source and doesn't constitute undue weight. It is not vulgar, defamatory or otherwise inappropriate. It's not a BLP issue. FCYTravis (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm carrying out this argument on two fronts, so am spinning as well.. have you seen the response on the article talkpage? Its not an academic source, its an archived modified usenet post by a grad student. As I say on the page, part of our mission is to provide trenchant, relevant criticism from academic sources. You are yet to say how the above phrase addresses encyclopaedic criticism of the book (note that vast majority of the post discusses aspects of genetic sequences that Behe misrepresents or elides over); how suggesting the replacement of one critical review from an SPS by any of a hundred others from definite RSes would make "nothing in BLP which says we exclude any and all criticism of someone" even vaguely relevant; and above all, how the phrase chosen from the article avoids commenting on the author rather than on the myriad flaws of his book. In fact you haven't actually dealt with my specific objection, merely saying its 'silly'. Entirely possible. Humour me, why don't you, by actually addressing it, instead of repeating things we already agree on, such as that a lot of criticism is expected, and should be in the article per NPOV? Silly how? Relata refero (disp.) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How many hours are you demanding of other editor's time to answer this ridiculous series of complaints? How many wasted kilobytes of discussion? It staggers the imagination. Are you really requesting that we waste 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 or more manhours on this silly issue? Surely this is a joke.--Filll (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you had focused on my objection narrowly, rather than in my opinion over-reacting, kilobytes of discussion wouldn't have been needed. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not an academic or reliable source but a blog or something, then delete it. However, I agree that it's essentially criticizing the ideas in the book, which is fine. Even criticizing the author himself is fine, if properly sourced. This sort of quote sounds to me like perfectly normal book review critique and fine to use if from a published book review. Not really a BLP issue, IMO. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticising the author would be fine if its not a SPS. If it is an SPS, it comes down to whether the quote is chosen to indirectly discuss the author's intellect or not. Since I believe its an SPS, if enough people think that the quote, selected from a long review which otherwise focuses on criticism of Behe's argument, does not do that, the question is moot. So far, FCY and Coppertwig have both disagreed with me on this (as have various people who are regular editors of those articles.) Anyone else - preferably uninvolved - feels the same way? It might help if people read the whole review and then the excerpt. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian Blair

Ian Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), head of the Metropolitan Police, currently about as popular as a fart in a space suit but the article might just as well be titled "list of things the Daily Mail uses to attack Ian Blair". I removed the crap and left a strongly worded note on Talk about the need for WP:NPOV, but a pound says that it will be back in all its venom unless we watch the article. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. FCYTravis (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Far too much, definitely. Not to say that some of it isn't notable, especially the Menezes bit, but putting in a random remark about the Second World War? Bit much. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You should watch your edit titles. Removing half the article with an edit title of "Disgusting" rather than any mention of BLP, NPOV etc. was an invitation for a reversion as vandalism.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needed to be done, I agree, but at the moment the article does not mention Jean Charles de Menezes, and that is completely unacceptable. I left a note on Guy's talk page about this, and I hope he will take the initiative and start to re-add material. If he does not, then he is breaching WP:NPOV. Guy, would you wade into Jean Charles de Menezes and Ken Livingstone and other articles, and cut huge swathes out of those ones (and no, please don't go and do that - raise your concerns on the talk page first). Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Things were not helped by the previous criticism of this article on the talk page featuring posts such as when press and political criticism came from more directions than the mainstream right of British politics. Hopefully we'll get something much stronger out of Carcharoth's rewrite.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seal

I'm blocked but even so, check out the seal article - it's FULL of unsourced claims and quotes to individuals with no sources - one editor reverted back in a claim that he worked for prostitutes and was arrested for such in his zeal to prevent me doing a BLP clean-up! hello Mr. Lawsuit! Forget my edits, someone just take a read of the Personal life section. --87.112.86.10 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The one contentious sentence has been removed by another user, yet this self-confessed banned person has continued to remove vast tracts of information which are not contentious (such as mention of the singer's two most famous songs). They seem to be applying the last resort 'remove content' option where the article simply needs improvement. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the whole section relies on lengthy unsourced quotes attributed to living individuals. I removed the whole section and suggested on the talkpage that editors read the history and re-add material that can be sourced and does not rely on unsourced quotes from living individuals. I am not saying "this can never be added or is all wrong", I am saying it needs a good read and factcheck and that material that seems ok should be re-added section by section. Or are we just going to say that BLP is now too hard to do properly and we should just leave in unsourced quotes to living individuals until somebody can be bothered to do something about it? is that really what it's come to? --87.112.86.10 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again. the BLP policy says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". You're removing large amounts of non-contentious material. Your actions are, despite your claims, not in accordance with the BLP policy. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as the whole section has been identified by another editor as a copyvio.--87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found that myself looking for sources. I guess even the non-contentious bits need a re-write, just not for the reasons they were originally removed. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting in unsourced material to BLP articles

Let's play a game, we can call it "let's revert in unsourced statements". Let me begin, I get ten points for every unsourced statement that someone has reverted into a single article about a living figure.

Self-promotion was something of an obsession with James's father.

Once he faded from the public eye, James was employed in a series of low paid jobs but by his own admission usually didn't last very long before being fired or quitting.

Initially he thought himself to be gay and tried the gay lifestyle but didn't fit in.

Allen discovered that many of the qualifications had been purchased on the internet and that Harries' own mother had overseen Harries' counselling on the psychological aspects of gender reassignment. A number of other aspects of the family's life did not bear scrutiny.

Since Harries' childhood the family, who live in Cardiff, Wales, have been persecuted by neighbours who take exception to Harries' "transvestitism" and the perceived snobbery of the family. Cabbages are often thrown at the windows of their house.

All in the article on living figure Lauren Harries.

Shall we play another game? it's called Tabloids are now considered a reliable source and even if a whole section is based upon tabloids and the blog of a tabloid, then we should take no notice of policy because, hey it's best to have some poorly sourced material than nothing at all, you can see it being played in this edit.

I guess bruce is pissed that the Seal material (see section above) was removed, however that's not an excuse to reinsert unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures. --87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets play another game instead. Lets see how much we can delete from wikipedia as a banned user by bending the BLP rules for contentious material to stuff that should just have a fact tag. Score extra points if we happen to take out sourced material in the process. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite people to check the edits I made, they speak for themselves. --87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you were blocked, you lost the right to make any edits at all, even good ones. I have blocked this IP for you; if you want to be unblocked, request it using your original account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not the case, please see the difference between blocking and banning. ⇒SWATJester 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we weren't having to devote resources to your game of "Let's see how much trouble I can cause even after I've been blocked" (banned? You mentioned earlier you had been banned, if it's the same person as earlier), we'd have more resources to look at the articles instead of cleaning up the messy trail of edits-after-block. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple trolling, revert his wikipedia space contributions, block, ignore but do make sure to go and check out his claims about BLP after you've reverted his self-satisfied game playing. Don't revert genuine BLP edits in the mainspace though, please. -- Naerii 23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is the blocked/banned user? I keep seeing all the reversions here. Can someone provide a link to the ban? Was it ArbCom? We usually revert the contributions of banned users, but not blocked users. The constant reverting here is causing more drama, please stop. Kelly 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll take me a while to dig through ANI archives, but here is the sockpuppet report Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Check the talk page for a list of more IPs he's used. I edited my original comment to clarify; I don't see anything wrong with people reverting his Misplaced Pages space contributions. -- Naerii 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the case, but the reverting is disruptive. Please either get a checkuser and block the IPs, or just block them if it's obviously him evading his block. But does it really hurt anything to let him have his say here if the comments don't violate any policy? There's no need for anyone to even answer if his points are baseless, and definitely no need to "win" by erasing everything he writes. If this is a real problem then follow the community procedure for a ban, please. Kelly 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't checkuser the IPs as he keeps logging off and changing them. For more evidence of his disruption 12 (someone notes in that one that a rangeblock is unworkable) and then today he admitted he's doing it to wind Abd up. -- Naerii 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then please follow the community procedure for banning, this sounds like maybe a viable candidate for that. But until you do, please stop the constant reverting here, it disrupts things for those of us attempting to follow this noticeboard. Thank you! Kelly 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A ban is already in place. No administrator is willing to unblock. But I'll stop reverting. -- Naerii 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the ban policy has changed since I last looked at it. I will make a post at AN now. -- Naerii 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...yes, I do not see User:Fredrick day at Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. Kelly 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BU is manually updated and perpetually out-of-date; not being listed there is certainly not proof that an editor isn't banned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP. It's entirely inappropriate that he was blocked for removing BLP violations. As well, FisherQueen's block of the IP was inappropriate, as he was not banned, merely blocked. We do not simply remove all good contributions from an account because it is blocked. That's the difference between a block and a ban. It is unacceptable that an admin would let their zeal get in the way of BLP, which is non-negotiable. BLP violating edits MUST be removed, no matter by whom.⇒SWATJester 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not blocked for "removing BLP violations." He's blocked for vandalism, gross incivility, and extensive sock puppetry for block evasion. He's now using remote IPs from all over the world. What is missed here is that any legitimate user may bring his contributions back in. So ... if you think one of this insanely pushy blocked editor's edits is good, just bring it back in, taking responsibility for it. He's trolling here for exactly what Swatjester did, trying to get Wikipedians to fight with each other. Please, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and, for recent activity, Misplaced Pages talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Just as has been the case with other blocked editors, all identified edits from this user are being routinely reverted, by several editors and several administrators, and this has *nothing* to do with content. If he finds some good edits to do, anyone who cares to take responsibility may restore his work, and that is a lot easier than wheel-warring over an IP block, which was a legitimate block, I'm sure. He refers to it from another IP, he is totally cock-sure that he can ignore his block and get away with it. He is, in fact, banned. Don't think so? Well, just undo the block for User:Fredrick day and take responsibility for it. If I were you, though, I'd duck. Incoming! (This guy is an expert at making complaints about other editors that can sound good, getting people fired up. Don't fall for it, and I don't wonder that sometimes some of us do fall for it. He's done quite a bit of damage in the past.)--Abd (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, then just follow the procedure for a community ban. Or, if he is already banned, just provide a link to where this was decided. Simple. Kelly 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried, at first, removing this editor's material, to review the material to see if it was useful. However, not being familiar with so many of the article subjects, I found it impossibly tedious. So I started simply reverting. Sometimes I make mention of the revert in Talk, inviting editors to review his contribution, where it seems there might be some reason (such as BLP). But someone who would like to take responsibility for reviewing this editor's contributions could certainly do so by following block logs and other sources (such as my edits). In undoing his edits, now, I don't even review them. Quite simply, it is too much work. And it is better that those who specialize in the various areas take a look. It's a few seconds to bring one of his edits back in. But what takes time is reviewing each edit to see that it is worthwhile. This editor has openly claimed that he can work better and more freely as a blocked IP editor than legitimately, and he is trying to prove that, to exhaust the community. (And he is continuing vandalism and lying about what is going on, you can see it above.) If we fight with each other over this, he might turn out to be right. If we function as a community, operating by consensus, he will be wrong. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's fighting? If you want community consensus for a ban, then make a post requesting a community ban at WP:AN. Why argue about it here at this noticeboard where no result will be achieve?. Geez. Kelly 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice who started this report. It was the blocked user, doing what he's done before, trying to stir up trouble. I'm not requesting anything here, except calm. The result I'm happy with here is the very "no result" Kelly has suggested. I don't care if the user is blocked or banned, so why should I go to WP:AN? My understanding is that blocked users can be reverted on sight, and that the one doing the revert need not consider content. If content must be considered, it can become impractical to revert a blocked user. But anyone may take that content (or removal of improper content) and fix it. It's not about content, it is about the right of a blocked user to make edits without review. Which is no right at all, whether they are good edits or not.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAN - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Adb, you are mixing up blocked/banned users. The contribs of banned users are removed (if made after they were banned), but the contribs of blocked users are not automatically removed. Kelly 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So who thinks this edit should be reverted? How about this, or maybe this unsourced claim about a man having a small erection, what about an unsourced claim that this living person gave two other people AIDS. --87.112.67.242 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please someone make him stop - he re-adding serious libel about people into articles. --87.112.67.242 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Abd: this is a warning: If you continue to remove the IP's comments on this page, or reinsert blatantly libellous material, I will block you for disruption. Regardless of the IP's motivations, you do not have the right to do that. He is not a banned user, and you do not have the right to remove his contributions. ⇒SWATJester 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that interpreting WP:BAN this way makes it impractical to deal with the IP contributions of a blocked user who is very active. It's very easy to see what I'm doing, follow my contributions, and these edits and the relevant articles stand out. To confirm that one of these reverts is, in fact, bringing back in copyvio or BLP problem material takes a *lot* more time than, once his IP is identified, revert all the contributions. If, then, *anyone* thinks any of these edits are proper, it's trivial to bring them back in.

So, is this user blocked or banned? He has essentially not asked to be reinstated. His offenses were about as bad as they come, and he is essentially defying the block, not only with good edits, but with taunts and incivility and defiance. I will, myself, review what he removed and see if I can *quickly* find a basis for undoing my reverts, but I quite simply don't have time for more than that. If what I'm doing is improper, then I'll certainly respond to the community. He is, however, trying to make a point. He set this all up, by searching out and finding some copyvio and BLP violations to edit, knowing that I'd revert them, and believing that the wrath of the community would come down on me. I don't think so. I think I'm serving the community, and if the community wants me to stop, you will hear a sreeching sound. My brakes. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if the editor was banned which is unclear please read WP:BAN - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons" - posted by me above at 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC). You've ignored that, and addded gross violations of BLP back to articles. If you think that's serving the community, you're as wrong as you can get. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor does not appear to have been community banned. What you (Abd) are doing is absolutely improper. It is not for you to inflict judgment based on his "offenses being as bad as they come" etc. You'd do well to just stay away from him and these articles and let someone with a clearer judgment and a MUCH better understanding of policy deal with it. ⇒SWATJester 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working on this any more without broader input, so don't worry. However, I made a lot of reverts. I'm not undoing them. Anyone can. Just be aware that you are restoring edits made by a block-evading user, who continues to post here and many come running to check out what he says.... --Abd (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this wasn't an explicit policy, it's simple common sense. While it justified in most circumstances to revert edits by a user evading a block or a ban, egregious BLP violations or copyvios should NEVER be left in an article for a minute longer than when it's clear that it's what they are--no matter who detects them. Blueboy96 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not as simple as this. First of all, I agree. Copyvio and BLP violations should never be left in an article for a minute longer than when it is cleat that what they are. Nor does it matter who detects them. However, there is the problem of blocked users. A blocked user comes in on IP, and the IP is identified as belonging to this user. In the case involved here, it hasn't been doubtful. So edits by this user are (1) removable and (2) suspect. This user is making *lots* of edits, coming in on a different IP sometimes every few minutes. Is it necessary to review all the edits? Let me put it this way. This problem is going to get worse. This user has figured out how to essentially evade blocks. It's not rocket science. If all the edits must be reviewed before removing them, it will be impossible, it's too much work. He is deliberately creating a crisis here, his sudden interest in BLP is not some accident. It is, in fact, his M.O., to stir up conflict. I'm not taking the risk any more of reverting back in possible copyvio and BLP, at this point. As I said above, I serve the consensus, and that I might do something bold does not negate that. I was warned to stop and I stopped. However, there is a better way, and I've described it on my Talk page in a response to Newyorkbrad. And it's late.... --Abd (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of "blocked users do not have their edits reverted on sight" do you not understand? As for your edit summary of you not deliberately reinserting edits, I find that suspect: you in fact DID know exactly what you were doing, even remarking at one point that "A legitimate user can remove these then" For the love of god, just leave this IP alone and stay far far away from BLP articles before you do irrevocable damage! ⇒SWATJester 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm learning. If there was damage done, it was quite transient, since everything I was doing was extremely visible, and there was some admin participation. No, I did not know that I was inserting something improper; quite simply, I was reverting a blocked editor's edits, as I'd been told I could do. If that was wrong, as has been asserted, I'll find out, this time not by actually making edits. What I said about legitimate users was true. Any legitimate user could have fixed what I did, where it was wrong, in seconds. As to leaving the IP alone, if you can guarantee that this IP editor will leave me alone, I'd be quite happy. Could you?

Swatjester, above, noted that he unblocked the active IP of a known blocked editor. Now, I'm not going to complain about this beyond here. But that wasn't proper, either. The editor was not blocked because of the relevant activity here, and he wasn't identified by his edits to BLP articles, as Swatjester seems to have imagined (being led by the nose by the blocked editor). He was blocked originally for blatant vandalism (edits quite as bad as what he was now screaming about here) and sock puppetry. He was identified because of edits to user Talk pages, taunting and trolling, and, in this case, he knew that his contributions would be examined and other edits reverted. He simply set it up to make things more difficult. He believed that he could get me involved in serious dispute with other editors. I don't have a dispute with other editors. I think Swatjester's unblock of that IP was improper, but I also think Swatjester is doing what he thinks best for the project. Was I wrong to revert all those edits? Perhaps, as I said. I'm learning. But until the BLP incident, nobody was complaining, and others were helping. If the reverts were in general wrong, as Swatjester has further implied, well, that will be of great interest, too, since legitimate verifiable edits are being reverted for another blocked user, apparently without concern for the legitimacy of the content, and the stated justification was exactly, "blocked editors may be reverted on sight." Now, I'll proceed to see if I can find out which is correct, and what exceptions exist. --Abd (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, new incident: See . This is a banned user now, apparently, he acknowledged the ban on AN/I. He's edit warring. Swatjester, care to look at this? The article states, before and after all this fuss, that Jessica Dee contracted AIDS. So the issue would be the mention of the other porn stars. As far as I can tell, the source for the news about her infection is the same source as for the mention of the others. Is the source reliable? From what I could tell by a brief search, it is. But certainly I could be wrong. As to "allegedly," that was language there from before. He's trolling, folks. I've left his edit in, it certainly is not harmful if readers don't know about the others. He is forcing the issue: may a *banned* user not only continue to "fix" the encyclopedia, but edit war to do it? Your move. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an end to the ridiculous amount of disruption being caused by Abd? Abd's actions yesterday have been roundly condemned as violating several policies. Revert his bad edits, leave his good ones, but this is spreading like a cancer across multiple noticeboards and talk pages for no good reason. WP:DENY and WP:RBI, although take care when reverting. There's just totally needless drama being stirred up, and it should stop now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for second opinions at Eric Red

This article was brought to my attention when someone requested protection of the page due to repeated removal of sourced content. I would guess that the user removing the content is either the subject themselves or someone who knows the subject, and is removing any reference to a car accident they caused, resulting in 2 deaths. Some of the edit summary reasons for removal were that the situation was "grossly misrepresented" and that the source was untrue, which is one of the issues that should probably be looked in to (I briefly looked at the source and deemed it to be reliable, or I would have removed the content myself, but a second opinion would be nice). It also appears there was a discussion on the talk page about undue weight being placed on the car accident section, and an editor had cut down the section to a reasonable size. During the recent course of mass reversion, the apparent older version was restored, which i reverted back to its pared-down version. I was immediately reverted and would like a second opinion as to which version is more appropriate. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The version you restored seems to be more in keeping with WP:UNDUE than the one that others are reverting into place. It looks to me that ThoughUnlessUntilWhether, a 4-day-old account that seems quite experienced, is now over the 3RR. I see you have already blocked 76.172.72.71 (talk · contribs) for 3RR, and that seems correct. This was the IP that was trying to whitewash the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and protected on the VegaDark version. Disputes on a BLP can be hashed out on a talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamara Davies

An almost totally unsourced article (only IMDB) about a minor, though IMHO likely notable US actress. Add to this the likelyhood that the article was originally created by a known false-information vandal, and you have a bad situation. User:David from Downunder has, for months now, been apparently working to fix things there, and has given up and is repeatedly hatchet-stubbing the article. Given the BLP situation and lack of good sourcing, I don't really blame him, but the hatchet-stubbing has been going of for a while now with no progress toward a true good article. I'm not a great researcher of good sourcing, but I think that David really needs some assistance here in building a brand new, properly sourced, article from the ground up.

Update. While I was typing this, the article was A7 speedy deleted. I do think she is likely notable, and will drop a note on the deleting admin's talk page, but whether deleted or not, IMHO anything placed there really should be from scratch. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A subtle correction: I didn't resort to hatchet stubbing because I gave up... what happened was that I did originally tried to improve the article by removing fabricated material that had been put into that article by insidious vandals who had been inserting believable but totally fabricated material into many Misplaced Pages articles. Then I discovered that all the material for the Davies article was contributed by these same people, so I decided that the only proper course of action was to remove all the material they had added to any article, which included stubbing that article.

For verification, I even contacted one of the people whose article had false but believable information inserted into it by these vandals. It was after that verification that I removed all the content that those users had put into any article (BLP or not.)

I do not have the time or interest in building up the Davies article - I only keep it on my watch list to ensure that those fabrications stay off Misplaced Pages. (Well, some or much of it may be true... I take the pragmatic view that there is much good unsourced content on Misplaced Pages and I very rarely remove any of it. I made an exception in this case because the record of the contributing editors.)

You should also be aware that some of the information on IMDB was not there when I started correcting this article. It was taken from Misplaced Pages (or put there by the same vandals) and now appears to provide weight to the things I've been deleting. --David from Downunder (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned for adding fact tags

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

This is actually not a forum for complaints about expired blocks. If there is an actual, specific, active WP:BLP issue somewhere in here, then start a new thread focused on it. MastCell  22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I got banned for adding 3 fact tags to the article about Michael Behe. Not deleting statements, but just for adding fact tags. 2 of the statements were unsourced attacks on the credibility of living scientists, and another was a totally off topic statement about a living author, that probably shouldn't even be in the article, but needed a citation nonetheless. Can a wikipedia user now be banned for asking for citations for statements about living people? GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely unwise to bring up libel in any discussion, and even more unwise to say 'I hope you are sued for libel'. If there are BLP issues, then say there are BLP issues rather then unnecessarily bringing up libel. BLP goes beyond libel in any case Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

suggests to me your behaviour at least partially predated your block. In particular "We've got some real crack editors working on this page" is likely to be perceived as a personal attack, even if that was not your intention. If you want to say an article is crap, say it, don't bring the editors into it... Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough criticism. I was certainly less than civil. I disagree that it is unwise to bring up libel, because the editors/owners of that page are defending material that is at best irresponsible, and at worst libelous. To say that a scientist's view is "rejected by the scientific community" without any source is begging to get yourself and wikipedia nailed with a lawsuit. Furthermore, the ban was totally inappropriate, and the material I fact tagged is contentious, unsourced, and about living people. Do you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs)

It's hardly libelous to say that a scientist who supports "intelligent design" is supporting a view that is rejected by the scientific community. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, and that is true. FCYTravis (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are some jurisdictions where truth is not an absolute defense (see libel) but since the person in question live in the US, that's largely irrelevant. This discussion does illustrate precisely why I think libel is mostly a red herring. If the claims in an article are well supported by reliable sources (and in this case, it should be easy to do so, if it hasn't already been done so) then it's fine to have something in the article per policy, if not then no. There's no point arguing over whether it's libellious or not since even if it's not, it could still violate BLP and in any case, legal issues should be dealt with by our lawyer, not random wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thankfully, Wikimedia's servers are in the U.S. too. FCYTravis (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this guy's views have been rejected by the scientific community is thoroughly documented and well-sourced. You have the right, of course, to disagree with the scientific concensus; but to dispute where modern science stands, or to pretend that this is not well-documented, is contentious and disruptive. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are completely missing the point. You're saying: "it's not libelous because it's true, and intelligent design isn't supported by scientists". This is both untrue and irrelevant. The only way that you could say that a person's views are rejected "by the scientific community" is if you have a poll of scientists; see wikipedia's policies on claims to consensus.

I'm sure there has been no scientific poll regarding Michael Behe's particular views; the only evidence you can use to support this statement is citations about intelligent design in general, which is rejected by a majority of scientists (although I wouldn't call it a consensus, because of the prevalence of supporters of theistic evolution). Citing scientific consensus regarding intelligent design as proof of scientific consensus concerning Behe's specific theories is original research, and is not allowed.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether it's true or not, because I was banned merely for asking for citations. The policy is that all contentious material is to be sourced, or removed. It wasn't sourced, so it should have been removed. But, instead I merely asked for citations, and was promptly banned. This was an abuse of power by the admin, and a violation of wikipedia's polciy regarding biographies of living people. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well nothing is unanimous in science. But over 99% of scientists in biology and geology subscribe to evolution. And every major scientific organization in the US and internationally has issued statements rejecting intelligent design. And intelligent design has only two ideas in it; Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's specified complexity. And both have been repeatedly and soundly rejected by reviewer after reviewer. In addition Behe's irreducible complexity was soundly rejected in US Federal Court proceedings. Even Behe's couple of dozen colleagues in his university department, his fellow faculty, have issued a statement on their webpage saying his ideas are complete nonsense and they repudiate them. So irreducible complexity definitely is rejected by the "scientific community" whatever that means (although it obviously is a matter of definition; however, your definition is tendentious and has been rejected here by consensus). And I am not so sure you were only "banned for putting on a couple of fact tags". If I remember correctly, this was the climax of a much more extensive and exciting sequence of events.--Filll (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You are wrong on every count, you are distorting facts, your reasoning is full of logical fallacies, and fails to even address the topic at hand. I'm not going to argue ID with you, even though you want to, but suffice it to say that intelligent design is predicated on the complete lack of evidence for evolution and overwhelming amount of evidence contradicting it, including the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, and other issues. Your claim that 99% of scientists support evolution is incorrect, and misleading; there is a small minority than supports special creation, and a large group that supports theistic evolution which is actually a design theory. Your claim about individual scientists rejecting Behe are irrelevant; there is a claim of consensus, and this can only be supported by a source showing consensus; individual scientists, even hundreds of them, do not ever add up to consensus, no more than interviewing thousands of John McCain supporters proves that the consensus of American voters supports him. And if there are so many scientists that think Behe is wrong, why not just cite them instead of claiming consensus? And again, no material was removed, it was just fact tagged; that's it. Banned for adding 3 fact tags. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is poorly constructed and inapt. The entire American voting population gets to vote on the president - whether they support McCain or not. Thus you are correct that only sampling McCain supporters would create a fatally flawed view.

However, science is, by definition, carried out by scientists. The opinions of non-scientists are unimportant and irrelevant when attempting to construct a scientific consensus - that many uneducated people might believe something, does not make it true or even a remote possibility. A demonstrated consensus of opinion of scientists is the scientific consensus. There is a demonstrated scientific consensus that intelligent design is a thoroughly rejected and discredited pseudoscience. That you and others do not like that, is neither here nor there. FCYTravis (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're making a straw man argument, AND completely missing the point of what I wrote. Your attacking the straw man who was saying that the American public should be cited as a source in an article. No one said that, so quit distorting facts; I'll assume it was an accident, but you need to take the time to actually read what people say in the future. And again, I'll make the point I made earlier, until anyone actually addresses it: Scientific consensus regarding intelligent design in general is NOT the same as scientific consensus regarding a specific book, or Michael Behe's views. And furthermore, citing dozens of scientists is NOT evidence of consensus; according to wikipedia policy you must ONLY cite the individual scientists' opinions, not claim that ALL scientists believe something, and only support it with citations of SOME scientists. To support a claim of consensus, you must have a citation of consensus, not the individual opinions of people who support a position. Try to stay on point in the future. GusChiggins21 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what about Kenneth R. Miller? He clearly subscribes to theistic evolution, but not intelligent design. What about Francis Collins (geneticist)? What about Joan Roughgarden? The official position of the Roman Catholic Church? Signatories of the Clergy Letter Project? These are all people who agree with theistic evolution but not intelligent design. I am afraid this is just blatant obfuscation.--Filll (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying is ridiculous on its face. How can God guide the process of evolution without design? Theistic evolution supporters may not support the specific theories pushed by Behe, Johnson and others, but there can be no doubt they do NOT believe in evolution by natural selection. Theistic evolution means God created people, he just happened to do it by natural selection. That's a far cry from believing that life came from nonliving matter (how?), evolved exclusively by natural selection, and is nothing more than an accident. And again you're trying to debate ID, and again you're failing to address the issue at hand. I will repeat it in caps, in the hopes that ANYONE here will address it, instead of trying to argue about evolution: WHY ARE WE BANNING PEOPLE FOR ADDING FACT TAGS TO CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL ABOUT LIVING PEOPLE?!GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points here (1) You seem to be awfully upset and shouting in all caps, which is prima facie evidence of unCIVIL behavior and a violation of WP:AGF and a personal attack, for which you should probably be sanctioned again. Is that what you want? What are you so upset about ? (2) You are the one bringing up the general topic of ID. It has no business being discussed here since this is not a debate site. It is off topic (3) Regardless of whether intelligent design is a good theory or a bad theory or reasonable, people oppose it. So we report that. Even if they are incorrect; that is none of our business. --Filll (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sick to death of you twisting the truth, lying (which I've caught you doing multiple times on my talk page), and being uncivil. No one is angry about anything, YOU are pushing the evolution issue, and you CONTINUE to fail to address the issue we are trying to address, which is whether attacks on a scientists credibility need to be sourced. Not whether they're valid, or true. Whether they need to be sourced. I'll say it again; why am I banned for following wikipedia policies? GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the defenders of evolution here on WP seem to feel the need to make every article about a creationist or intelligent designist a major coatrack to tell the world how wrong these things are. Borock (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to tell us, aside from irreducible complexity, why there is any reason whatsoever to have an article on Michael Behe on Misplaced Pages. He is a third rate academic at a 3rd or 4th tier school. He has done no research for at least 20 years. He is not funded aside from his DI fellowship. He does not publish aside from his ID books. He is not notable or interesting in any way shape or form aside from his involvement with ID. For example, there are about 20 other faculty members in his department. Do any of them have articles on Misplaced Pages? We would delete his article except for the fact that he has made himself over the last 20 years very prominent in this one area.--Filll (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a matter of dispute? Um...whatever.--Filll (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kamrun

Unsourced claims of being a porn star. An imdb search appears to confirm this, but we need reliable sources, something I'm not willing to look for right now. Corvus cornix_talk 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of stubbing it when User:Seicer speedied it as an A7 (an assessment that I'm not sure I agree with, but I'm sure not going to waste any effort trying to get an unreferenced BLP restored). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I speedied it because the only assertion of notability was that he was a "black hunk who's been making gay porn " and elaborated briefly on his sexual preference -- e.g. bareback. It then featured a list of his movies. seicer | talk | contribs 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was once nominated for CSD earlier today, but the original author removed the tag. seicer | talk | contribs 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Real person, notable, unverifiable/libelous claims. ;-) Bearian (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And re-created, and promptly tagged. I'll let someone else handle this, since I'm stepping out. seicer | talk | contribs 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

J.C. Carter :P seicer | talk | contribs 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Scoblete

• Frank Scoblete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I could use some help at the talkpage, where one editor, evidently an industry associate, continues to complain, saying that Scoblete "sells scams" and that the article is not neutral. Another editor has also raised questions of whether or not an offline source, The Washington Post is a reliable source for a positive comment, "widely published authority". More opinions would be appreciated. --Elonka 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell, the WaPo, the paper that just won SIX Pulitzers not considered a reliable source? Wow. FCYTravis (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Scoblete isn't quite a scammer, but he's certainly a less reliable source. His craps system is... well, crap. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox

• Bobby Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got a number of users trying to repeatedly add information claiming that Bobby Cox frequently beat his wife and is well-known for doing this. Unfortunately, only one instance of domestic violence is reliably sourced. Everything else is based on manipulation of what sources say or blogs. I'd like to request intervention because I can really only deal with this for so long before I get fed up. The discussion (term used loosely) is here: Talk:Bobby_Cox#Spousal_Abuse_Section_Necessary.3F.3F Dlong (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Second go-around on this one since February. Attempts to only include information supported by cited reliable sources are reverted back to version with obvious BLP issues in my opinion and the opinion of several other editors such as Dlong above. Various attempts to discuss on talk pages for consensus have proved useless and resulted in incivility such as this towards myself. // Roswell native (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cambios accuses all the editors against him of having biases and trying to "hide the truth" but the simple fact is we're just cutting out misleading and irrelevant info. He cites random, unknown newspapers no one has heard of as "evidence" that is had cast a shadow over Cox's legacy and that it was brought to light again during the John Rocker fiasco. He even used an anonymous comment on a blog entry as a source. This is a ridiculous situation if you ask me and I'll be glad when it's resolved.►Chris Nelson 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when are the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal, and the Village Voice "random, unknown newspapers." I think it is easy to tell who has done their research on this issue and who hasn't. The facts are there - HEAVILY cited. If you want to refute the facts, then please find citations that back up what you are claiming. But 11 citations from newspapers big and small, and sports media sites big and small, really don't lie. Cambios (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Bobby Cox's spousal abuse is supported by multiple New York Times articles, multiple Atlanta Journal Constitution Articles, an article from the Village Voice, the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA), the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Northern Iowan, South Coast Today, and a variety of other sports media web sites and news outlets. The section in question is nothing but facts, explaining not only the incident itself but its long term impact on the sport. As recently as July 4, 2007, Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial writer, Mark Bradley, wrote about the issue.

I have spent an enormous amount of time working on this section to get all the details right and to fully explain the incident and its long term effects. I have meticulously worked to remove all opinionated sounding language so the article is as encyclopedic in nature as possible.

I believe there is some WP:SOAP going on because certain people are fans of the Atlanta Braves and do not want anything negative to be written about them. In particular, at least one of the people habitually reverting out the factual information is from Roswell, Georgia - a suburb of Atlanta. WP:BLP specifically states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

This incident is not going away, no matter how much Bobby Cox or his supporters want it to. It is a part of the permanent record, and there are an enormous amount of first, second, and third party sources that reference it. The entire Bobby Cox article has a total of 21 citations, and 11 of them are from the Spousal Abuse category. That more than meets any burden of citation needed for the section. There are 14 sentences in that section, and 11 citations. Lets get real - the section as written is truthful, accurate, and incredibly well researched. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. It is time to let the facts stand. Cambios (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's undue weight to go on about it for three paragraphs in an entire section entitled "Spousal abuse." FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambios, you are completely off-base with this whole bias idea. While I am a Braves fan, I couldn't care less what's said about Cox as long as it's true and relevant. But the thing is, most of the content you've provided, while sourced, is STILL MISLEADING AND IRRLEVANT, and you fail to see this. Just because some newspaper in Bumblefuck U.S.A. says it casts a shadow on his legacy doesn't mean it does. To make a claim like that, you have to show a pattern and significant mainstream media attention, which you have not and CANNOT because it's simply not true. The fact is, basically no one cares about this incident, so other than reporting what happened there's no need to dwell on it. You're missing the whole point of the problem with your post. It's no that it's not factual - it's all technically true. But it's also misleading because it conveys it all being more widespread attention than it actually is. You will not win this argument, I guarantee you that, so you should just give up now.►Chris Nelson 05:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User Persists in Posting Court-Ruled Libelous Material

User:Cult free world has posted the full text of a newspaper article two courts in India found prima facie libelous and defamatory here. Specifically, "The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory." (http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2004/Jan-Feb2004.pdf, page 4, #5)

Cult Free World has been warned previously against making libelous and defamatory claims in any Misplaced Pages space (see #8 here, see this, see full explanation here--please note that some of the links leading to libel have been cleaned up, so the libel no longer appears, see here ).

Some editors have adopted "revert and ignore" strategy, which Cult Free World complained about and received no response. Here a vandalism report was dismissed without action. Here a complaint about myself turns into a discussion of Cult Free World's actions. Other archived ANI reports were filed by him and were also ignored with no action taken.

I have reverted the user twice this morning, posted two warnings on this talk page, and he keeps re-posting the libelous material and OR.

Posting a newspaper article in any Misplaced Pages space (user, talk, project, main) that the user knows two courts found libelous and defamatory is a serious violation of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Renee (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. An MFD was filed on the user's version of the article, but by the time the MFD was closed other editors had adopted the revert and ignore strategy mentioned above and the article was in a neutral state. Upon the MFD closing he immediately reverted to his libel version of the article

hmm....I wonder how he plans to make the world cult free. Borock (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those interested may wish to have a look at talk page of the concerned user-space, and closing note at MfD deletion discussion nominated by Renee only, there have been close to three incidents where s/he has been warned for WP:COI, I do not find any living person in the court order, neither do i see any Biography section in the page, i am attempting to work on. here is the section, Renee has trouble with. In anycase, once i am done with writing the article about the subject, I will be filing for RfC, till now, Renee and her associates are giving me really hard time, while i am attempting to start an article on wikipedia, Reason for this agony appears to me as WP:COI, this has been noted not only by the closing admin at MfD, but at two other places as well. ,.

Just to make the context more clear, the final judgment was that the report published in indian daily is not defamatory, but i don't think we are suppose to interpret court order's without any secondary source, hence there i have tried to make no comments from my side, keeping in view WP:NOR, while i am writing the article in my own user-space for moving it into main-space in future. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the links provided by Renee.. goosh.. s/he has given link only to what s/he has written. I wonder why she did not gave the links for MfD closure, or her previous nomination of speedy deletion of my user-space, all of them were rejected, citing COI of Renee !!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free is mis-quoting the MFD closer again. If you read it under the Discussion header it refers to the COI arguments I made against cult free (i.e., regarding his COI due to the blogs) and then later rightly noted that these claims were really user comments against Cult Free and not content comments. Hmmmm....projection? POV username? COI?

In any case, this notice is to prevent libelous statements appearing on Misplaced Pages, something that many editors (not just myself) have repeatedly written to Cult Free about, pleaded with him, warned him, and he just ignores everyone. The exact newspaper article user Cult Free World is posting is sourced to this court case, where the judge ruled, The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused applicants disclosing the ingredients of the offence under section 500 IPC. (p. 4#5). Making a claim and sourcing it to a newspaper article declared libelous cannot stay in any Wiki space.

Now, if he can find a verifiable and reliable secondary source then we're golden and this will all go away. But, he has failed to provide a single secondary source and insists that he can quote selectively from court cases (i.e., testimony, opposing sides, etc.) and he thinks that's a secondary source. I pasted in this very nice explanation from Vassyana to show him how he needed a secondary source and he just ignores it. Help educating the user about verifiable and reliable secondary sources would be valuable. Renee (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let people read and understand themselves, try to understand, people ARE intelligent on wikipedia. :), those who wish to see what is stated in MfD will follow the link, just give the link, thats all. BTW which blog according to you I own ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, incase you have missed again , this noticeboard is to discuss articles (not user-space sections), second, discuss the content not editors here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it might benefit all concerned to read Prima facie as an indication of why the linked HC submission isn't really that damning. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez, again

Disagreement over whether to use Category:DADT and link to the DADT article under see also. Proposed source to justify the category and link is the Marine Corps Times; editors disagree about whether the article is specific enough to justify that particular connection. The biography subject strongly objects to it. The article is under arbitration probation per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. Requesting outside opinion about whether the category and link should stay or go. Durova 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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