Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:59, 13 January 2014

• 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

Moughenda Mikala

Moughenda Mikala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The moderator says I need a consensus to post a link to a felony warrant issued to Moughenda Mikala. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

This is a link to a page belonging to the Oakland Sheriff's department in Michigan. Moughenda Mikala is, in fact, a current fugitive, a former doughnut shop clerk, and a garbage truck driver (CHECK THE POLICE SITE, not making this up), who has convinced Western people that he is a "10th generation shaman from Gabon". Nearly everything in the entry is fake (though very specialized and arcane). To start: If you subtract 10 generations, it comes up long before his people arrived in Gabon. "10" just had a nice ring to it. Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/Fang_people#Early_population_movements Just do the math. Subtract his age (45) from the number of years after his ancestors arrived in Gabon (circa 1850), then divide the number of generations... and you get 10 generations of 10 year old mothers. Bologna. His website says he can cure AIDS and cancer.

The whole entry for Moughenda Mikala is completely fabricated and fraudulent. I dont know how to change it. Most all of his references on the wiki page are his own interviews. Internet magazine interview him, then he posts the links as a credential.

If this could be added to the end of his entry, it should be fine: "Moughenda Mikala" worked in Detroit as a doughnut shop clerk and a garbage man before become a shaman to Western People." (it is sited below) "Moughenda Mikala is currently a fugitive, wanted in Oakland Country, Michigan on a felony warrant." (Also, sited below)

This is the reference. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

If this is not acceptable, please let me know hot to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk • contribs)

What you need are several reliable sources that cover the issue, rather than a single primary source. Beyond that there are issues of weight as well as consensus that things like warrants and arrests are generally excluded from biographies until there is an actual legal outcome. §FreeRangeFrog 22:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging. The link is to the Sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan. It is straight from the source. He is a fugitive. What other reference would be acceptable? Any other source would be hearsay. Are you suggesting that the Sheriff's website is not legit? Do you really need a case number? I don't know what would be more sufficient.

Second, he did in fact commit a crime. He failed to show. That is where the warrant comes from. I agree with you that current court proceedings should be excluded, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, he is a fugitive, at large, who failed to appear. He has been at large for nearly a year. He is GUILTY of failing to appear. Are you contesting that part? He has committed a crime, a FELONY warrant has been issued, and he is a fugitive. Delinquent child support aside (a child has been abandoned), he is certainly a fugitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not "contesting" anything, I'm saying you are using a primary source, which is never a good idea in biographies (I do hope you read the policy part I linked to previously). As such, adding that to the article is essentially original research, which is even less of a good idea. Find a secondary source, and then you can seek consensus. Without that this is a non-starter. §FreeRangeFrog 23:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. One thing we have in common, is that we both want to do the right and responsible thing. Your responses have been courteous and professional. I appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to help. If only all of these were resolved so amicably :) §FreeRangeFrog 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jakerogers77 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) I would perhaps consider requesting this bio to be deleted as, like you stated, the references are mostly sourcing his own words from interviews and not secondary sources.

Leslie Cornfeld

Draft:Leslie Cornfeld

An article about this lady existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a resume. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then posted on my talk page in some distress at User talk:JohnCD#URGENT - Deletion Error. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

The purpose of this note is to ask for some eyes on the draft article, and for volunteers to help in improving it for Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some references would help.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld, I propose using the references provided below. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I will refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so. NinaSpezz (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Career:

• Bloomberg's Interagency Task Force, where Cornfeld was Chair:
• Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013:
• Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012:
• Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014:
• Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York Cityschools:
• Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET:

Board memberships:

• Children Defense Fund:
• Hospital for Special Surgery:
• Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior:

Outrage (2009 film)

Should rumours about living person be included? --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole film is about outing politicians who are said to be hypocritical because they vote against gay rights but they are closeted gays. Some of the proof shown in the film is hearsay, some of it is very solid, but the article about the film should tell the reader what the film is about. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is this a trick question? Are we considering this edit which helpfully lists the "politicians were accused in the film of being closeted gays who vote against gay rights"? The answer depends on who you are. To someone on a mission to expose closeted gays, the answer is "removing this is censorship!", while to someone understanding the role of Misplaced Pages, the answer is "no way that material is going in the article". Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• You'll notice in that diff that I refer to BLP in restoring a list of names. The BLP section is WP:WELLKNOWN. As Collect says, BLP is not 'optional' on Misplaced Pages. WELLKNOWN is the working section. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Collect is now on a bender. Seems not to know about WELLKNOWN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If a claim would be a BLP violation in any article, it is banned by policy. Else a person could simply add an article about any source, and use that article to promulgate every BLP violation found in that source! As such would clearly be a violation of WP:BLP of it were in individual bios, it remains a violation in the article about the putative source. No other reasonable interpretation is possible, alas. Collect (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems fine. We are using a high quality secondary source to explain what is in a film in an article about a film. We do in fact explain conspiracy theories, which are presumably false, that link public officials and private individuals to nefarious acts. I don't like the list format though. TFD (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

MNope -- it states allegations without reliable sources backing such allegations. The précis of the film can mention that it is about politicians, but it ought not label specific living persons. This is a backdoor to a violation which would not even be allowed on userpages, and is a bright line violation of WP:BLP. And it is "more contentious" than labeling a person as "left wing" by a mile. Collect (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't do allegations without RS backing such allegation. But if another work does that, and the work is notable and it is pivoted around that, then it only makes sense to repeat it. Let's make an example. If a BLP on Cyclopia (me) says "Cyclopia is suspected of eating kittens", with a poor or no source, that is a BLP violation. But if there is a book called "Cyclopia: the Misplaced Pages editor who is also a horrible kitten eater", and the book is notable, and the allegation is a main theme of the book, then (and only then) we ought to repeat the claim, because it is what the book is about, even if the claim is bizarre/false/unproven.--cyclopia 15:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. At the end of the day, BLP policy exists to prevent the inclusion of unencylopaedic information in Misplaced Pages, not to enable the redaction of encylopaedic information. That ought to be all that really needs saying. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I thought the foremost purpose of BLP was to protect living individuals from undue harm caused by the indiscriminate propagation of damaging information (or misinformation) by this very public, very search-engine-indexed site, and that even "encyclopaedic" information still had to clear a higher bar of caution and concern for how it might harm article subjects. alanyst 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You thought wrong. BLP is basically a tightening of our core policies and an advice to err on the side of caution, and consider privacy. It doesn't mean we need to actively censor the coverage of works of art that happen to say bad things about people. --cyclopia 00:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'd say you thought wrong. BLP policy, essentially, asks us (a) to ensure reliable sourcing for information about living people and (b) to write conservatively with regard to information about living people (i.e. not to gratutiously include or emphasise negative information in a way that would be unencyclopaedic). There are then various offshoots such as BLPNAME, but none advises suppressing encyclopaedic information, and WELLKNOWN specifically advises not to do this. Negative information about living people, including allegations which are unsubstantiated or even false, can be significant and even indispensible to the coverage of a particular topic. BLP does nothing to prevent such allegations being included in an article. Formerip (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with cyclopia and FormerIP. BLP is mostly a tightening of our existing policies. It does not override NPOV or V. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question Are there multiple sources for each person on that list, with respect to the film? One simply can't watch the film and then use that as the source. The sources should be used to determine if each person belongs on the list. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Various sources report various politicians or other persons discussed in the film. When I was looking for the best sources, I noticed that Larry Craig was discussed by the most sources. Other names appeared with less and less frequency, all the way down to Mary Cheney who was only mentioned by Huffington Post. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would start by nixing Cheney, and anyone with less than 3 sources, 2 unless they are "high sources" (not huffpo).Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree we should not watch a film and report what it says about living persons. Instead we should report what reliable sources have said about the film, which is what we have done here. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The main reason for BLP policy is to avoid libel, per the "Libel" policy. It is libellous to make a false defamatory statement about a person. However it is not libellous to state that such a claim has been made, and we routinely report stories about persons charged with crimes. We also report Lyndon Larouche's theory that "Queen Elizabeth II is the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel" and the "New World Order (conspiracy theory) that the Rockefellers are behind a "conspiracy" to impose a" one world government". Neither of those claims are supported by any reliable sources. As long as we have reliable secondary sources that those claims were made, and report that they were made, not that they are true, we conform with WP:LIBEL. The other issue is weight. It would violate weight to report every theory about a BLP in their article. But it does not violate weight to report them in articles about the source of the claim, provided it is signifcant to those articles. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • BLP exists because the community has decided this is an encyclopedia, not a website where anyone can add muck to attack a living person—for example, the fact that articles should not repeat rumors has nothing to do with a fear of legal action. WP:BLP mentions defamation in order to alert editors that they are not immune from legal action, and to point out the obvious, namely that material that is possibly defamatory needs to be handled carefully. No editor is qualified to "identify" libelous material. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • There is no difference between biographies of living persons and deceased persons. Someone who is the subject of a BLP article may die. The specific reason for the policy is libel. While you say that no editor is qualified to identify libelous material, we avoid libel by using reliable secondary sources, which is done here. Major newspapers btw have access to advice on libel, and therefore we are generally safe in using them as sources. TFD (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • No, BLP does not exist because of libel - libel has different legal definitions in different countries. BLP exists because we recognize that it is very easy to use Misplaced Pages as a compendium of smears, attacks, defamation, rumormongering and coatracking, and that our articles have a very real effect on the lives of the people we chronicle. We have a responsibility to run this project in a respectable manner. Just because we *can* publish something does not mean we *must* publish something, and editorial judgment is not censorship. BLP directs us to use that editorial judgment liberally and err on the side of caution when writing articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Of course it is libel. It is possible to smear entire groups of people, such as in racism and to smear deceased people. While the laws of libel differ between nations, the meaning of libel is the same - it is "defamation" as you correctly term it. Libel is merely defamation in writing or broadcast, as opposed to slander, which is defamation in speaking. TFD (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to have a decent summary of the film without including some of the names, but the current means of going about it is all wrong. People allegedly outed as gay in the film should only be included to the extent that those individuals are significant in the context of the film and only where appropriate. In other words, they should be mentioned in a summary of the film if their place in the film is significant and mentioned to the extent that those alleged outings were significant points of critical commentary. Another note is some of the material being removed concerns people who are openly gay and at least one person who was alleged to be gay who has since come out as gay, Ken Mehlman. One of the individuals, Ed Koch, died early last year and his alleged orientation was mentioned frequently in reports of his death, including some mentions of this film.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summary of the way I feel. Further, I do not believe that this film should be used as a source to introduce its rumormongering into biographies. The film is not a reliable source in any way, shape or form, and its allegations are not particularly encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen the film is following on investigative journalism that predates it. The main thrust it makes is that the mainstream media is complicit in underreporting these incidents, unlike its effort to capitalize on sex scandals that are not specifically gau, the main exception being Larry Craig. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear TDA & NBSB. This is why I proposed requiring 3 sources making note of each person on the list in this article, or two if they are sources like the NYT,Washington Post,LA Times, etc. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dov Lipman

Dov Lipman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a blatant error regarding Rabbi Lipman's relationship with the current head of the Ner Israel Yeshiva (Rabbi Feldman) that I have tried to address in two edits and that has been returned to the Biography each time. Rabbi Feldman is listed as Rabbi Lipman's former Head of the Yeshiva. In fact as documented in references 5 and 6, Rabbi Feldman was not only not at the Yeshiva during Rabbi Lipman's tenure there, he has in fact never met Rabbi Lipman. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of Blessed Memory was the Head of the Yeshiva then. This is significant firstly because the lack of familiarity can account for Rabbi Feldman's misinformation that led to his retraction of the term "wicked" apostate. Secondly, the use of the term "shamed" itself is misleading as that term never was used by Rabbi Feldman and in light of the much milder retraction, is defamatory to Rabbi Lipman. Thirdly, the invitation by the largest Orthodox body in the U.S. (the RCA) to Rabbi Lipman to give a keynote address this year after the matter with Rabbi Feldman was publicized shows that the education issue in Israel is complex, not universally accepted in the Orthodox world and not helped by name-calling in a Biography.

ref. 5 and 6 in the Biography, which should also be deleted in the edit.

94.159.152.96 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed on my TALK page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 18:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan

The subject, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is the President of the UAE and over a period of months a variety of unregistered IPs have added the same nonsensical sentence, and citing it to completely unrelated articles in the the Huff Post and the Daily Mail. I'm often the only person reverting this and am finding it reverting this quite tiresome. Can it be locked? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Make a request at: WP:RFPP.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lee Breuer

Dear Misplaced Pages- The Lee Breuer page is quite out of date (it says his latest project with Mabou Mines is "Red Beads" - that information is 8 years old) Additionally, some of the information is incorrect. Below is a comprehensive work history, including awards, selected publications, teaching, etc. I have also pasted below a short narrative. Please feel free to contact me if you require any assistance or additional information.

Best regards, Joe Stackell General Manager Mabou Mines Development Foundation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe.stackell (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim McCrery

Should the allegations and denial about the subject's sexuality be kept in or removed from this article? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed them. Anyone can say anything about anyone. There doesn't appear to be any reason to repeat uncorroborated allegations which have received no credence from mainstream, reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with removing them, in spades. Such speculation has no place in a serious encyclopedia article. We're not a supermarket tabloid. KillerChihuahua 02:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP Richard Lindzen is in this excuse for an article, I gave a source on the talk page in which he states "For the most part I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations" Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto pp 21-22 Given he has stated, himself, that he does not disagree with the consensus I believe his being in the list is a BLP vio, it has obviously been restored, as the list criteria, made up one day by editors, means that he goes in, regardless of his own words. Thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be two high quality sources where the person in particular does seem to make statements criticizing the consensus view. Do you doubt the accuracy of those stories? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

LLI.e. questioning in any way the "consensus" it the same as "opposing the mainstream view"? Might there be actual possibilities that reasonable reservations are not the same as being a pseudoscientist of some sort? Collect (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He has said in his own words he does not disagree with the consensus, other statements he makes do not matter, Misplaced Pages editors do not get to write that a BLP is against the consensus from something the BLP has said, that is OR and a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400 is entirely in his own words. "Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. " " t this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established" "But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. "The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. " This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree." I don't know how much more strongly he could put himself into the skeptic bucket. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And from the source you quoted, the VERY NEXT LINE "However I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm" and "for more than twenty-five years we have based not only our worst-case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration". His entire article is dedicated to saying that alarmism is foolish, and that the man made soruce of any warming is washed out by natural noise. Thanks for pointing out this source, its an excellent addition to source this guys position on this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Alarmism is foolish, and you are carrying out OR on a BLP without a second thought. He has said, for the last time, he does not disagree with the consensus, so adding him on arbitrarily selected criteria by Wiki editors is OR and a BLP vio. And I am obviously going to have to remove it agian as you guys do not seem to get what OR and BLP is. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

He is quite specific about which consensus he is agreeing with, and it is not the IPCC. It is not OR to read the own mans statements where he repeatedly puts doubts on the process and conclusions in an article entitles "Is global warming alarm founded on fact?" and "The climate science isn't settled" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It is OR, you are taking something he has said, comparing it to a criteria made up by Wiki editors, and coming to a conclusion based on that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

His statements are not the only thing we consider. Plenty of people have stated, "I am not a " but reliable sources independent of the subject have a different viewpoint. We need to take into account these sources and any contradictory actions/statements the subject has made. --NeilN 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Traci Bingham

Traci Bingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just removed the offending section that was potentially libelous and was poorly/improperly sourced & in clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living people...along with an unrelated link to a paid porn site. I believe the offending poster (BeyondTheBay) will likely return to repost the potentially libelous material & thus the page may need to be monitored for a time.

Richard Lynn

Richard Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute over material which was added to the article in this edit and this edit. I and another editor undid the additions because the material seems to be cherry-picked, by selecting a few sentences out of long interviews to present him in a negative way. Other people commenting on the talk page seem to agree the material is problematic, but restored it because they believe it can be fixed. But none of them have tried to fix it, so the problematic material has stayed in the article, which doesn't seem appropriate in a living person article.

A related problem was posted about here, about the lead of the article using weasel words, and giving undue prominence to negative information in obscure and poor-quality sources. A few people objected to this material, but could not get a consensus to remove it, so it stayed in the article. I checked one of these sources that's available online for free, the one titled "Serious Scientists or Disgusting Racists", and found it does not support the material in the lead that's cited to it. This source makes the opposite point from what it's cited to say.

I shouldn't have to hesitate to remove poorly-sourced negative material in a biography of a living person, but I can see there is a lot of opposition to removing this material among long-term editors involved in the article. Therefore, I request help from other editors to bring this article up to the standard expected for a BLP. --Prmct (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As time goes on, I have more and more trouble understanding why some editors want to try to "protect" BLP subjects from the ideas they embrace. Lynn has said these things; he clearly embraces them. They are therefore not negative to him. I suggest that you stop trying to impose your own values on people who clearly don't share them. That sounds like a violation of BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion on the talk page? The problem is not that these ideas are presented at all, but that Lynn is selectively quoted in a way that does not accurately represent what the sources say. See the comments here and here. I don't think there is much disagreement on the talk page that these sources are being misused. The problem is that some editors don't want the material to be removed because they think it can be fixed, but also don't want to fix it. --Prmct (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The main thing I get from the talk page is reinforcement for my initial impression that you're a sock. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The view of a civilized society is that racist individuals such as Lynn deserve no protection in academia, and likewise they deserve no protection at Misplaced Pages. By objecting to how sources are used in his article you are becoming someone who defends a racist, so I suggest you stop. Lynn is 83 years old. Before you find another person at Misplaced Pages who believes your concerns matter, the article will no longer be a BLP. --88.202.124.121 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tomin Thachankary

Tomin Thachankary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not about much, but this was on my watchlist for some reason, and reading it over it is obviously problematic and not acceptable. It seems to have survived an AFD, but certainly needs re-written if it isn't to be burned with fire. Thanks.--Scott Mac 15:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I burned out on this one following various accusations of edit-warring, forum shopping, and outright lying from the author. Relevant history can be found in the BLPN archives, the article talk page, and the author's talk page. I wish the best of luck to whomever attempts to uphold BLP policy in this article.--Jezebel'sPonyo 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My staring point is that the article, as it stands, is obviously unacceptable. You can't speak of "allegations" without attributing them to someone - or indicating their significance or what the outcome was - otherwise the article is prejudicial. It's been in that state for some time and I can't see how to fix it. Probably it could be fixed, but the fact it could be fixed and I just can't see how does not make the current form acceptable for the time being. So, I have deleted it using admin discretion. If someone can see a better way forward, I'll defer - but many months of the status-quo isn't acceptable.--Scott Mac 21:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good call, Doc, and nice to see you somewhat around. I've added the article to my watchlist. If it's recreated in similar form, I reckon it's scorched earth time. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC).

Craig Hodges

Craig Hodges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently an IP editor inserted a paragraph of text to Craig Hodges describing an incident that occurred over twenty years ago. I believe that including a play-by-play of the event is unnecessary and, given that two of the individuals involved were minors at the time and are likely private individuals, the extra details should not be included under WP:BLP, specifically "...it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I trimmed the paragraph to include a sentence in the personal life section which neutrally noted the event and removed mention of the children and the name of the not-independently notable spouse while maintaining the sources. The IP reverted my edits with an edit summary noting "Your editorial decision is Recentism". My opinion is unchanged that the extra details are just sensationalistic and there is no need to include them. The event would have been horrendous enough for the children, do we really need to rehash the specific details on Misplaced Pages? Is it necessary to include how many matches were struck, for example? --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the event was well publicized, I don't see a problem with the ip's edits. As for the children, well they are adults by now. In any case, I'll watch the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Even absent BLP concerns adding vivid details of a violent attack that is not directly part of the notability of the article's subject sensationalist, unencyclopedic, and of undue weight. He's famous for being a basketball player, not for being lit on fire. That would be a matter for page editors to handle at their own discretion. The BLP angle makes the concern more urgent, and I would say the material should be removed immediately pending discussion, and the foreseeable outcome of the discussion is to keep it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say I agree with Wikidemon. Two kinds of pork, I am not arguing that the event should not be mentioned whatsoever, I just don't believe it needs to include excessive details that add a sensationlised aspect to the event and that has the potential to continue to victimize the private individuals involved. --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see it as a BLP violation. Whether it is necessary to the article is a judgment call. Is "two matches" necessary? Probably not. The entire event deserves mention. One thing that I didn't walk away from on my initial glance was I wasn't sure if the 2nd match worked (hopefully not)Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a whole section in BLP about avoiding victimization by reporting unnecessary details of crimes. The exception for public figures only comes in if it's noteworthy and relevant. The fact that his ex attempted to murder him is perhaps relevant enough to his life story to be included in a biography. The narrative of how she tried to light the matches after dousing him with gasoline in front of his children is not. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jason Deutchman

Jason Deutchman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The bolded portions lack citations:

Jason Deutchman (born September 27, 1987) is a Filipino-American basketball player who plays for the Petron Blaze Boosters in the Philippine Basketball Association. He was selected 10th overall in the 2012 PBA Draft by the GlobalPort Batang Pier.

In 1998, when he was still 11 years old, he invented "Hands and Feet Magic", a dance performed while the song "Boom Boom Boom Boom" is being played. This song was later called "The Deutchman Dance". He was sent to the juvenile hall shortly after The Deutchman Dance became famous because many people died trying to attempt the Deutchman Dance. He was released in 2005. Before PBA, he took up engineering. He was very ravenous in his Graphics class, they called him Dutch Ravenous. Midway through his rookie season, Deutchman was traded from the Batang Pier to the Petron Blaze Boosters as part of a three team trade that also sent Japeth Aguilar to Barangay Ginebra as well as sending Jay Washington and Yousef Taha to GlobalPort. He died on July 16, 2025. After that, he became The Flying Dutchman.

--Samuel Dennis R. Borlongan (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism. I've removed it, along with other unsourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole

Can someone remove this BLP violation please, despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I suggest other editors add this article to their watchlist just in case this finds its way back into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How is this compatible with WP:FRINGE? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What does fringe have to do with an editor persistently adding unsourced contentious statements to a BLP? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Barney, since he apparently has (only) a BA in English, the statement is apparently true. But it has to be sourced. And, to avoid WP:OR, don't include the word "despite". But again the main thing is to have a source for the statement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It's an unsourced contentious statement about a living person. Even with a source, it's probably WP:UNDUE to include this in the lede. The body would be more appropriate. And I'd also say that the wording would may need to be tweaked as "despite" may run afoul of WP:EDITORIALIZING. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. There are subtleties where WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE interact but the two shouldn't be incompatible. It seems that we should (1) structuring the article roughly chronologically, include a statement as to his education, but not directly include those facts in the sentence within a paragraph next to any other topic. We should also then not include any criticism based on this reverse appeal to authority,unless it is specific criticism from a well-known mainstream scientist or scientists and prominently published. (I don't have any sources, but commentary in The Guardian by a scientists would be the sort of level that we're talking about). Finally however, we can and probably should include mention of the fact that his views are contrary to scientific consensus, thus giving proper WP:FRINGE impersonal context. Is that fair and accurate? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been locked due to edit-warring. There is now a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Kaj_Taj_Mahal regarding this. The lock will expire in 3 days. Can we get a few more editors to add this to their watchlists? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yogendra Yadav

Yogendra Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. Yogendra Yadav is a National Executive member of Aam Adami Party(AAP) in India.
2. Aam Adami Party(AAP) is a new political part in India.
3. Point of focus of AAP is to remove corruption from India.
4. The main purpose of biography is to connect Yogendra Yadav with Rahul Gandhi(Vice president of Indian National Congress). The citation given are not credible enough.
5. The wikipedia biography is been used to tarnish the image of Yogendra Yadav. Links to the biography are circulated using Whatsapp linking him to Rahul Gandhi.
6. The biography should be suspended till credible citation are sourced.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthbharat (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Jhaveri

This figure is very controversial and has a lot of controversy around him. I do not believe that this page should actually be here on Wiki. One of two (50%) of the sources cited is highly biased, this is obvious as it comes from an article entitled 'The Messiah in White'. Rakesh Jhaveri is not 'The Messiah'. It does not have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) 82.27.212.149 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Roy Campbell, Jr.‎

Yesterday there were reports that Roy Campbell, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had died, but nothing in a reliable source. Subsequently the Misplaced Pages article had been edited to reflect that he'd died. I've received an email with this news, from a source I'd otherwise trust (also seen this on Facebook), but a few weeks ago the same thing happened with another jazz musician, Horace Silver, who in fact had not died. Since then someone has cited a French website, Quboz, but it does not mention anything that one would expect to find in a death notice: how, where, according to whom, survived by whom, etc. Now JazzTimes is reporting it as well, but all they could provide was "according to multiple reports on social media sites." In other words, exactly what happened with Horace Silver. "The cause and place of death were not reported." Forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this, but until we see a source that tells how, where, according to whom, survived by whom, etc. then I think this article needs some extra eyes watching it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lacking positive, unambiguous confirmation that the subject has passed, we default to consider that they are alive. We've "killed" too many people around here over the years, only for their angry friends or family members to write or complain about it. And rightly so. §FreeRangeFrog 21:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I'm strongly inclined to think the news is true (based on an unpublished source), but it wasn't something that I could or would cite on Misplaced Pages. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also wanted to make sure I'm not running afoul of WP:3RR and confirm this falls under BLP exceptions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that this falls up the BLP exemption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a good example of where that exception applies, but when the issue is not extremely urgent I always prefer to just file a case at ANI for BLP violations if applicable, request page protection, etc. I've never tested the exception except in very blatant cases of potential libel or grossly inappropriate edits, so I can't assure you that an admin won't block you for 3RR in this case. §FreeRangeFrog 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Death has now been reported on The New Yorker's website, but the date is only specified as "this week." Should we wait until there is a more-precise death date to update the article? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until we have a source with more specific info. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, it's already been cited in the article (Old revision of Roy_Campbell,_Jr.). I guess this is OK, for now, pending a more specific report. I presume Bynum (the author) intended this piece more as a tribute than an actual death notice. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

IPA issue

I am having an issue with Ebdòmero (talk · contribs) adding an unsourced IPA to Étienne Capoue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can somebody please explain to them the importance of WP:BLP, I have tried (and clearly failed) and am going out for the evening in 30 minutes. GiantSnowman 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you sufficiently explained why this particular pronunciation is controversial or the reasons you think it should be challenged. Looking back, it seems the consensus was that IPAs needed sourcing if there was "a reasonable challenge" to them not that they all needed sourcing from the start. Maybe there's a consensus I'm not aware of, but it looks like you just said it was "controversial" in an edit summary without trying to talk it out on the talk page at all. If there is a "pronounciation rule" as stated, is it written down somewhere I could see? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we source IPAs (do we?), but the editor seems to be correct in this case, based on my (admittedly slight) knowledge of French. I found this video where the narrator uses the full name at the beginning and the last name repeatedly after that. §FreeRangeFrog 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I now see that you sent some messages to the editor's talk page as well; I have to say that it doesn't seem to include much support that the pronunciation is "controversial". In the future, it might be better to talk it out a bit more? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not so much an "issue" as an edit-war - you appear to have three reverts within 24 hours. Why is there no discussion on the talkpage of the article? Anyway, for what it is worth, I believe that you are right to challenge the IPA and that it should be ​ not ​. If the double n were to be pronounced, the final e would I think at most be sounded as a schwa. But please note that I am not a native speaker of French; it should be easy enough to find someone who is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, is very much is an issue, it is the repeated addition of unsourced information about a BLP - and it wasn't edit warring, please see WP:3RRNO. The information was challenged (by me) because I have no idea how the name is pronounced - and I'm saying this as someone whose own surname is mis-pronounced all the time. There is, of course, also a wider BLP issue with IPAs being added to articles with no source. GiantSnowman 11:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Maneos

This is clearly a vanity page created by the subject of the page. The pseudonym "Adonis123" is very similar to his previous online name "AdonisPete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockamy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "He first gained notoriety within popular culture in 2001 with his appearance in the famed Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly" doesn't really cut it, no matter it uses words like "notoriety" (which means ill repute, but that probably wasn't intended) and "famed". And the mention of his poetry being compared to Pablo Neruda, Algernon Charles Swinburne, and Lord Byron (no citation) is kind of funny. It's not really something for this noticeboard, nor for speedy deletion, so I suggest you PROD the article, Lockamy. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

I have PRODDed the article. Thank you for drawing attention to this, User:Lockamy. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

bobolinda don't have sing stirb nicht cor mir, and is not this cristiane, it's afake. Fuckiing stealer!

It's not that singer that sing with rammstein. It's a fake. THe singer was to young to register with her true name 'cause she was to young (and had'nt the permission of her parents.),you have no prooves to say who sing with them. THere is no voice prints. you just had lies. More over they don't have the same voice, you can hear it by songs of white house.

This doesn't make any sense. -- John Reaves 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This editor believes that the backup vocals for the song "Stirb nicht vor mir" on the album Rosenrot by Rammstein are incorrectly attributed to Christiane Herbold (stagename: Bobo). But the credits on the album state Backing vocals on "Stirb nicht vor mir" by Bobo. We would need better sources before calling someone a "stealer" per BLP. It looks like Bobo was the backup singer only on the english version, but was not the backup singer on the German version. That's probably from where the confusion stems. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, that's impressive. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Elior

This article is unnecessarily negative. Biographical articles normally give the subjects positive achievements, but this one resembles a hatchet job. It lists one failure after another for a subject who is a leader in her field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowGoldman (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Every quotation is from someone who disapproves, criticisms are included before the introduction or explanations of what is being criticized. This needs some work. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Nijkamp

Here's an odd one: check out my work. I just updated this article: it's a huge stink (just look at this Google overview) and I want to make sure that we get it right. Frankly, I'm surprised his article hasn't been edited yet; perhaps some eyes will be handy in the coming days and weeks as well to prevent abuse. Anyway, please have a look at the section I just introduced and the one sentence I added to the lead. The line between character assassination and objectively representing the facts is a thin one. Oh, before you ask, as far as I know Nijkamp himself has not responded publicly to the accusations (which, by the way, are well past the "accusation" stage in the ordinary sense). Drmies (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jan 2014? Has the dust started to settle on this? I see no problem with your additions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, no dust yet, not even pixie dust. They're trying to figure out to which extent self-plagiarism equals plagiarism. The outcry is humongous, as you may have seen (it's only the most recent of a couple of Dutch plagiarism/academic dishonesty scandals). For the record, the VU is my alma mater, and I really don't enjoy this but it has to be done. I have little doubt that he will lose his job over this scandal and that the VU's reputation is seriously harmed. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Since he may lose his job over this, is there a remote possibility that this addition will exacerbate it? Thats the only reason I could see not adding this now. Probably a resounding "no", but dot your i's Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks, primarily restating the accusations in the voice of the newspapers. I also commented out the section about his student - as written, it's unclear how the actions of Nijkamp's student relate to Nijkamp, and I can't read Dutch. If you think it belongs (and it may very well belong), please rewrite to better explain - are they viewing Nijkamp as complicit or responsible for his student's plagiarism? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nice work, Drmies, and I also agree with NorthBySouth's fixes. I was just going to dampen down the intro sentence, when I found NBS had already done it.

About the student: the thing is apparently that Nijkamp, her supervisor, was credited as co-author of the criticized piece(s). Indeed the first reference states outright that she wrote her text "samen met" (=together with) Nijkamp. (Speaking as an academic, the credit to the supervisor as co-author may or may not have been a mere formality, but by taking the credit, he would certainly in any case share the responsibility.) I agree with NBS that this connection wasn't clear in the article. I'll leave it to Drmies to make it so, since I can only read the Dutch sources when I'm half-seas over. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

• "Half-seas over": you mean "drunk on the ferry playing the slot machines with a pram full of butter"? :) I'll have a look to see about a rewrite. It's the student's dissertation that got the ball rolling. Note I didn't use her name. As for Two kinds of pork's "remote possibility", I'd say not likely, since his employers are all Dutch and presumably read any of the major newspapers. It's the biggest Dutch academic story I've seen, and this little Misplaced Pages article pales in comparison. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

All goodTwo kinds of pork (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, that's uncanny, my mother has the weirdest story about a pram full of butter. (It features girlscouts, hot weather and a collapsible pram, and telling it makes my mother laugh so hard she never gets as far as the punchline, if any.) Is it a, uh, Dutch saying? Note that I didn't use the student's name either, not actually being drunk or buttered today. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Riek Machar

There is potentially libelous material in the last paragraph of the sub-section "early career" in the article Riek Machar.

I'm not saying it's wrong, merely libelous :)

I apologise if I have not done this correctly, I am not particularly acquainted with this technology.

cheerio! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.37.63 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• You did fine, thanks. It's regular old vandalism and I reverted it. Thanks for pointing this out. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The I Inside-Writer Michael Cooney

"The I Inside" Film Writer Michael Cooney - Name and Bio Error: The current link from the Writer of "The I Inside" film's screenplay: Writer Michael Cooney, erroneously links to the folk singer-songwriter Michael Cooney and not to the Screenwriter Michael Cooney. The linked information about the songwriter Michael Cooney is correct about the songwriter, but the songwriter and the screenwriter Michael Cooney are two different people.

Correction Source: Page Title: "Ray Cooney Plays" Even though it is titled "Ray Cooney Plays" it lists all of Michael Cooney's stage and screenplay titles with their synopses, including "The I Inside". Article:: <The I Inside is a 2003 psychological thriller directed by Roland Suso Richter. It was written by Michael Cooney based on his own play "Point of Death". This film has no connection with the science-fiction novel The I Inside, by Alan Dean Foster. > “The I Inside" link from Writer-Michael Cooney erroneously links to the wrong person, a folk singer- songwriter also named Michael Cooney. Content:The link labeled Writer-Michael Cooney links to correct information about the folk singer-songwriter Michael Cooney. <Michael Cooney (born 1943 in Carmel, California) is an American musician known for his performances in the 1960s folk revival. He is known for his blues performances as well as in performing at and organizing many folk festivals, notably the National Folk Festival in Washington, DC, for six years.> <However, "The I Inside" screenwriter Michael Cooney, born in England, is a different person than the American born folk singer (noted by both their different photographs and by their different bios.)Michael Cooney, the screenwriter's bio is at at:)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabecio (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrected The I Inside.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jasmine Waltz

Jasmine Waltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This new article on a minor actress consisted almost entirely of negative material and gossip cited to sub-tabloid sources, and contains precisely zero evidence that she meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. Indeed, the source cited for what little non-gossip/negativity the article included actually asserts in so many words that this person lacks notability: "When Jasmine Waltz strutted into the 'Celebrity Big Brother' house this year everyone (including us) asked, 'who she?'" I shall of course be nominating the article for deletion (the creator having contested the prod - though without anything more than a statement to that effect in an edit summary ) but meanwhile, can I ask that experienced eyes are kept on the article.Though User:TheRedPenOfDoom has removed the worst of the offending material for now, it may well attract vandalism and/or more badly-sourced gossip. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Splendid example of "not a real BLP" writing, alas. And the sourcing for claims is worse than marginal. Collect (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Spitzer (political scientist)

Robert Spitzer (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a TON of unsourced material in this article, and I need some help to sort through it. The article is certainly salvageable, but it needs a lot of work, and I don't really want to just hack away at it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the direction this article suddenly took. I will comment in more detail there. Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, can some uninvolved editors take a look at this article? A half-day's worth of work has been reverted. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

David Dreier

Should this article mention rumored allegations about him? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article should not assert that he is gay -- that is a matter of self-identification. To the extent that there are good sources for the assertion that he has had a sexual relationship with another man, then yes, that can stay in the article. (Has he denied it?) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing references to a Hustler article on Drier in late 2004/early 2005 -- but it doesn't look like this is on-line. Anyone have any leads on it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is a splendid example of possibly harming a person by using Misplaced Pages to promote rumours about sexuality of a living person. Rumours are not biographical fact. "Hustler" and the like are not reliable sources for such rumours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mike Adams, (head editor)

Mike Adams, (head editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article created, looks amateurish and unsourced. Needs eyes from those who are familiar with the process to see if this should be deleted. Yobol (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a clear A7 and someone tagged it as such already. §FreeRangeFrog 15:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Almost exclusively unsourced BS and trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Done, deleted as per A7. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole‎ (2)

WP:BLP says, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively" As such is a section in a BLP titled "Anthropogenic climate change denial" suitable? Given the BLP in question has said, he believes in global warming. Please comment here if you wish. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Look up the word "Anthropogenic" in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)No need to, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Global warming and anthropogenic climate change are different. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you have a source in which he denies AGW? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The source you've just cited, for a start: 'The Warmists lost the battle over "the science" long ago; that's why the best they can do now is resort to the kind of risible semantic ruse like this deliberate conflation of "global warming" with "man made global warming"' AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy, nowhere in that article does he deny AGW. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of the discussion above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding whether we should use the term "skeptic" or "denier", we should follow what reliable sources say about the matter. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "denier", we should use that term. If the consensus of reliable sources calls Delingpole a "skeptic", we should use that term. If there is no consensus, we'll have to figure out how best to handle this. Usually, when reliable sources disagree, we don't take sides, we simply document the disagreement. Alternatively, we can default to "skeptic" since this term is less pejorative and this is a WP:BLP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I had requested it be changed to "Views on climate change", that is neutral and BLP compliant. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Section titles should never be judgemental about living persons - they exist to indicate the topic of the section and not the conclusion any source makes. Collect (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution