Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 6 August 2010

• 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

Anthony Indelicato

Joshua Pellicer

Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

Has been deleted per AfD discussion. De728631 (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gary Fitzgerald

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)

The article on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley cites a statement by the British House of Lords that the subject of the article "is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." The cited source unfortunately appears to have disappeared into the archives but you can still see it here for the moment in the Google cache.

An individual using the name of "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" has posted a response in comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/ , a blog run by a third party, arguing that the House of Lords is wrong and that Monckton is in fact a member. A Wikipedian argues here that it is "libelous" to include the House of Lords' statement that Monckton is not a member without including a citation to this blog post arguing that he is.

I see two problems with this: first, there is an absolute prohibition on using readers' posts as sources (WP:NEWSBLOG). As in all such cases, there's no guarantee that this is in fact written by the individual in question. Second, the blog in question would not meet the criteria of WP:BLPSPS, as it is not written or published by the subject. I also very much doubt whether we could use the subject as a reliable source on the membership rules of the House of Lords - as a self-governing body, the House is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. I'd appreciate some feedback from other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the blog post is bollocks anyway. "general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent" - rubbish, has he never heard of the doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament?--Scott Mac 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple of sources ,, which are Guardian newspaper blogs; not sure how they would rate in the reliability stakes, but the latter links to Monckton's explanation, giving it something of a nod, to my mind.--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is a pretty weak claim of an authoritative comment from the house of lords, possible so weak as to be unusable. Surly there must be better claims somewhere? written by Judy Fahys of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Barry Bickmore (someone Monkton was in a row with) has posted on Real Climate blog that he says Monckton is no member of the United Kingdom's House of Lords as he sometimes claims.. Monkton replied: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise." and then according to Bickmore he contacted the information office House of lords asking them if Monkton was a house of lords member and says he got the reply "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." ... all a bit weak to accuse someone of falsely claiming such a thing in my opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Monkton's explanation Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic link - includes statements insinuating a living person engaged in all kinds of malfeasance, and is selfpublished. If a reputable news agency picks it up, perhaps we can link to the reputable news agency. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also noted in . I take no position on inclusion/exclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob that the Salt Lake Tribune citation has a bit too much hearsay to make me feel comfortable. Here's another source a Chicago Tribune article which says that "He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by a member's death." (see page 2)--Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the article cited to the SLT article we have this comment which is written as if we have an official announcement from the house of lords, we clearly don't have that at all.

the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."http://www.sltrib.com/ ..presently cited to the front page of the SLT, supporting a very poor and misleading unattributed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually appeared in the Tribune on April 9, 2010. You can find a copy at your local library, or you can read the cached web content by googling for "http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14856887?source=rss" and clicking on the first link's "cached" copy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I have seen it and read it, that is one of the reasons I am joining in the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found Monckton's comment also at SPPI here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The Salt Lake Tribune article states that SPPI sponsored Monckton so it is credible that he actually wrote it. I dispute that the House of Lords is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. The dispute between Monckton and the (other?) Lords is a political and legal dispute. Misplaced Pages can trust neither side of such a dispute as definitive. If suggestions of dishonesty by Monckton are to be included, minimum decency requires at least one sentence for Monckton's defense of himself. If Monckton's defense is not included then no source of any level of reliability is sufficient to back Misplaced Pages including the libelous suggestion, and certainly not an obviously hostile Salt Lake Tribune article. In the guardian source above it is interesting to note that the House of Lords appears to call Monckton a Lord. So I guess the dispute is only about whether he is a member of the House of Lords, not whether he is a Lord. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well said. There has also been a related discussion on the article talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another page that goes into some more detail of this dispute http://worldreports.org/news/282_all_uk_legislation_passed_since_2000_is_null_and_void The page has very doubtful credibility but it includes some interesting letters such as this one about 40% down the page:

29 September 2008 : Column WA398:

House of Lords: Letters Patent
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what means Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed;
and in what legislation that has occurred. :

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):

The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.

Thus, the Peerage Act 1963 allowed Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords regardless of the terms of any Letters Patent creating the peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions. Conversely, the House of Lords decided in 1922 in the case of Viscountess Rhondda that the terms of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 were not sufficiently specific to allow her to take her seat in the Lords when her Letters Patent allowed her to inherit the peerage, but not the seat in the Lords. I am aware of only one case in which the effect of individual Letters Patent has been changed by Act of Parliament, which is that of the Duke of Marlborough in 1706.

Mindbuilder (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)In short, Moncton is a "Lord" and has "Letters Patent" which state he can sit in the House of Lords, however in 1999 the House of Lords was substantially altered by legislation which (effectively) annuled such Letters Patent, though without specifically addressing each such. In a sense, the "Upper House" and the "House of Lords" are not necessarily congruent? Is that the gist of this entire teapot? Seems to me that the entire bit has only arcane relevance to anything at all. Collect (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not correct. Letters Patent are what give someone the right to a peerage. They do not give the right of membership in the House of Lords. That comes from writs of summons, which are basically royal commands to attend the House. The House of Lords Act 1999 did not annul any Letters Patent - everyone who had a title kept it. Instead, it eliminated all but 92 hereditary peers from the pool of those eligible to receive writs of summons. Monckton only gained his peerage after the passage of the HoLA 1999 and therefore was never a member. The relevance of this is that his relationship with the Lords is of high importance - if he's a member that's highly notable, and he has repeatedly claimed or insinuated that he is one. Others, including the House of Lords itself, say that he is not a member. It's thus of intrinsic significance, as well as being covered in a number of reliable sources as a topic of controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well -- read the blank form for Letters Patent for Viscounts at which, as far as I can tell, is an authoritative source for. "

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts

Which, om its face, specifies "seat place and voice in the Parliaments". Your mileage apparently varies as to what this means. Collect (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This dates to 1992. The Forms of Letters Patent were amended in 2000 so that they now read:

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts And also that he and his heirs male aforesaid successively may enjoy and use all the rights privileges pre-eminences immunities and advantages to the degree of a Viscount duly and of right belonging which Viscounts of Our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy

(I've used the 1992 text, striking according to the 2000 amendment. This is arguably my own WP:OR, but the 2000 amendment only indicates what to strike - it doesn't provide the full text). TFOWR 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But does that 2000 amendment change pre-existing letters patent or just new ones? Mindbuilder (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting - since he's the 3rd Viscount Letters Patent would have been issued to his grandfather using the pre-2000 Form (pre-1992 as well, but for our purposes here that's not really relevant) and it'll be that Form that the subject believes applies. Let me dig further... TFOWR 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article seems to be full of problematic BLP issues. For instance In 2004 Monckton advised a London-based employment firm which was investigated by the National Crime Squad probing an alleged immigration racket involving hundreds of eastern European migrants who were brought to Britain on bogus visas. Monckton was their immigration adviser., now I might be wrong but that looks like something we would cut? On the actual issues we seem to be at one of those impasses; where interesting information about the individual exists and may deserve a mention, but we can only source it through bad means. The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him. We cannot, either, reliably verify his defence/counter claim. For that reason I think we should wait for a more official/neutral discussion of both issues. (Mindbuilder; yes, you are right, he is definitely a Lord - that is his hereditary title and can't really be disputed :)) --Errant Tmorton166 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

TM - I have to admit I'm a bit confused. You say "The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him." You believe the STrib is discussing the issue with the movtive of discrediting him? You believe the house of lords said he wasn't a member of the house of lords with the motive of discrediting him? What, exactly, is more offifical/neutral than the deliberative body and a reasonably major newspaper? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the Tribune and the Guardian are good sources for this. The only caveat is that there is no evidence that Monckton has lied, only that he has a diagreement with the House of Lords. A little bit of an eccentric disagreement, maybe, but that is not exactly breaking new BLP ground with regards to the subject of the article. It also seems obvious to me that Monckton is wrong and the House of Lords is right, but there is no reason for us to say that and it doesn't mean he is lying in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The original source (STrib) is awful; lots of mud slinging - the bit about the lords is used before a direct quote trying to undermine his credibility from one of his opponents. The insinuation is that the HoL response was to Bickmore and not the STrib - which is even more problematic. --Errant Tmorton166 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, it does not make the source unreliable, as long as the SLT has a reputation for fact-checking. --FormerIP (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It does. It's a major, long established newspaper, which has won at least one Pulitzer prize for its reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask a seperate question? Why is Monckton excluded from Members of the House of Lords if he claims that he is a nonvoting, nonsitting member? Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose because his own statements would not be considered an RS in this matter (they are an RS only for the fact that he has claimed to be a member). --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a BLP violation by exclusion? Either it is a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords, or it is not a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords. How could it be a BLP violation in article A, but not in article B? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I presume that list is built from the list of members published by the House. I doubt his exclusion is based on claims in these articles --Errant Tmorton166 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The list dosen't say that. Shouldn't you edit the list to make it clear why Monckton, and the other HOLA99 exclusions, while still possibly members of the house of lords, are not on the list? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, isn't List of excepted hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999, wrong, in that it states "The House of Lords Act 1999 excluded all peers sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage?" And isn't House of Lords Act 1999, in that it states "The Act prevents even hereditary peers who are the first to hold their titles from sitting automatically in the House of Lords." These statements of fact are all disputed by Monckton, and thus shouldn't this dispute be made clear in all the relevent articles? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be a BLP violation to say that he was a member of the HoL, because there is insufficient sourcing for that. However, the sourcing appears to me to be strong enough to say that he has claimed to be a member of the HoL (but that this is denied by the HoL). AFAIK, there is not wider controversy about this. If it were the case that there was a significant body of legal opinion that agreed with Monckton, then that make make a difference (ie shaping the MOHOL article according to Monckton's SELFPUB comments would be UNDUE, but including them in his own aritcle may not be). --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are ya all still going on about it with the debating skills honed over lengthy periods of warring and climate change disputes, At least we can look forward to the forthcoming Arbcom result to this infernal dispute. The content, if no one has touched it needs at least attribution, the reply from the house of lords is from that guy he has a dispute with and we have no way official statement from the house of lords at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Salt Late Tribune it was an "official response." Are you saying the SLT is not a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The information was given to them by the person Mopnkton was in dispute with, all the newspaper did was report what the person told them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What, other than your own personal opinion, leads you to believe that? Can I apply my personal opinion to sources that say things I don't like? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It not my personal opinion it is what I understand from the loose way the article is written. It matters not anyway, Monkton is a Lord as collect states and others, in 1999 or there abouts they changed the door posts, and Monkton is absolutely correct in what he says about it, the content is rubbish, utter rubbish and is only being supported as it portrays him badly, yawn at least all this rubbish will soon be over. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No one doubts he was a lord. There is a difference between being a lord, and being a member of the house of lords. Monckton was not a peer in 1999 - he inherited his title in 2006. Shouldn't we be "getting it right" regarding his peerage? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, the article states, with full context

Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."

The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

I don't see how this is unclear. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This official response was told to the reporter by the person in a dispute with Mongton Bickmore, Bickmore said he wrote to the HOL information and Bickmore said he got this reply. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. The source makes it clear that the official response was X, not that "Bickmore said the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So where do you think the response came from ? Bilmore said he wrote to them, so if he wrote to them then they replied to him didn't they? and he told the newspaper interviewer about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I report on what sources say, not what I personally think happened. For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? If you can't verify something, you can't assume it - in this case, I can verify that a reliable source has said "the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Such low grade opinionated editorials are very often written so loosely as to deceive and misrepresent and sensationalize, we are required to use our editorial intelligence. I disagree with this POV and I am sick to the back teeth of BLP articles being disrupted and warred over and attacked and I really look forward to the result of the arbcom case, and I am sure many other editors are sick of the disruption as well. I like to imagine Mr Monkton and the other living people that have had their articles attacked and disrupted will be laughing their socks off when the big ban hammer is waved around. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it appeared on the news papges of the online publication (/news/, as opposed to /opinion/), what leads you to believe it's an editorial? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, it's clearly not an editorial. It's straight reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? - woah hold on, you are as in the dark over that as Off2riorob. The ambiguity is enough, surely, to cast doubt on the argument. Anyway - the whole argument is an Ad-Hominem attack on Monckton (look, he's lied about being in the HoL - do you think he is telling the truth about XYZ). I think that source is way way off the table. The Guardian source is much stronger and if it has to be reported that is the one to use. --Errant Tmorton166 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What ambiguity? We have a straight piece of factual reporting, directly quoting correspondence from the HoL. There's no reason to suppose that it is anything other than a reliable source. It appears that you don't like what it says, but that has no bearing on whether it meets the reliable sourcing criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't like what it says can we get over this constant nonsense. I'm really bored with people using this as an argument all the time - it is bad rhetoric. Anyway; my issue is that the article is an Ad Hominem - that undermines it's suitability as a RS. It quotes a piece of correspondance without explicitly attributing it's source (which is via Bickmore). The Guardian article has none of those issues and is actually accessible online :) --Errant Tmorton166 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content of an article is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source. Please refresh your memory about what WP:V actually says. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't come here asserting, I have a reliable source and if you don't like it read this policy or that policy and I can add it if I want and if you can't find it go to the libary and this is indisputable as the fabulous not notable reporter is such a good fact checker and then the same people argue the exact opposite when it is against their POV, and another one comes and its like rotating discussion with different users I realize this is never ending, at least for a few more days so forget about it, it will soon be over anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant questions here are: What is the reputation of the newspapers editorial policy? Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and getting things right? Does this "jive" with what other reliable sources say? Does it raise a red-flag? etc.

Your assumption, that we can judge it on whether it is critical or not, is not a part of the process - in fact: what we think about the article is irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

iIts some kind of a local Mormon paper doing an interview with a Mormon apologist global warming supporter about a skeptic, lets not sing its fantastic praises of ace NPOV reporting, Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Salt Lake City's main newspaper. I've never been there, but I doubt your characterisation is fair. At least we know the reporter is relatively unlikely to have been drinking whilst researching the piece, which, reliability-wise is a big bonus compared to most newspapers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune is a major metro daily with a circulation of around 300,000 which makes it the largest newspaper in Utah. Its parent company is based in Denver. Your comment is really off the mark. — e. ripley\ 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And if you knew anything about the SLT, Off2riorob, you'd know it was actually an anti-Mormon newspaper for many years. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V has no relation to the content of the source, it is about the content of the article and attributing it to a RS. We say the HoL has said this (and they certainly did say it - not that it matters) - but the source currently used to verify it is not suitable (to my mind). Reliability of the entire website is important - and I wouldn't really dispute that in this case. But we do need to consider individual sources (articles) on their own merit. In this case I think Ad-Hominem pieces fall easily under Questionable Sources. All of which is moot when you consider the questionable source is, uh, dead and that the Guardian article (live) is a much better alternative :) --Errant Tmorton166 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken. See WP:V#Questionable sources. None of those criteria apply to a news report by a major, long-established metropolitan daily newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chris, but, if it would make this discussion shorter, what would be the problem with using the Guardian instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I'm very happy with the Guardian source (well done to whoever found it). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: We have considerable expertise over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and they should be consulted about the precise wording here. My own understanding, which is limited although I take an interest in these matters, is that Lord Monckton is a peer of the realm, but not a sitting member of the House of Lords. He is among those eligible to be elected by other conservative hereditary peers to sit the House. (Or at least, he was, in one election, listed as someone who got zero votes. He is now a member of UKIP, and I don't know if that means he isn't any long a Tory peer - beyond the scope of my limited expertise) I personally do not know whether it would be appropriate for those who either formally sat in the House of Lords by right, but who do no longer, or those who have inherited a peerage and yet never been elected, to call themselves a "member" of the House of Lords.

A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation.

I would be interested to see a reliable source for the House of Lords officially saying he isn't a member - the source cited seems to no longer work. In order to be notable, though, we'd need more than just a list of members, of which he is not a part. We'd need to see some definitive statement that the House of Lords proper doesn't want him calling himself a member, or something similar to that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. A lot of this is demonization of Monckton. "You lied about X, Y, and Z, therefore you must be lying about climate change, too." The House of Lords issue isn't the only issue on which Monckton's assertions have been challenged in this fashion. Unfortunately, the people making these charges mostly haven't seen fit to document them properly, putting their names to them, researching and checking their facts, and publishing them in full detail in some reliable permanent form. One can turn up people writing on the subject. But people with credentials in U.K. constitutional law, or other identifiable expertise, or even real names, are much harder to come by. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement supposedly made by the house of lords is not very well verified by the SLT article. It's not well verified enough for a controversial issue. But I don't think it is controversial that the HoL made that statement. Monckton hasn't disputed that the Lords made that claim. In fact Monckton himself states that the Lords revoked his pass, asked for the return of his letters patent, and instructed the information office to deny his membership. The only controversial fact here is whether the 1999 act lawfully removed his claim to be a member. The political HoL can't be trusted to make an unbiased evaluation of that fact, so Monckton's defense should be included. It would be legitimate to simply remove the accusation of false statement, but it is such a major issue on the internet when he is mentioned, that I think it should be dealt with here. We're not hurting him by mentioning the accusation one more time, and it is only fair to mention his self defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't agree with you but my disagreement is somewhat subtle. The claim that the 1999 act did not lawfully remove his right to sit in the Lords is so fringe that I'm unaware of any serious authority who would accept it or even put it forward with a straight face. The act passed the Commons (340-142), passed the Lords (221-81), and was given royal assent by the Queen. It doesn't get any more lawful than that. It is therefore not necessary to say, on this one point, that it's "he said, they said". (What is lacking, as far as I am aware, is a reliable source that shows that Lord Monckton holds any such belief.)

  There is a separate question, much milder, where I believe Lord Monckton is also wrong, but it's much less dramatic a claim, and therefore much less bizarre, that he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote. That's different from claiming that the 1999 law is invalid, although it is a claim about nomenclature that is at odds with that law's own language.

  My concern is whether any of this back and forth is actually noteworthy enough to include in the article. I do not know for sure.

  I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction. I say this mainly because I happened to glance at this article the other day (it is on my watch list for some reason) and read a bit about him, and totally failed to realize that he's never actually been in the House of Lords.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The best source I've found that Monckton actually believes that the act didn't nullify his claim to be a member of the house of lords is here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The SPPI is referenced in the SLT article as sponsoring Monckton. The post he made at Wattsupwiththat is less reliable, but Wasttsupwiththat is the leading climate skeptic blog, and therefore has some credibility. It seems unlikey though possible that an impostor there would go unnoticed or uncorrected by either Monckton or Anthony Watts. I think Moncton's claim that the act may be invalid may actually be technically correct. It appears that there actually was some sort of preceding rule or law that an act of parliament couldn't revoke the priveleges of a Lord unless the act did so specifically. It appears the paliament blundered in passing the wrong kind of law. But it's a mere technicality, and Monckton's lack of a claim to be able to vote demonstrates he's not challenging the practical effect of the law. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the parliament couldn't have passed specific laws just as easily if it had realized that it needed to. And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal. An example in the US is when Congress passes laws that the courts declare unconstitutional. It doesn't matter that Congress and the president have passed it.

    When I first heard the accusation against Monckton, my impression was that he had claimed to be a Lord but really wasn't. It made him sound kind of crazy. It all looks much different now that I know that he actually is an official British Lord and that his claim wasn't just made up but is rather a dispute over a technical legal issue. It still seems misleading though for him to insist that he is a member and make that claim without explanation. There is little doubt that he has claimed membership, there is little doubt that they have disclaimed his membership, and the technical legal issue is a little bit interesting. This info is usefully informative in the context of the climate change debate. Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process of those of us who can't take the time to research the issue in depth. So I'd say it should be in. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Don't apply U.S. constitutional theory to the U.K.. You'll go wildly astray, as you've done here. The U.K. doesn't have a written constitution, and constitutional law is a wholly different ballgame, with complex, subtle, and uncodified rules. House of Lords reform, for example, is complicated by issues of entrenchment — something that our article on entrenched clauses fails to even relate to the U.K. at all — and how one changes the structure of a Popular monarchy (AfD discussion) without knocking out the foundations. (There's a lot written in constitutional law texts challenging Dicey's view of entrenchment and the sovereignty of Parliament for being an adducement that is not in a de facto sense true at all. Our articles on this whole subject are far from complete, so don't treat them as Gospel, either. As you can see, we don't yet even have a complete description of what a popular monarchy is.) Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew I should have put an explanation of my analogy. I didn't mean to suggest that the British courts could overrule Parliament. I don't know what it is but there seems to be something in British law that prevents Parliament from changing letters patent with a general law rather than a specific law. This isn't just Monckton's claim, I've quoted the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) below. I don't know if this constraint on Parliament is binding or just tradition or if it's the courts or the queen or who would enforce such a constraint, but the constraint on Parliament appears to exist. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process; I fail to see how Moncktons credibility over climate science is affected by his statements about the HoL - because someone is wrong/misguided/lying on one thing does not automatically extend to another (for example; if a respected climate scientist is having an affair and denies it does that undermine his credibility? I've seen that used before.....). It is simply an Ad-Hominem attack by his opponent. On the other hand if this grows outside the climate debate arguments and becomes a standalone issue (i.e. he publicly disputes the law as a separate issue) then it would become very interesting.

If a person is caught trying to trick people, it casts doubt about everything they say. A different amount of doubt is cast depending on what the deception was. Denying an affair would not reduce one's credibility as much as a completely fabricated claim to be an official Lord. In a strictly logical argument an ad-hominem attack is not valid, but in the real world it is often impossible to make a decision in a strictly logical way. Few of us have the expertise or time to analyze the climate evidence in a rigorous way. Therefore we have to take into consideration the opinions of people more knowledgeable about the subject than ourselves. The credibility of those people is important if we can't rigorously evaluate their arguments. I have tremendous respect for science and scientists, but especially with the revelations since climategate, I don't think we can automatically assume the climate science community is being completely honest, let alone completely unbiased. So I am saying that ad-hominem attacks should be minimized, but are appropriate and even necessary in the climate change debate. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal - as already pointed out law works very different over here. The fact of him being a Lord and his seat in parliament are entirely separate issues; it is indisputable that he is a hereditary peer! --Errant Tmorton166 10:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've found the official source of the statement by the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) at the bottom of this page http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80929w0021.htm In which she states "The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application." Mindbuilder (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've also found this governement site that shows the generic wording of letters patent https://opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19881082_en_2.htm which in part say this "...he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils..." Mindbuilder (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lord Mereworth and other lords are apparently threatening a lawsuit on the theory shared by Monckton http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html Mindbuilder (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion here - Mindbuilder in particular is getting the details wrong. The facts are simple enough:

• Monckton is a peer, which means he can use the title of Lord. This fact is undisputed by anyone.
• Not all peers can sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right to sit in Parliament from all but 92 hereditary peers. This fact is undisputed.

That is not undisputed. Lord Mereworth claims his letters patent give him the right to sit in the House of Lords. Both Monckton and Mereworth claim that the HOLA1999 didn't remove some of their rights because it was a general rather than a specific law. I'm not the one confused here. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Monckton's father was among one of those removed. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton gained his peerage in 2006 on the death of his father, seven years after the passage of the House of Lords Act. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton has described himself as "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote" and "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" . This fact is undisputed.
• The House of Lords itself does not list Monckton as a member and has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." This fact is undisputed.
• Peers are summoned to sit in the House of Lords through a writ of summons, not Letters Patent. The House of Lords Act means that all but 92 of the hereditary peers no longer receive writs of summons. It didn't repeal Letters Patent, which are instruments that grant titles. This fact is undisputed, as far as I know.

Mindbuilder, I'm afraid you are clearly approaching this from a US perspective which is misleading you. Unlike the US, the UK has a doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. It doesn't have the same constitutional setup as the US. The courts do not have the power to rule a law "unconstitutional" - they couldn't, since the UK doesn't have a constitution. Parliament legislates in the name of the Queen, and the courts apply the laws that Parliament passes, again acting in the name of the Queen. Jimbo, the claim that "he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote" is a dramatic and bizarre claim from a UK perspective. As a self-governing body, the House of Lords the only authority for stating who is and is not one of its members. It has said very clearly that Monckton is not and never has been a member, and that the status he claims for himself does not exist. The claim is equivalent to a US citizen saying "I'm a Senator but without a right to sit or vote". Would you not consider that a dramatic and bizarre claim? From a UK perspective Monckton's claim is equally extraordinary. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of getting into too much OR in terms of establishing the correct interpretation of the law here (I'm not accusing anyone of that, just raising a flag). I would agree with you, Chris, that Mockton's legal claim is probably without merit, but unless we can get an RS opinion about this, we don't need to worry too much about whether it is or it isn't.

In terms of what we need to say in the article: (1) It is obviously important that Monckton is a peer; (2) Per Jimbo (and I don't see any reason to object) it is important to clarify that he is not a legislator.

The remaining question is whether and how to report his claim to be a member of the UK legislature (which he appears to maintain - he does not retract it in the PDF cited by Mindbuilder). This seems to me to be primarily about WP:N, and there may be a case for excluding it. But there would not be, IMO, a case for excluding it under WP:BLP (because the essential facts are all well-sourced - including, handily, in a SELPUB), although we should obviously avoid implying that Mockton lied or misled. It does not mean we should avoid the subject area altogether in case a reader reaches the conclusion that he lied or misled, as long as our wording doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should avoid OR or interpretating the law. This isn't the place for it, and please note that I haven't said that Monckton's legal claim is without merit (IANAL). I believe the article did in the past say in the lead that Monckton was not a legislator, but this seems to have been lost at some stage for some reason. Unfortunately I don't think we can get around the dispute over Monckton's claim to be a member of the House of Lords. We have to say that he is not - this is pretty much essential, as many peers are legislators and it is important to note whether a particular peer is or is not a legislator. But NPOV dictates that if we say Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, we need to present Monckton's counter-claim for balance. The key question is what wording should be used. I suggest remanding that question to the article talk page, as this discussion has already taken up too much space here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the UK system is quite different, but the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) seems to think there is something limiting Parliament in how it can change letters patent. It appears Parliament has the power to change and probably even revoke the letters, but there appears to be at least procedural constraints on how that can be done.

The House of Lords isn't a self-governing body because the House of Commons is superior and can change or even abolish the House of Lords if it follows the correct procedure. Furthermore, one subgroup, even a majority subgroup, of the House of Lords, is not an authority on who is a member, and cannot remove another subgroup of Lords from the House, at least not without following proper procedure. And such a claim in America to be a non-sitting member of the Senate would be much less bizarre if the claimant had possession of an official US government document legally granting the holder to special Senate privileges.

I agree totally that Misplaced Pages shouldn't try to decide the validity of the general/specific law issue. But Jimbo has questioned if the general/specific law issue is even credible enough to even mention. Misplaced Pages does have to evaluate if fringe arguments are credible enough to mention. Except in this case I don't think Misplaced Pages should even make that determination. I think that no matter how absurd Monckton's self-defense is, it is only fair that we include one short sentence mentioning it. In order for that sentence to be meaningful, it must be more than a plain denial. It should alert the reader that there is a technical legal issue in dispute. I'm only arguing for a couple of words in a short sentence. It's not that big of a deal. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-- It would be helpful to have more uninvolved editors look at this because most of those commenting have been involved in the controversy in one way or another. I am adding a section below for uninvolved editors, so please don't comment in that section if you've edited the article or the talk page or been involved in the probation enforcement or ArbComm case. The issue as presented is only one BLP concern among others in this article -- any objection if I relist this BLP and ask for comment on all the the ongoing BLP concerns on this article? I also edited the heading of this section so that the BLP name is included. Minor4th 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the heading - you'll break the incoming links from other pages. This is not the right place to have general BLP discussions about articles. If there are specific issues with a particular article, please raise it first on the article talk page. If the issue cannot be resolved there, then please bring it here. This noticeboard is not meant to be a substitute for article talk pages. The vast majority of BLP issues can be resolved on article talk pages without ever coming here (which is just as well, otherwise this noticeboard would be unmanageable). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Technote, headings can easily be changed using the {{anchor}} template to leave an anchor element that inbound links will be able to connect correctly to even after the change.... in this case, place

{{anchor|Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)}}

just below the changed heading and Bob's your uncle. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the anchor to drop the parenthetical; it was duplicative of the current heading. I also moved it above the section heading so that readers arriving via the original link actually see the section they're in. It's possible this could be a problem if the archiving is to different pages... Anyway, cavalierly messing with section headings muddies things. It would be best if they're well chosen in the first place ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chris I'm aware, and as I stated on my talk page, the issues have been raised on the talk pages, and they are not being adequately addressed here by uninvolved editors who are not part of the dispute. I had no intention of having a general BLP discussion -- I want to list the specific BLP issues that have arisen on Monckton and which remain unresolved because there's not sufficient uninvolved editor input. Surely you're aware of that, it is not as if you and I have not been part of the same discussions for the last several days. Do you want the BLP issues resolved or do you want to win a POV war? Why did you remove the section for uninvolved editors? Incidentally, I agree with Jimbo that the issue of his House of Lords "membership" is not sufficiently notable as part of his biography and hasn't been adequately and fully addressed in reliable sources so it should be left out of the biography. There are other issues that have been raised on the talk page -- Abraham's "rebuttal" and sourced through a non-notable blog as an attack piece and Monckton's response to the rebuttal, which is only sourced through self published material (but is being excluded for that reason). I can raise that issue separately since you seem rather possessive of this discussion -- now that I think of it, that is a better way to handle that issue in any event. Thanks. Minor4th 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, Chris, I noticed that the heading has already been changed once today and you did not revert that. Off2riorob edited the heading to clarify that this BLP is in the global warming subject. Why would you not want the name of the BLP included in the heading. Your reversion of my edit to the heading and the reason stated as breaking incoming links simply makes no sense considering the prior edit of the heading less than an hour ago (with no expressed concern). Minor4th 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. The full name of Monckton's bio is long, as was the initial section heading, and the current one with the parenthetical, so this all results in a huge entry in the TOC, and thrashes thing about. The various inbound links can, of course, all be fixed, including by adding ones re your section names that seem to now be gone. This stuff, however, takes the discussion off-track, which is nominally about the bio, here, but is really about too many editors editing fast and furiously out there on the climate stuff. The AC's proposed decision is due, and they've made it pretty clear they're unimpressed with all these edit wars cropping up. I'm hoping for a robust PD that will properly sort the broader issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change of heading earlier. However, Lar has explained that there's a way around the problem it created (thanks Lar) so that's resolved now.

As for your other points: my point is simply that you haven't raised any of the issues you refer to on the article talk page. You raised an issue with the intro which has been discussed at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Overhaul. I and another editor have responded to that and the three of us seem to have resolved that satisfactorily. In fact, you said that you were "going to make more proposals, but given the state of the ArbCom case, I think I"ll just wait a bit in the spirit of harmony". We're still waiting for your proposals. Nobody's stopping you from making them, and people are happy to work with you to resolve any issues you raise. There's no problem yet that requires referral back to this noticeboard. If one comes up then by all means let's refer back here. However, we should use the talk page first. If you want to leave a pointer here to invite uninvolved editors to the discussion on the talk page then please do so, but this noticeboard isn't a substitute for the talk page, as I said.

Regarding Jimbo's reference to Monckton's House of Lords "membership", I think you might be misreading what he said, which was: "I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction." That seems quite reasonable and in fact that info was formerly in the intro but seems to have disappeared at some point. We should discuss on the article talk page how it can be reintroduced. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the additional discussion of sources above means that there is now no live BLP issue and the issue should be taken back to the talkpage to discuss weight and wording. Doe anyone else not think that? --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll start a new thread on the talk page to address the weight and wording issue. In the meantime I suggest closing this particular discussion, since the original issue I raised was resolved a long time ago. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur, lets close this here and take it back to the talk page. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not so fast. Jimbo later said this, which gets closer to the heart of the matter: A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation

For those of you who want to include this information that is far from settled, examine your motives. You cannot source the information impeccably without leaving out part of the story -- Monckton's reply and explanation. What Jimbo observes is likely what is taking place in this BLP discussion ... a group of editors who dislike Monckton's views intensely and have an interest in portraying him as deceptive when he may not have been. There certainly is no room to draw a conclusion that there is a consensus to include the negative material as you wish. If you're going back to the talk page, I will relist this and call for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Minor4th 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Minor4th has a point that uninvolved editors (meaning those not part of the GW/CC world) should evaluate this. It should remain open. GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means leave an invitation here for uninvolved editors, but there's no point adding still further to this already enormous discussion. It's already too long. Let's revert to the talk page and get this issue resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to invite uninvolved editors earlier today and you reverted me. At this point, because of the length of the discussion and the omission of the BLP's name in the heading, and the lack of participation from uninvolved editors -- do you have any objection to me relisting the BLP with a link back to this discussion? Minor4th 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You created a separate section, which wasn't necessary. Do you think you could possibly do what I asked earlier - raise the issues you want to discuss on the article talk page and then post a link here to that discussion, to invite uninvolved editors? We're all still waiting for you to post the list of issues you said you were going to raise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can not find any reliable source which supports Mockton's contention that he is a member of the House of Lords; he does not qualify for membership under their own definition but has sought to be included in the list of members by their definition and has not been elected. More relevant is that he has claimed to be a member of the UK legislature for which there is no ghost of an argument or reliable source. The latter bears heavily on his credibility and I believe there is no BLP case for excluding them. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's claim to be a member of parliament is partly supported by the Lord President of the Council's statement that letters patent cannot be changed by a general law and by examples of letters patent that declare the right to sit in the HoL. Those sources are from offical government pages. That still doesn't solidify Monckton's case, but it's enough for Misplaced Pages to recocnize his self-defense from the accusation of making a false statement about his membership. If we leave out the accuasion of false statement of membership then we don't have to include his defense. But if Misplaced Pages includes the accusation then it is only fair to make a short mention of his self-defense. He doesn't qualify for membership under their definition, but he claims their definition which is derived from the HOLA1999, is not legal under UK law. His claim to be a member of the HoL and therefore the UK legislature is based on the general/specific issue with the HOLA1999, which is not only a ghost of an argument, it appears to me to be technically correct. Though I doubt his argument will win out in the end because of powerful practical considerations. In any case Misplaced Pages certainly cannot decide if Monckton's argument is correct, we can only decide if it is too frivilous to include. But when Misplaced Pages includes an accusation of dishonestly, the bar for a frivilous defense should be brought very low. The usual requirement for reliable sources shouldn't apply as strictly. I think his defense easily clears such a very low bar. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought at first that the legal argument might be (barely) facially credible, but if you read Lord President Ashton's remarks in Hansard, she specifically refers to the HOLA1999 as "legislation which has that specific effect ". That is, the reference to "specific" law is not, as Monckton seems to think, to a law that explicitly changes *individual* letters patent, but to a law which explicitly refers to peers and their rights. So either Ashton's argument is incoherent (and hence of no value to Monckton's case), or Monckton has misunderstood it. He may genuinely believe himself to be a member of the HoL, but there's no substantial reasoning behind it. (And the House of Lords has historically been allowed to define its own membership, even when its decisions have been legally dubious, e.g., the Mar Peerage Case.) As for the text in the letters patent, that's not necessarily definitive; Lord Wensleydale was issued letters patent with the same text as a life peer, but the Wensleydale Peerage Case upheld the decision of the House of Lords not to seat him. Choess (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning about Monckton's claim diminishes greatly my estimation of the merit of Monckton's claim. But it's not that there is no reasoning behind his claim, it's just that your (or our) evaluation of his argument is that his argument is very weak. But it's clear that there are some limits to how Parliament can go about changing membership in the HoL, and Misplaced Pages doesn't know well at all what those limits are. Monckton's claim is weak, but not totally without basis. It's not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to make a judgement on the merits of Monckton's claim unless the issue is clear. And we're not talking about multiple paragraphs describing Monckton's defense. One sentence and a link to his own defense is only fair if Misplaced Pages is to perpetuate a potentially slanderous accusation. Consider if it was an article about you. Wouldn't you want at least one sentence to mention your defense? Actually I think that if Misplaced Pages perpetuates a potentially slanderous accusation that it should print one sentence of the person's defense no matter how absurd the defense is. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• When discussing a very different issue with a legal academic, he introduced me to a piece of specialist legal terminology used to describe claims such as Monckton's: "crap".
  See Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999: "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."
  It could not be clearer; unless and until the Act is overturned, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have simply stated what was not in dispute by anyone, not even Monckton. The HOLA1999 says that. But that doesn't settle the question of whether the act is legally effective. If you were accused of something bad on Misplaced Pages I think you would think at least one sentence with your defense was minimally fair. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, I think that you are over-complicating a simple situation, by conflating de jure and de facto positions.

The de facto situation is simple: the House of Lords does not admit Monckton as a member. Despite Mockton's assertions that he is a "Member of the House of Lords", neither he nor anyone else has any evidence in a reliable source that this is the case in practice. Wish and fact are different beasts: I may claim to be the rightful Queen of Ruritania, but until I'm installed on the throne, it is patently false to assert that I am the Queen, regardless of whether my claim to the throne is undisputably well-founded or demonstrably insane.

Remember, he did not claim that he should be be a member. He claims that he is a member.

The de jure situation is slightly less straightforward, but still fairly simple.

1. Monckton claims he is a "Member of the House of Lords", albeit a non-sitting and non-voting member. That directly contradicts the law, which unambiguously says that he is not a member unless he is one the 92 hereditaries who have been been elected to it ... and he makes no claim that he has been.
2. Monckton claims to be a non-sitting and non-voting member of the HoL, but we have no evidence from a reliable source that such a status exists. If such a status did exist, there would be a mountain of reliable sources which attest to that. None have been presented.
3. Mockton clearly believes that the way the law is being applied is unjust. He is quite entitled to his belief, but unless and until there is a challenge to this law through legal process, that remains simply the belief of one man.His claim which may or may not have theoretical merit, but which has neither practical effect nor support from any authority.

However, I do not think we need to go into any of the de jure stuff, because Mockton's statements assert an alleged fact, rather than a claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Monckton were claiming to be a voting member or have a position of real power like a queen, then the de jure and de facto distinction would be meaningful. But what Moncton is claiming is basically just the title of member. He does in fact use the title of member. The government does in fact deny he is a member. Whether he is in fact entitled to the title is the only question. I do not agree that if there were such a position of non-voting member, that there would be a mountain of reliable sources which attest to that. In fact it seems to me that because it is a matter of interpretation and opinion that it would be unlikely that there could be any reliable source on the issue. It's just two sides, each with their claims, and no real authority that could be trusted to reliably settle the issue. Even if a high court heard the issue, the judgement would just be their opinion, and very possibly a political one. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of news coverage or debate on the issue because his concession of voting rights means the issue has little practical effect. It's just a matter of what he calls himself. In fact I have only seen one reliable source claim that he is not a member, the government. I haven't seen the opinions of multiple legal experts that Monckton's claim is frivolous.

Furthermore, even if Monckton's claim is frivilous, if he genuinely believes it then it is not just a lie, and therefore it is relevant to the question of whether he lied about being a member of the HoL. If Misplaced Pages merely states that he claimed to be a member and that the HoL denies he is a member, it leaves the unstated impression that he was lying.

Finally again, if Misplaced Pages was implying you did something unethical, I think you would consider it only fair that one sentence was allowed for your defense. Misplaced Pages should refrain from a judgement on this membership issue unless it is very clear and should allow his defense if there is even a slight possibilty that it has merit. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, t really doesn't help in resolving this that you repeated make the false assertion that the govt has made a statement on this: it has not. The govt is not the House of Lords, and the House of Lords is not the government.

This being discussed in detail on the article's talk page, where a solution is in sight: report the fact that he made a claim, report the response of the House of Lords. Even if it was appropriate to go into the details, we do not have reliable sources on either side to allow such expansion with using an unreliable source for Monckton's rationale, and a synthesis of unrelated legal opinion.

You insist that your concerns are about fair reporting of a BLP, but that stance is not consistent with your continued demands for the inclusion of a synthesis built off the premise of an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to present this information in a way that would avoid BLP violation would require a great deal of SYNTH and OR because it is not possible to discern the meaning or intent or accuracy of Monckton's comments in context without doing legal research and reading between lines and drawing conclusions that are not explicitly expressed in any sources. This should not be included in Monckton's biography. Include what is known -- he is a hereditary peer -- and leave out what is ambiguous and poorly sourced. Minor4th 03:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I will propose a form of words on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. I suggest that this discussion should be closed and editors should go to the article talk page to discuss this issue further. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not in the habit of closing discussions here to suit our personal position, the threads here die their own death and get archived after ten days of inactivity. Off2riorob (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No SYNTH or OR is necessary. Monckton states himself in his response to Congress here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/answers_to_committee.html states "I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley..., a member of the Upper House ..." and "The then Government ... told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members..." Thus we know that Monckton claimed to be a member of the HoL and he himself states that the government has denied his being a member. His defense is stated there as well. No reading between the lines is necessary. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is prima facie evidence that Monckton talks nonsense which has long been evident. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a really inappropriate comment in a BLP discussion. Have some respect. Minor4th 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is prima facie evidence that Monckton talks nonsense? Mindbuilder (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text - discussion invited

I've posted a revised text for Monckton's political career, including the issue of his involvement with Parliament, at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎#Monckton and Parliament. Input from editors would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of wasted bandwidth there, caused by people continuing to apply U.S. constitutional principles to the U.K., and going (as I said before) completely astray. I've tried to stay out of this. But given the amount of verbiage devoted to completely wrongheaded understandings of U.K. constitutional law being propounded by Misplaced Pages editors, I give you one source that couldn't be clearer:

Professors Bradley and Ewing are credentialed authorities writing in their fields of expertise. If you want to challenge this, you need to find authorities that are at least as reliable as the erstwhile Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Edinburgh for 21 years (now Professor Emeritus of the same) is on the subject. I hope that this puts an end to the nonsense. Uncle G (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Diane Washburn

Notable? I think it's dubious, but would appreciate second opinion. Made more interesting because it appears the article was written by the author of her biography. JNW (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind of interesting article though, it could use wikify-ing and some of the detail may be hard to source, books only I imagine. Some interesting pictures released to commons, they seem like good faith releases but could use a check by a picture expert. I don't see any BLP problems. More notability that a 21 year old that posed once for playboy that is for sure. Off2riorob (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a playboy model is the example for comparison. Nor are an interesting story and pictures a satisfactory rationale. Much of the article isn't even about her, but her father, husband, and famous acquaintances. In other words, it's kind of a puff piece. What I'm looking for is some sense of whether this is appropriate for AFD nomination. JNW (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be put at the bottom of the list of articles to worry about.--Jarhed (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

• Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two users are adding content to the controversies section of this article. I feel that the new content summarizes the source material inaccurately, and that an accurate summary of the material would not be closely enough related to the subject of the article to be included.

• • Raj's original edit
  • My edit
  • Raj's revert
  • Discussion — goethean ॐ 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues in the article at present.--Jarhed (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent discussion above on this board Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article continues to attract dispute among editors despite numerous attempts at dispute resolution. Gilad Atzmon is a musician who is controversial because of his views, statements and actions concerning Israel/Palestinian issues. Countless editorials have been written about him both in both mainstream and left-wing media. However none of the statements of facts in these editorials can be substantiated by reliable sources. BLP policy states that these sources cannot be used for facts, only opinions. As a result, the article has a "Controversy" section where the editorials are quoted. My view is if the facts cannot be reliably sourced, then commentaries on them should not be used as a backdoor to include them. Of course that would mean removing the criticism section. I have not come across a similar situation before and would welcome any comments on this. TFD (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah again so soon, I was watching and thinking the same thing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is the exact issue now? there is no criticism section? I am dismayed to see this addition of the material that was brought here recently and consensus was clearly against inclusion and User:Drsmoo simply replaced it? It was again removed but what is the point in discussing just to have someone replace it? Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, besides Drsmoo putting back info largely agreed to be against BLP, the issue is whether the subsection currently containing only opinion pieces saying he's antisemitic should be name "Allegations of antisemitism" or just "Criticism." There is one academic source mentioned in lead and an editor asserts there are other academic sources he hasn't put in the section. Obviously having them there would make the "allegations" section title more defendable. Also, I wouldn't say there are countless editorials, but there have been several negative opinion pieces (most of which are mentioned in the article); a number of NPOV ones about his politics, also mostly mentioned in the article. (And many about his musicianship.)

However, TFD's proposal they be removed entirely certainly has its merits too, especially considering that...

The bigger problem is the constant WP:SOAPBOX from a couple editors about what a big antsemite Atzmon allegedly is, using the same and other out of context quotes as his critics. While even some of Atzmon's in context things are pretty outrageous, he over all does write to provoke and for effect, as a WP:RS has quoted him as saying, as opposed to be an ideological antisemite. But people constantly soapboxing that he is the latter only make for a very negative editing environment, since NPOV editors will have to worry about being tarred with guilt by association. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I retitled the section to, Partisan commentary - as it is all a matter of opinion, one side thinks it is criticism and the other side thinks it is correct, all of it totally POV, it is also not to be described as anti semitic, imo this person doesn't clearly fit into that category at all. Perhaps a few users should ask themselves this question..If I strongly dislike this living person, should I be editing his wikipedia BLP Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

An IP from Metropolitan College Of New York, seems to be a bit opinionated and mentioning Nazis? Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Partisan commentary" is even more POV than "Allegations of antisemitism and responses." I have changed it to "controversy" -- one nobody particularly loves, but which isn't blatantly POV either.

I think anyone visiting the talk page will see that the WP:SOAPBOX is not limited to "a couple editors" nor to one side of the Atzmon/antisemitism controversy. It is simply wrong however to claim that there are no WP:RS who call Atzmon an antisemite; see eg the Hirsh citation from Yale. I am ambivalent about the use of the heading "allegations of antisemitism and responses"; the only real justification is that subsuming it into the larger section "politics" would entail the POV implication that antisemitism is merely a form of politics rather than racism, which is a category error and does not do justice to the antisemitism controversy.

And Off2riorob's suggestion has of course a flipside, which is that if you are consumed by such blind adulation for a subject that you're willing to sweep genuine controversy under the rug for the sake of not ruining the hagiography, then you may also want to ask whether you should be trying to polish this particular apple. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:RTLamp who is actually a single purpose account as regards this living person, has changed the header to controversies, suggesting my neutral header is strongly POV, whereas I am a complete uninvolved neutral, can the editors that strongly dislike this living person please take a step back, perhaps go and edit the BLP of someone you do like and allow a little NPOV editing? Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Having a controversy section is poor style. The correct way to treat controversy is to place the criticism following statements of fact and followed by rebuttal. For example, "x distributed copies of an article by y. z criticized x for working with y, but x said he did this because...." Unfortunately we have no reliable sources for any of the "facts" which have drawn criticism. TFD (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

While I found nothing useful on google news, looking at scholar, I found http://www.yale.edu/yiisa/workingpaper/hirsh/David%20Hirsh%20YIISA%20Working%20Paper1.pdf The main Atzmon discussion in on page 100ff which is a reliable source though one who has himself been attacked by Atzmon.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a working paper, it hasn't been peer reviewed, and Hirsh and Atzmon have attacked each other in about equal measure from their respective views. Rd232 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was involved with this article a long time ago, and gave up on fighting for neutrality because the concerted efforts to try to present Atzmon as a sort of KKK redneck were too much for me. What particularly seemed impossible to keep in the article was clarity on an issue fundamental for understanding Atzmon's views, which was his argument that there is a strand in Jewish culture which is a "Jewish uniqueness" which easily becomes a kind of "Jewish supremacism". This arises both from some aspects or versions of Judaism and from major historical factors (Holocaust and Exile), but the result is an "us or them - and let's be frank, it's us because we're better than them" attitude in the more fundamentalist Zionism which Atzmon finds deeply objectionable and considers racist. Only in this context do Atzmon's statements like "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity" become clearer. My point is that Atzmon's view, whether you agree with it or not, is far more coherent than the bitty "seen through his critics" presentation the Misplaced Pages article always seems to return to. The difficulty is that he doesn't coherently express that view, preferring to express parts of it in an often deliberately confrontational way, which makes it very easy for his opponents. Rd232 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a single article by Atzmon in which he describes "Jewish Supremacy" as a "strand in Jewish culture"? Because in every article he paints it as widespread and fundamental. There's nothing incoherent about his essays, they are always clear and to the point. Some people just refuse to believe he means what he writes (over and over again.) Honestly, if anyone wants to see what he actually writes just go to his website and read his essays http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ particularly the "Jewish Power", "Jewishness" and "Shoa/Holocaust" sections.

"Can you provide a single article by Atzmon ..." - this is from memory, and it was a long time ago that I was involved with the topic, so no. I do remember attempting to write a clear version of Atzmon's views, using his own words unfiltered through critics' eyes, and I seem to recall that you were one of the key players in preventing that text from remaining in the article. All manner of spurious wiklawyering was applied by various people, and the whole thing deteriorated into an endless argument that I gave up on. So excuse me for not engaging with you now - I have no wish to repeat that experience (and have no interest in Atzmon and a general principle of avoiding I/P issues on WP), and if in the interim you've developed a genuine interest in what Atzmon actually thinks it would be no harder for you than for me to go and dig out the text I wrote summarising his views. Rd232 10:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Can you provide a single article by Atzmon in which he describes "Jewish Supremacy" as a "strand in Jewish culture"? " What aboout this: "Chicken Soup- is what is left once you strip Jewish identity of Judaism, racism, chauvinism, White Phosphorous, supremacy, cluster bombs, secularity, Zionism, Israel, intolerance, Nuclear reactor in Dimona, cosmopolitanism, genocidal tendency, etc. "Lexicon of Resistance? Incidentally, is anyone else intrigued by the inclusion of "secularity" and "cosmopolitanism" in this list of supposedly unpleasant characteristics? RolandR (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition the section is covered with reliable sources, for example, The Times and The Guardian, two of the most notable papers in England. Here are the sources in the section: The Guardian, The Times, http://www.redress.cc/, Atzmon's personal website http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/, Counterpunch, The_Local, Gisborne_Herald http://tourdates.co.uk, The_Scotsman, and then four sources for his debate on antisemitism http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/, http://www.emiratestribune.com/, Atlantic Free Press, and The_Jewish_Chronicle

And with regards to "concerted efforts to try to present Atzmon as a sort of KKK redneck" Atzmon is frequently featured on David Duke's (the former grand wizard of the Klu Klux Klan) website.Drsmoo (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting responses Drsmoo (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see people commenting on the constant edit warring to put in info vs. BLP - first by one and now by two individuals who are defacto single purpose accounts. It's really more to protect Misplaced Pages's integrity than Atzmon's reputation I've been hanging in there for almost two years! And it has been disappointing to see how reluctant people have been to defend it in this BLP - at least til these last couple complaints here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Antisemitism" category from this article -- in no small measure because Atzmon rejects the notion that he is an anti-semite. It was quickly restored, and the talk page has a section (with links to earlier discussions) holding the claim that the category does not imply that he is an anti-semite. I think this is absurd -- particularly because the article itself is full of statements pointing to other people's accusations that he is an anti-semite. In any event, there is clearly no consensus for including this category, and to see it restored in the absence of such a consensus is unacceptable per WP:BLPDEL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue across several categories, as I discuss here. Category_talk:Antisemitism#Results_of_Homophobia_Discussion Racism, Homophobia, Antisemitism and Sexism. Probably others too. I think it needs a broader discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Uyghur people in Guantanamo

I raised a similar concern in March. I am concerned that another contributor continues to misunderstand when WP:BLP protects individuals.

In this particular instance User:Iqinn argues that BLP reqires the article on Abdul Razakah to say he was "wrongfully imprisoned", and that his "innocence", and that of his fellow Uyghur captives in Guantanamo had been established "early".

I told User:Iqinn I would always make the first diff I offer be a diff to their most recent comment. Here goes.

Earlier today, I made these edits. User:Iqinn largely reverted, claiming authority on various grounds, including WP:BLP.

"But our personal POV does not matter this is all verified WP:V in multiple secondary sources and that should be made very clear in the article that Abdul Razak was innocent and wrongly imprisoned we can no leave any doubt on that when writing the article as it would not only be amoral but also a violation of WP:BLP."

User:Iqinn asserts that Razakah's being "wrongful imprisoned" and early acceptance of his "innocence" are "established facts". But they aren't. What can be referenced is that these opinions appeared in WP:RS -- not the same as being an established fact.

Other contributors have already tried to explain to User:Iqinn that his insistence on characterizing some captives as having been "wrongfully imprisoned", "illegally imprisoned", or "unlawfully imprisoned", requires references, and that the opinion should be properly attributed to the WP:RS that made it. ,

I am sorry, but as I responded to User:Iqinn's defense of their position:

"Personally, I agree, that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I understand that personal opinions like that don't belong in article space. The wikipedia is not supposed to be used for advocacy. We shouldn't rewrite history to improperly imply the Uyghur's "innocence" has been an established fact."

I am concerned that BLP is being called for to justify editorial changes that lapse from compliance with WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda tool for those who want to cover up that the 22 Uighur in Guantanamo were wrongly imprisoned. It is an established fact that they were innocent and had never posed any thread to the US. They are innocent refugee who fled an oppressive China and were just at the wrong time at the wrong place. Tons of sources for that and week by week more coming up. Shame on the US for not letting them into their country and shame on you for spreading propaganda on Misplaced Pages. I am going to put this back into the article as these are all verified facts WP:V. Nobody should cut out verified information in favor of propaganda. We have WP:RS for all of this. It is all verified WP:V and i will put it back into the article. I warn you. Stop spreading war propaganda on Misplaced Pages by cutting out verified facts WP:V. IQinn (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (originally added at 22:46, 26 July 2010)

That as maybe; but, as I said in the article; unless we have a source that a) explicitly says they are innocent and b) says they were wrongfully imprisoned then it just cannot go in. Remember; verifiability, not truth.Please bear in mind that accusations of propaganda will not win you support for argument :) it's best to avoid bad rhetoric like that. Whatever you feel about these people (and, I assure you, I feel the same way) the fact is we must rely on sources rather than our own opinions and interpretation. This is very simple: find the right sources and your wording will be fine --Errant Tmorton166 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Despite four years' wrongful imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Bakr reserves most of his rage for Beijing." BBC News, 2007. "Although cleared of any wrongdoing four years later, they remained in detention until last year when Palau, a former US-administered territory in the Pacific, agreed to provide a temporary home." AP, July 2010. There you go. Fences&Windows 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what i said there are tons of WP:RS, innocent and wrongful imprisonment is verified WP:V. These are well established facts based on WP:RS. It would be irresponsible in terms of WP:BLP to not have this in the article. Thanks for your advise. IQinn (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The BBC quote, and the Sydney Morning Herald quote are excellent examples of WP:RS expressing the opinion that the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned. But I don't see these references, or the Boston Globe or CCR references already in the article support representing this opinion as an "established fact". I think User:Randy2063 made an excellent point here here. I am going to paraphrase him -- if, for the sake of argument, the habeas ruling does use the term "wrongfully imprisoned", should we imply the officers who commanded the camp prior to the habeas ruling were breaking the law? Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia should not be a propaganda tool for any side in this controversy.

I am trying to insist the article being written from a neutral point of view -- this should not be characterized as "spreading propaganda". That the Uyghurs were wrongfully imprisoned, or that they are innocent is not an "established fact" -- it is an opinion. When Sabin Willett describes the Uyghurs as innocent, that is notable. He is a prominent attorney, one of the two dozen or so most notable of the thousand or more who have worked on behalf of Guantanamo captives. Personally, I respect him. But that doesn't make his opinion an established fact. Properly, attributed articles on Willett's clients can say he asserts the DoD knew they were innocent way back in late 2002 or early 2003. But such opinions have to be properly attributed. They are not "established facts".

If the phrase "wrongfully imprisoned" was used by an WP:RS it can be used in the article, again, properly attributed and referenced. No one is suggesting this phrase be cut, if it can be substantiated. The first four contributors who weighed in at Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Terrorism/Guantanamo/"Extrajudicial detention" and-or "unlawfully detained" looked for a substantiating that any WP:RS used the similar phrase "unlawfully detained". Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You extent your propaganda onto the talk pages and noticeboards. These are established facts verified WP:V by tons of WP:RS. The Uighur's were nothing else than refugees who fled their oppressing government for the search of a better live. Innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. Tons of of WP:RS and you try to water down this fact. I repeat: This is a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS. That all reminds me to much on Mahmudiyah killings where you last year still claimed the victim was not a 14 year old child based on years old sources despite the fact that all sources for the last past three years gave her age at 14 years old without doubt. Despite that this was an established fact you continued to dispute this fact. You tried to hide this fact as you try to hide that the Uighur's in Guantanamo are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. a fact that is now already reflected for years in WP:RS. These are established verified facts based on WP:RS and to not make this absolutely clear in the articles is a violation of WP:BLP. I will add this to all Biographies of the 22 innocent Uyghurs who were formerly wrongfully detained. IQinn (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The position immediately above is inconsistent with earlier positions. Is the Uyghur's innocence an "established fact", as originally asserted? Or is it merely "a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS"? The two positions are quite different. Further, the initial wording you used was that the Uyghurs' innocence had been established "early". The view that is widespread now is not the view that was widespread early.

No one objects to quoting, summarizing or paraphrasing WP:RS that represent the Uyghurs as "innocent", provided you actually cite those WP:RS fairly, and attribute their opinions to the authoritative authors who expressed it -- and don't try to represent their "innocence" as an established fact, or an established fact that has been accepted for half a dozen years.

I first read about the Uyghurs between five of them being determined to have been "not enemy combatants" in March 2005 and the March 2006 publication of the CSR Tribunal transcripts. The first dozen or so times I read about the Uyghurs I read the comments of attorneys of captives whose clients' CSR Tribunals had determined them to be enemy combatants. Those lawyers wrote, (paraphrasing): "what is going on, my client was not alleged to have attended a training camp. My client was not alleged to have been in Tora Bora, or any other battlefield. Yet here are these five Uyghurs, who were alleged to have attended a militant training camp, and to have been on the Tora Bora battlefield, yet those five are going to be released, while my client has to stay. So the view that the Uyghurs were recognized as innocent, "early" is simply not tenable. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it does not matter how much you fillibuster i can only give you the same answer:

You extent your propaganda onto the talk pages and noticeboards. These are established facts verified WP:V by tons of WP:RS. The Uighur's were nothing else than refugees who fled their oppressing government for the search of a better live. Innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. Tons of of WP:RS and you try to water down this fact. I repeat: This is a wide spread view now reflected in tons of WP:RS. That all reminds me to much on Mahmudiyah killings where you last year still claimed the victim was not a 14 year old child based on years old sources despite the fact that all sources for the last past three years gave her age at 14 years old without doubt. Despite that this was an established fact you continued to dispute this fact. You tried to hide this fact as you try to hide that the Uighur's in Guantanamo are innocent and wrongly imprisoned. a fact that is now already reflected for years in WP:RS. These are established verified facts based on WP:RS and to not make this absolutely clear in the articles is a violation of WP:BLP.

IQinn (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am restoring the original subsection heading for this subsection. I had already left diffs that included the original subsection heading, and the retitling erodes the value of those diffs, without a good reason. When User:Iqinn changed the title the edit summary they offered was "change also the title to something neutral and helpful". The original section heading was more detailed, and more useful, and I do not believe there was a valid concern over its neutrality. Geo Swan (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am changing uncivil ad hominum title to a neutral content based title. IQinn (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As you know someone commenting from your wiki-id volunteered, earlier this year, that they were not a native speaker of English. I am sorry but I see your concern that the original sectin heading was uncivil, and "ad hominum", as a reflection of an imperfect command of English. Ib ny opinion, changing the section headings, like this, is disruptive. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As we know user Geo Swan has a long history of attacking people based on false informations. I do not have any problems of understanding English. Absolute ridiculous, uncivil and baseless. The title as well the post he started of this discussion is uncivil and ad hominum. Fact and visible for everybody. User Geo Swan has a long history of uncivil behavior and i ask him one more time to stop his disrupting Misplaced Pages. IQinn (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

<- I'm a bit confused. When BBC journalist Neil Arun writes "Despite four years' wrongful imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay" as posted above, he is not expressing an opinion. It's a news report by the BBC not an opinion piece by Neil Arun for the BBC. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Sorry, that this passage appeared on the BBC may be an established fact. But it is, nevertheless, an opinion. This opinion merits coverage, but properly attributed to its source. Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • You seem to be assigning the US military some undue veracity in their claims. And as "Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that Hatim's detention was illegal", how is that not "wrongful imprisonment". You seem to be twisting around to avoid stating the obvious, and I don't understand why. Geo Swan, do you have a COI in this matter? Fences&Windows 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't just wrongful imprisonment. It's saying they were held wrongfully for X number of years. That implies the military broke the law, which it did not do, or that they could have been released sooner.

Even now, no one is being held without a legal process in place to keep them there. The wording of these judges' decisions is being applied in ways I don't think the judges meant.

Prior to the judges' orders, the detainees are being held as the legal process plays itself out. The Supreme Court itself didn't allow habeas corpus right away. Can you say they were being held wrongfully then? Nope.

Afterward, the government is still able to appeal, which you probably know has been won at least once so far (although that will be again appealed further). Can you say they're being held wrongfully during the appeal? Nope.

Once the last appeal orders them released, they still need to be held until they can be sent somewhere. They don't have the right to walk around outside the gates of GTMO. They still don't have the right to be sent to the U.S. (We have thousands of otherwise innocent people being held in immigration detention right now.) In other words, each is being held for legal reasons.

What's "undue" about their claims? They lost their case. Good cases are lost all the time. It doesn't mean they didn't have one.

The standard of proof in these tribunals is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. With such a legal standard, it's not odd to find that the CSRT decided it was more likely than not, while a judge would find it's less likely, and then perhaps an appeals court judge might find it, again, more likely than not.

With the Uyghurs, they're not considered enemy combatants by the U.S. because their enemy is China, not the U.S. As Geo pointed out, they've got their detractors. I wouldn't say they were innocent sheepherders.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda, Propaganda... I wouldn't say they were innocent sheepherders. So, please speak up and show us your evidence! Please! The government failed to show credible evidence to the Judge and they do not try anymore. But please Randy you now have the evidence after eight years? What did they do other than to be refugees who tried to find a better life? Randy we are here at the BLP noticeboard and these are serious issues with serious implications for many people. So please show your evidence or i am sorry. Please shut up forever and keep your misguided personal view for you.

As i can see from your comments your understanding of habeas corpus has not increased since our last conversation. I urge you one more time to have a closer look at habeas corpus as this is a very special set of laws that is above all the things you mentioned. You are introducing a lot of misconceptions and i will try again to explain to you.

Wrongfully imprisoned implies the military broke the law? Is it implied? What's wrong when this is implied? Did they broke the law? What law? Anyway irrelevant at the moment as it does not change the fact that the Uighur's where wrongfully detained whatever moral or legal consequences that might have for other parties. You might look up some sources that discuss these questions. Did you see some?

The Uighurs won their habeas corpus and the judge ruled that they were wrongfully imprisoned. The government could not show credible evidence to the judge that would fulfill the anyway very low standard that is necessary to justify their detention. They had nothing and they were wrongfully imprisoned all the time. The government has made clear that it is not disputing that fact anymore. The continues legal disputes deal only with the question if they have the right to be brought to the US or how they can be released securely. Shame on the US that they reject these innocent refugee entry into their country after all the trouble they brought to them. Shame on them! There are actually some communities in the US they want to take them but politics politics .... how would it look like Huuuhh... There were innocent people in Guantanamo. How could they keep up with their lies.

Like it or not that's are the facts. Randy you have shown an extended pro government pro military POV in the years here at Misplaced Pages but i suggest you may give up on this one here. To spare us the time, damage of the reputation of Misplaced Pages and possible legal implications.

Sure you are entitled to your personal POV as i am but the facts are: (Verified WP:V in tons of WP:RS). The Uighurs are innocent refugee they were wrongfully imprisoned they had never posed any thread to the US. Sure you are entitled to your personal POV but as i said you might give up on this one here because you can not talk away the facts and sources WP:V in WP:RS and because of the serious BLP issues and possible consequences that this could have for Misplaced Pages and the Uighur's. IQinn (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They're not refugees. It's as I said:

The Los Angeles Times says, "many of the men said they saw themselves as allies of the U.S. against China. Several said they had traveled to Afghanistan for training to fight the Chinese."

There's more but I'm not looking for it this late at night. They're allegedly either members of, or associated with, the East Turkistan Islamic Movement.

You act as though habeas corpus is a no-brainer. In reality, it's never before been given to suspected enemy combatants outside the country in a time of war. It was only after a long series of court challenges that it was finally given to them, and even then the Court said it wasn't meant to be immediately applied.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda, Propaganda...They are innocent refugee. Your cherry picked out of context quote does not change this fact. Yes and there are tons of false allegations against these innocent men that could not be proofed. You have more evidence? Evidence the Judge did not look at? They are innocent refugee who fled an oppressive Chinese government with the longest list of human rights violation in the universe. These Uighur people are innocent and have never posed any thread to the US. They were wrongfully imprisoned and that is verified in tons of WP:RS. These are verified facts. Please stop, there is no way to cover this up. These are verified facts and to not make this absolute clear in the articles is a BLP violation.

Habeas corpus a no-brainer? What are you talking about? This is one of the oldest laws and it was withheld from the prisoner in Guantanamo for a long time and they had a long way to go and endure a lot to finally were given the opportunity to show that these allegations are false and that they are innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. IQinn (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "propaganda" shows you know that you don't have anything. It violates good faith. It is beyond that, considering this is a news source from the LA Times. They have rules for BLP similar to ours. You misunderstand more than habeas corpus. There is plenty of testimony that they were affiliated with Abdul Haq (ETIP). They'd likely be in the same boat as any alleged Al Qaeda member if the U.S. hadn't decided it didn't need to detain enemies of China.

If you say that I, or the U.S., need to present more evidence for the judge in this case then you completely misunderstand it. It is not like the other detainee cases. He was not ruling on their status, allegations of guilt or innocence. He ruled only on whether or not they could come to the U.S. It is not something that I, or the U.S., need to present more evidence to this judge. He already ruled in the U.S.'s favor.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No that is absolutely false

That's wrong. The judge ruled that their detention is unlawful. They are innocent the government could not provide sufficient evidence for their allegations. Full stop. Your statement is absolutely wrong The Uighur's won their habeas corpus their detention was ruled unlawful and the government nor you do have any evidence of any wrongdoing of these men. They are innocent as they said.

Propaganda, Propaganda... shows that you do not have anything than your repeated false accusations without be able to proof them. The government could not show that the have ever done anything wrong as well as you can't. False accusations. There is nothing they are innocent refugee they have done nothing.

No that violates not good faith. Ridiculous. I confirm that i fully believe that you do make these comments in good faith but they are misguided, wrong and harmful for Misplaced Pages and a BLP violation and i urge you one more time to stop good faith is no excuse.

You still show zero understanding about habeas corpus. Your statement about this so wrong that it is hard to even discuss it. It's just false. It is your misguided false personal opinion. Misplaced Pages is not the place for people who want to spread their personal believe, Misplaced Pages is not a forum.

Stop spreading your false believes Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX and you might start a blog or join a forum elsewhere. I am sorry but even people act in good faith their behavior might be disruptive at the same time. IQinn (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If that were true then why does the Los Angeles Times say that they lost their appeal? Are they printing propaganda, too?

I think you're talking about a different part of the case, but it's still the same concept. You need to separate the different issues. They were declared no-longer-enemy-combatants but they may still be held legally until a country (other than China) is found that will accept them. The three appeals court judges agree.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The propaganda is your continues misinterpretation. The part of the case your reference deals with is the question if they would have the right to be release in the US and the Bush/Obama administration and the Congress (both sides of the political spectrum) have worked their bud off to prevent this from happen and to make it illegal to bring these wrongful detained innocent men to the US. Anything possible have been done to deny these innocent men entry into the US and to keep these innocent men in a legal limbo and imprisoned in Guantanamo. But as i have told you a few times, the fact that five of them:

* Abdul Razakah

* Yusef Abbas

* Hajiakbar Abdulghupur

* Saidullah Khalik

* Ahmed Mohamed

have not been released after over eight years and that they do not got the right to be brought to the US, does not change the fact that they won their habeas corpus and that they are wrongful detained and that they are innocent. If you would understand just a little bit of habeas corpus than you would know that this is not legal and for sure immoral.

They are innocent they where wrongfully imprisoned and nobody disputes this fact. They won their habeas corpus their have never been any evidence of any wrongdoing they are innocent. Shame on the US for not immediately releasing them into the US. These are innocent men. Shame on president Obama. Shame on the congress and all the one in the US who have worked hard in any possible way to deny these innocent men entry into the US after all the trouble and destruction to their lives that eight years of wrongful detention caused. Shame on you.

As said before Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX and i must say i find your comments a bit disruptive. IQinn (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is you who's been making Misplaced Pages your soap box.

You said those men were "innocent". Their innocence was never decided. Saying there they are more likely to be innocent than guilty does not make them innocent.

As in the case of the Uyghurs who were not declared no-longer-enemy-combatants, if they've won their habeas corpus then that means they can go home. Their homes are not in the U.S. Keeping them at GTMO rather than sending them to China does not mean they are being wrongfully held today.

The fact that you don't like the U.S. choosing not to allow people in who might be innocent does not make it wrong.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is so wrong again. As said before Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX for those who want to spread their false believes and propaganda. There are still people who deny the holocaust and we could listen month to their misguided views. This throwing of mud against these innocent men has been going on for too long. An administrator may tell User Randy2063 to stop to spread his misguided false believes. He might find a forum or blog elsewhere where he can do so. We never know how old people are and what they do in live and we are kind but he is now obviously disrupting our work here and he is damaging the reputation of Misplaced Pages and the reputation of these innocent men and it looks like he won't stop to spread his misguided ideology. His behavior is disruptive and he has been warned.

Let me put it here 22 times for each of these men you have thrown mud on:

innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent. innocent.

Their won their habeas corpus. The judge decided that their are no evidence of any wrongdoing and they are wrongful detained. The government does not anymore claim that they did anything wrong. No evidence what's however. Innocent refugee.

They are innocent They have done nothing wrong and i ask you one more time to stop throwing mud at these innocent men. IQinn (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

22 times and not one reference?

I can find plenty of people who use the word "innocent" about these detainees. Mostly their lawyers, activists, and a handful of politicians. Not one is a judge ruling on their case.

The habeas rulings that I have seen say their habeas corpus is granted. I have not seen one declare they were innocent. There is a difference.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Throwing mud again. They won their habeas corpus and the Judge ruled that their are no evidence for any wrongdoing.

People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Right? Not for Uighur's? Not even the government tries to prove that they have done anything wrong. They have never done anything wrong they are innocent refugee. Verified in tons of WP:RS

Sure we will always have people like you who will throw mud at other people. There are still people who deny the holocaust Disgusting. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX where people can throw mud on other people and violate their BLP rights and damage the good reputation of WP. Get out of here! Get this guy blocked. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. IQinn (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a judge's ruling. People are presumed innocent at trial, but the verdict is delivered as "not guilty" rather than "innocent."

But I can understand that some people like to use the word "innocence" more loosely. I am much more concerned with your presumption of guilt on the part of the U.S. government. Since the court changed its mind and allowed detainees to pursue habeas corpus, it's a fishy to say they were held illegally for X years. And even if you want to declare them innocent, it's still completely wrong to claim that it's illegal to hold them in GTMO when they're free to go to China.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Throwing mud again. People are innocent until proven guilty and the Uighur's are innocent. Your definition is ridiculous.

They are innocent. because they have never done anything wrong. Sure yeah... i did expect nothing else from people like you unable to accept that mistakes have been made. These people are innocent and it is unlawful to hold them and it is immoral not to let them come to the US.

Your continues mud throwing has become disruptive and your understanding of habeas corpus is still zero. There is nothing fishy to say they where unlawful detained as their won their habeas corpus as the government had never sufficient evidence to lawfully hold these men.

Sure we will always have people like who enjoy throwing mud at these people. But Misplaced Pages is not the place for this. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX where people can throw mud on other people and violate their BLP rights and damage the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Get out of here! Get this guy blocked. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's factually wrong. A judge ruled that it is legal to hold them until we find a safe place to send them. That you think it's immoral to not offer them a place in the U.S. is only your personal opinion.

It is your understanding of habeas corpus that is incomplete.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies

This article is a BLP nightmare, thus far i have removed, blog posts, twitter sources, SPS sources. Any chance of some extra eyes on this? mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone give an opinion on these sources as use in a blp please commondreams.org source and truthorfiction.com both are used here mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither one are reliable sources for controversial criticism in a BLP. I agree with you that the article is a BLP mess. I think the best solution would be to pare it down to legitimate controversies that appear in reliable sources.--Jarhed (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao

A tricky one, this. If one follows the edit history, one sees that this has been all over the map. The article as it stands now is actually poorer than it has been in the past, but even at its best it's not been very good. I'd stub it, except that I've tripped over a little problem with sources. The best source that I can find is a profile in the Hindustan Times. Unfortunately, it's a fairly light paraphrase of our article from the day before. It was around the time of that profile that this person came to particular prominence in the news (and, as you can see, a torrent of edits suddenly began to rain down on the article) as he went on a hunger strike. There's little source material from before that, that isn't more than dribbles of information. (The few sources actually cited in the earlier versions of the article are, as is so often the case for badly written articles, bare URLs that have rotted away.) This article needs attention. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've fiddled with it a bit... apart from being an incumbent MP his only other notability seems to be the hunger strike --Errant Tmorton166 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I have done some work on the article, but there is a problem with an editor who has promised to keep adding a rather garbled paragraph (see these three edits). I removed it once in a major edit, then removed it when it was re-added, but it is back again. I have explained some background at Talk:Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao#Sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It was the actions of that editor that brought the article to my attention in the first place. That's not even the worst BLP problem in the history of the article. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for picking up the ball, here. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Happily that editor had a reasonable source and seems happy with the addition I proposed & Johnuniq improved. I love it when a plan comes together :) --Errant Tmorton166 19:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Heilman

• Samuel Heilman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - After noting that some controversy has arisen about Samuel Heilman's recent book The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, I checked his wikipedia page to find out more about the author. I was surprised to find that, for an author/professor who is well-known and generally respected in his field, judging by his awards as well as his being often quoted in the media, his wikipedia page seemed to be very heavy on criticism. Upon close examination I learned that the criticism on his page falls into three categories:

1. An indicent in the mid-90s which did paint Prof. Heilman in a bad light but concluded in a relatively mild fashion 2. Criticisms of his books by a small number of individuals in the communities about which he has written 3. Criticism that is either uncited or relies on self-published sources or those that are not reliable secondary sources.

As a result, I made changes to reflect the general balance of praise and criticism of Heilman, removed many of the unreliable sources, and added some extra content. This change has been edited by the same user several times, calling my edits a 'love-in' or 'vandalism'.

It is important to cite the specific violations I found in this article, as documented in the Biographies of Living Persons guidelines. These are sections of the guidelines which I found were violated in the page as I first encountered it:

1. Tone BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections.

2. Criticism and praise Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, as long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

3. Sources -- Challenged or likely to be challenged Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

4. Sources -- Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. // Cnvb (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cnvb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - brief explanation // Cnvb (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some minor problems. Have removed the critical blogs per RS/BLP. That seems to be the worst of it. The edit history is interesting, there's a couple of SPAs. Misarxist (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What are SPAs? /Cnvb (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lemrick Nelson

Lemrick Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newly created bio. There was a question as to the notability of this person and if it should be redirected into the main article about the Crown Heights riot. I also removed ssome material that was being duplicated for some reason. More eyes would appreciated since I will not revert it again. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I have removed the external links as they were just press reports, citations useful to support additional content, not external links. I don't like that article at all actually and I don't think we should create BLP article about such people when we already have a main article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can other folks please chime in here. I just reverted back the article to remove ethnicity from the lead per mosbio. I also changed murder to killing, which I am less sure about. I will not revert again since the editor who is reverting me has been engaging in personal attacks against me and I don't want to get into further. Thanks,--Tom (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Philip E. Johnson

User:Keepcalmandcarryon is misrepresenting what is in sources and abusing this BLP. A consensus seemed to be reached much of the text, but he's now gone back and added all sorts of misrepresentations of what's in the cites, added scare quotes to established terms like Darwinism, and used opinion pieces as cites. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific about how you believe he is "abusing" this biography? Darwinism is, in fact, a deprecated term (e.g. ). There is no categorical bar against opinion pieces as citations in BLPs, although of course they need to be used judiciously. Can you elaborate on your concern? MastCell  17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited do not support the assertions that Johnson is "A member of a prominent AIDS denialist group, Johnson has written that HIV does not cause AIDS," or that he has stated that "HIV tests do not detect HIV". And opinion pieces by advocacy groups are certainly not appropriate to establish such controversial assertions. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• - notified User Keepcalmandcarryon. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources in the article, Johnson has written five pieces questioning HIV/AIDS science; he has given interviews in which he questions HIV/AIDS science, suggesting that AIDS statistics are exaggerated; he was one of the twelve founding members of "RA", or the "Society for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis; his views are succinctly expressed in RA's letter to the journal Science, asserting that the HIV does not cause AIDS but instead is merely "tautologically correlated" with it; additionally, three secondary sources in the article, two of which are cited in the lead, associate Johnson with AIDS denialism. The opinion piece is used only as a direct source for Johnson's statements, an acceptable use of primary sources in BLPs.

As for Darwinism and materialism, these are terms Johnson uses in a pejorative manner to support his assertion that scientists adhere to religion themselves, an (in his view) empty, hollow and contradictory religion of atheism/Darwinism/materialism. Thus, his usage of these terms differs decidedly from the words' accepted meanings. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Johnson expressed these views about HIV/AIDS in the 1990s (e.g. , or see Impure Science by Steven Epstein). He seems not to have said much publicly about HIV/AIDS since the mid-1990s, so perhaps that should be made clear in the article? MastCell  18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon's distortions are not acceptable and if he continues to misrespresent what's in sources and to try to pass off opinion pieces as sources he must be barred from this subject and other related subjects where he refusees to abide policy.

Certainly Johnson questioned the connection between HIV and AIDS (as was noted in the article) during the 1990s. The accurately sourced content should be restored along with clarification on when this was (and I have no objection to noting that he was a party to the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis). What we cannot allow is any further dishonest misrepresentations to slander the man or his beliefs, and Kappcalmandcarryon should be barred from furhter distortion of what good faith editors have developed so far:

Johnson has been associated with AIDS denialism, the idea that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, called for further study of HIV as the cause of AIDS, and has claimed that the reported morbidity and epidemiology of the AIDS disease are both exaggerated or incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand. There is no dispute that Johnson has questioned HIV/AIDS or is/was a founding member of the most influential AIDS denialist group. Additionally, Johnson's contributions to the AIDS denialist movement are mentioned in (now) four secondary sources cited in the article. How, exactly, does citing these sources constitute slander? It would appear that, rather than summing up Johnson's statements, you would like to present his arguments against HIV as the cause of AIDS. I object, and I suspect others would, too. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot

An editor is edit-warring trying to add a few paragraphs of suspected synthesis. I have replied on the article talkpage here but I copy the segment which best highlights my concerns:

I have marked the segments where synthesis is suspected in the contested paragraphs:

After Stephany's body was identified by her brother at the morgue, Stephany's father said in Spanish and English language media interviews such as interviews with the Associated Press and CNN/HLN network Nancy Grace program, that DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot.

If there is no reliable source to provide the answer to the tags we have a synthesis problem. I think the above paragraph is synthesised by the editor involved and not by a reliable source. However if there is a single reliable source stating the complete paragraph as written above I would, of course, not object to its inclusion. Same goes for the second paragraph:

But in interviews in the following days Mr. Flores said that Stephany's body would be exhumed to gather the fingernail DNA evidence, and that her body had not been cremated for this reason.

The same goes for the conclusion:

It was not clear why the evidence was not gathered prior to burial.

Any advice/help would be appreciated. Dr.K.  18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected (which is a good idea) this is about a ongoing trial and as such we need to use the highest quality citations and take care not to add OR, and if opinionated comments are added, care should be taken to attribute them correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. BTW, I asked for the protection. Thank you very much Rob. Take care. Dr.K.  18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg

(See also Philip E. Johnson above) POV pushing editors have distorted the chronology of his career and scrubbed accurate descriptions and clarification of what his views were as far as questioning the HIV-AIDS connection. They've also removed citation needed tags of dubious content and are downplaying his career achievments so the article focuses solely on controversial aspects which they've put in the worst possible light. This kind of dishonesty and vandalism is despicable. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would first encourage you to consider our civility guidelines. Beyond that, what is Peter Duesberg known for? A basic search of news articles shows that all or nearly all articles on Duesberg during the past 25 years concentrate on his AIDS denialist theories or their political and social ramifications. Duesberg's work on influenza is mentioned in the article. His cancer virus work, likewise. We also discuss his version of the aneuploidy theory of cancer. None of these, however, is what Duesberg is best known for, and the article should not be rearranged or rewritten to suggest otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't write articles based on your OR. Either provide a source or remove the disputed content. Furhtermore, you vandalized the article to completely distort the chronology of his career. You seem to be on some sort of campaign, but this is an encyclopedia, not your personal soap box. Please abide by our editorial policies and respect that this is an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't indicated what, precisely, you dispute, other than the accepted, consensus use of the term "denialism". As such, it's not clear why you are posting to this board. If you feel I have vandalised an article, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:AIV. If you feel I am damaging Misplaced Pages through a personal campaign of POV-prompted original research, file a complaint at WP:ANI. I would be making these suggestions at your talk page, but you've asked me not to comment there. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As with the above thread on Philip E. Johnson, it is unclear exactly what this complaint is about. Can we tone down the bluster and have some specifics that can be addressed? What is the "disputed content"? What needs to be sourced that isn't already sourced? MastCell  20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely clear what I am complaining about which is why you fixed up the lead which was completely out of order and distorted. I have done the same in the body and I hope you will make sure it stays consistent with our editing policies and isn't distorted by POV pushers seeking to disparage subjects they disagree with. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't clear at all, because you express yourself with aggressive bluster rather than coherent specifics. I made my best guess. I'm glad you agree with it, but you need to work on expressing yourself coherently and less combatively. MastCell  21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which part of editors have "distorted the chronology of his career and scrubbed accurate descriptions and clarification of what his views were as far as questioning the HIV-AIDS connection. They've also removed citation needed tags of dubious content and are downplaying his career achievments so the article focuses solely on controversial aspects which they've put in the worst possible light." you're confused on? Freakshownerd (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet another vandalistic edit where keepcalmandcarryon completely reorders the man's career, misrepresents what is (and isn't) in sources, and reverts uncontroversial grammatical improvements wholesale. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please use appropriate language. WP:VAND is very clear: you must not label edits like the one you cited as "vandalism" because it is obviously not. You might argue that the edit has removed verified information, or that it has added unverified information, or that it contains a BLP problem (be specific), or some other policy-based problem (I am not commenting on the edit, only on how it might be described by someone who opposed the edit). Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did I cite wp:vand. The definition of vandlalism is quite clear, as is the pattern of that editors damaging and distorting edits. They need to be stopped and the misrepresentations fixed, as this type of edit serves to slander article subjects bey dishonestly denigrating their views, writings, work, and careers. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I cited WP:VAND to demonstrate that your "vandalistic edit" text conflicts with requirements on Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lydia Schatz List of deaths by corporal punishment

Hi, just to let you know we have remove a bit from the List of deaths by corporal punishment page, which is below - we have some good pals who love the wikipedia and all thought was unacceptable! Take a look at the talk for the major reasoning, but basically we looked up the policy page and reckon this isn't really on with the policy that's there. Hope you're all well, Artie and Wanda (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Lydia Schatz, a 7 year old from Paradise, California, was beaten to death, allegedly by her adoptive parents on 6 February 2010. According to Mike Ramsey, the District Attorney of Butte County, California, "for several hours the 7-year-old was held down by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of her body which caused massive tissue damage". The District Attorney maintains the girl was being disciplined, in accordance with the parent's religious beliefs, for mispronouncing a word during a home-school reading lesson. The previous day the couple is alleged to have also similarly disciplined their 11 year old adoptive daughter who had to be hospitalized and put on dialysis in an effort to save her kidneys. A third child, their biological son, was also beaten but received less extensive injuries.

Restored, seems well sourced. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed, since the article's title implies guilt, and wikipedia is not a judge or a jury. Crum375 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong: there is no dispute that the death was due to corporal punishment, only about who did it. This belongs here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BeCritical, could you please provide a reliable source that specifically says this person died due to CP? Otherwise this looks like original research/opinion. Just because you believe this to be the case doesn't make it so, we need a RS that says CP. --Tom (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are a bit vague; cause of death wasn't even established at the time of those articles (there may be new info now). There is lots of alleged etc. Better to wait till the trial? --Errant Tmorton166 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"DA Michael Ramsey explained the autopsy on Lydia Schatz showed she died from “blunt force trauma” and that they pathologist reported “multiple whip-like striations between the child’s lower back and knees.” The autopsy shows there was a rapid breakdown of muscle tissue which leads to damage to the kidneys and other organs. " Apparently it would take more research than I'm willing to do to get RS on this, because and want money. If you read a bit about it, the case is completely obvious but you are right that we should wait on the technicality, or sources . BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.tulipgirl.com/?s=lydia+schatz

• - http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14706455

• - http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_14707093

• - http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14371777

if these are the citations User:Becritical is presenting to support his additions then imo none of them are quality citations in any way? Content supported by such citations is not even worthy of a wikipedia talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sources for sure, although the whole article is pretty questionable. Surely there is a difference between "corporal punishment" and "child abuse". A list of deaths from official CP like in schools, the military etc, may make some sense.. but this Lydia Schatz case just sounds like child abuse and shouldnt be listed at all in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are not RS. As I said. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what are you posting them here for as such they have nothing to do with any improvement to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be a regular I'll explain that, while the sources were not sufficient for the article, they were sufficient for explaining my position on this page. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your position, I have no idea what that is but I am not interested in it whatever it is either and I am not interested in your rubbish citations, please don't post such like on the BLPN again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil, it's not nice to give other editors orders. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well don't come to the BLPN explaining your POV with multiple citations that are not wikipedia reliable then. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical is right, Off2riorob. Do please remember to stay civil in discussions. Incivility does not further your point, nor does it provide a good atmosphere for editing. Remember to assume good faith. GorillaWarfare 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Did someone ask you to come comment here or were you just passing? Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical posted a Wikiquette alert here asking for help with the situation. GorillaWarfare 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there sources which specifically say that the child died from "Corporal punishment". I think having this case mixed in with examples of people who have died from corporal punishment inflicted by schools, prisons or the military is unhelpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, when someone dies as "punishment", we tend to call that "capital punishment". When a child dies when being beaten by his or her parents or guardians, we tend to call that "death by abuse", regardless of what the alleged provocation for such. Unless there's a good RS that calls the death a result of corporal punishment, addition into the list is SYNTH POVism and unacceptable. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just cleaned this out and left a BLP edit summary, but I'm headed for bed and I see at least two other BLP issues, of Indian teachers named as causing the deaths of their students, and neither reports a conviction in either case. Someone else want to clean them out and delete the revisions that include the teachers' names? Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the two section entirely and put them on the talk page - the first one does not actually seem to idicate a conviction at all and the second one states one has not yet happened. Hope this is all ok! Artie and Wanda (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate entry

John_F._Harris_(Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Upon reading the opening sentence of the Harris Biography I find that there is an undocumented inaccurate entry which borders on libel. The biographic entry that suggests that Harris is "...thought to have been in coordination with Blagojevich regarding many of the Illinois Governor's scandalous activities..." is completely unsupported by a factual citation. Moreover, that suggestion is inconsistent with the facts as they have been subsequently adduced at trial in the Blagojevich case. Review of the complaint that served as the basis of Harris' arrest, as well as the Governor's, demonstrates that Harris was only accused in connection with two acts. He was accused of conspiring with the Governor to extort the Chicago Tribune Corporation by threatening to withhold favorable state action of financial assistance with respect to sale of the Chicago Cubs in return for the discharge of a Chicago Tribune editor who had written editorials which criticized the Governor. Harris was also charged with a conspiracy with the Governor and others to personally benefit the Governor through appointment to the senate seat vacated by Barrack Obama. With respect to the charges concerning the Tribune, those charges were dropped by the U.S. Attorney when it was learned that Harris refused to relay the Governor's extortionate demands. With regard to the allegations concerning the senate seat, Harris entered into an agreement with the government, plead guilty to that charge and provided testimony in connection with the Blagojevich trial. With respect to the issues of improper campaign contributions or lying to the FBI, that have been the basis for charges against the Governor, there has been no accusation or evidence of involvement by Harris. Moreover, the evidence adduced at trail demonstrates that Harris received no money or improper personal benefit in connection with his exercise of his government duties. To suggest that Harris was "thought" to be involved in the "range of scandalous activity" alleged against the Governor is inconsistent with established facts. I respectfully request that this sentence be removed from the biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercomputer1784 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the ] article? I will take a look. --Errant Tmorton166 10:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok a removed the POV wording and made the leade more neutral. Normally I would remove all reference to charges because he does not appear to have been convicted at this point; except that the indictment has it's own article (in which he is mentioned). With that in mind I left it - but if someone disagree's I have no issues with that. --Errant Tmorton166 10:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The case is in its final stages at the moment so such an opinionated comment in the lede like that was a bit much, an update will be in order after the case closes. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blagojevich/ct-met-blagojevich-closing-arguments-20100727,0,5270302.story - Off2riorob (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, that makes me happier about it :) --Errant Tmorton166 10:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon Nuttall

The issues with the article have been fixed and the article added to Pending Changes, but the user who wrote most of the BLP-violating content (who seems to be preoccupied with the subject - 344 of his 859 article space edits, 13 of 28 talk page edits starting from his first week on Misplaced Pages in May 2007) is now making quite a scene on the talk page. I'd appreciate if admins could take a look. There may be a valid claim by the user that there are problems with the Jayant Patel article (controversial surgeon in Australia accused of negligently killing patients) but I am literally just about to head AFK for five days due to offline commitments and have no time to look. Orderinchaos 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I watch listed both articles, might have time later to have a good look. --Errant Tmorton166 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for that. Orderinchaos 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends

Need additional opinions on the introduction of material alleging that founder of this church has sexually abused members. Two of the news citations point to an archive site that charges for article copies. The third citation is from the LA Times archives; the abstract is available online, but the entire article is pay-only. I'm personally leaning toward excluding the material, but wanted to solicit additional input, as the editor who introduced the material is adamant about it's inclusion and the strength/validity of the sourcing. OhNoitsJamie 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs editing because it uses quotes without quotation marks. I don't think Misplaced Pages can exclude sources which must be paid for though. I remember it discusses just that somewhere in the policy pages, but I can't find it at the moment. If the paid sources are acceptable, do you have any problem with the material? Can someone point us to the right policy page? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V Access to sources see:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:V or WP:PAYWALL "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Misplaced Pages article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible."Wantthetruth? (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?

Additionally, All the material from major newspapers is verifiable within the articles sourced AND within the abstracts from that papers online archive, the abstracts do not require payment to access. It would seem unreasonable to assume that the papers' abstract would contradict it's own article.Wantthetruth? (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)wantthetruth?

• - If anything controversial or contentious is to be added to an article about a living person we should use the highest quality and easily accessible sources to support such content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to use the paywalled ProQuest link for the LA Times, they have the full text up on their own site. - MrOllie (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although that article itself is also very weak to add controversial content claims imo. It talks about a recent case and yet doesn't give any details and the allegations are excessive and imo for propagation through wikipedia such allegations about a living person would require exceptional citations, which that clearly is not, its actually quite vague and sensationalist. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Roche

Frank Roche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This not a known public figure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstarcrush (talk • contribs)

"known public figure" is not the inclusion criterion, notability is as described in the guidelines. A quick read suggests that this guy just meets those guidelines, but by all means WP:PROD or send to Afd if you think otherwise. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible vio reg Francis Xavier Clooney

Section in question: Talk:Kali's_Child#New_Book

I am seeking second opinion regardsing possible BLP vio of Francis Xavier Clooney. The edit in question is:

The way I perceive is it:

The way the editor who added it perceives it: , discussion thread

I think trying to link Francis Xavier Clooney--a Roman Catholic Priest and a religious scholar--with Catholic sex abuse cases when there is clearly no relation between the scholar and the cases--because he is a "blurbster"--is defamatory. Other editors are kindly requested to share their thoughts & take appropriate actions if necessary.

Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed, clearly inappropriate. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Brady (Illinois politician)

Bill Brady (Illinois politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been repeatedly reverted by Bradyforillinois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others to include campaign propaganda and remove facts on the candidate. Current sections include "Taking on the Family Business" and "The Brady Record: Clean Break, Common Ground" which put forth bias information on the candidate. The original article included campaign platforms and personal history. Presently, the article is involved in an edit war that is unproductive.

• • • UPDATE 5 - 2:07 pm *** Someone added references to campaign supporter/backer/person for accuracy’s sake. That person (bclaire54 of http://bclaire54.wordpress.com) may be Brady’s niece.

User:BradyforIllinois reported to WP:UAA as a user name violation. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, that article is poor, and has suffered from subtle and not-so-subtle POV-pushing by people politically opposed to the subject. The article's odd section ordering, where all of the information on the highly controversial political stances taken by this politician are mentioned first in the article ahead of everything else, has been questioned on the talk page. And I've spotted one source already that has been abused and editorialized upon in order to cast negative aspersions. Both sets of POV-pushing are unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Percy Gibson

Does this person deserve an article? He seems to be of no significance other than his marriage. Trudyjh (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He's the fifth husband of Joan Collins. Could redirect there perhaps. Rd232 08:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Fences&Windows 23:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anurag Dikshit

Anurag Dikshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a single pupose IP address and new user is repeatedly removing references (and external links) from this article, and completely removing a section on a guilty plea the subject entered (which is about 40% of his notability) while adding a bunch of off-topic stuff. This is the most recent stable version.

• Joproffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new single purpose account
• JamesmaharrisonPRO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - second/sockpuppet account
• 62.49.31.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - IP address of same user

Tolkien family

The article has been protected for two weeks because of an edit war over BLP data of Royd Tolkien (whose name was changed to "Baker" in the article by an IP in 2009) and a certain Christopher Carrie. The issue is about the mentioning of a court case Christopher Carrie vs Royd Tolkien which Carrie lost . A look at the edit history of the article shows several edits by and IP calling a link to www.poynter.org inaccurate and then another IP adding a lifetime (1946-2010) to the name Christopher Carrie. In April 2010, User:Ddgrant and User:Solicitr had a discussion on the article talk page about allegedly untrue statements about an earlier criminal history of Carrie. Recently now a User:Christopher Carrie has turned up and engaged in removing any reference to that name from the article, calling the sources given "bogus" and threatening R. Tolkien to be sued again if his helpers would edit the article again: .

Apart from that court case which was called a precedent in the article and has made it to certain law blogs and law news websites, Royd being the great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, and a cameo appearance in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, the section did not say anything about Royd Tolkien's notability and importance as of this edit. That is maybe why User:EdJohnston proposed to omit the entire section. It turns out though that he is in the film producing business, e.g. Pimp (film) and another 2010 movie "Tontine Massacre", and also plays a role in Pimp . He also has his own literary agency.

For the record, I have reverted two of User:Christopher Carrie's deletions because his arguments seemed to be biased and I would even regard him as an SPA. It has also been speculated at AN3 that he is a sock of Ddgrant. I have moreover notified Solicitr but all in all I had no idea of this recent edit war until 2 days ago. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that I'm with EdJohnston. Your edit here was well-intentioned, but based upon a superficial analysis that a SPA was edit-warring, and wrong. Much as it displeases me, I find myself in agreement over article content with a edit-warring sock-puppetting (more on which later) legal-threatening single-purpose account.

  I agree absolutely with this limited removal of content. The accusation of blackmail is poorly sourced, and the identification of the person is an unacceptable inference being made by Misplaced Pages editors firsthand, based upon nothing but the existence of a name in a listing. Our content policies prohibit both. They also prohibit the subtle threats that you observed. I agree with this more extensive removal of content in that this is not discussed in sources as anything to do with either parties to the action, but as a source of subtle change in English libel law. If anything, discussion of this lawsuit belongs in its proper context in articles on English defamation law. It is not biographical to either party. But it is a point of English law that has been discussed by Lilian Edwards, a professor of Law, as such. I have no disagreement (and indeed no opinion) over that section up to the point of the word "Osgiliath", although I strongly suggest that sources be found to support all of it before any effort is made to restore it.

  As to sockpuppetry, even if it weren't explicitly stated in the court decision that M. Carrie logs in under pseudonyms and assumes personae, it's fairly clear that there's sockpuppetry here. I hold Ddgrant (talk · contribs) and Ddgrant2010 (talk · contribs) to be sockpuppets on their face, and have revoked the latter account's editing privileges. (One account only in a dispute, people!) Given that it is reliably sourcable that M. Carrie lives/lived in Solihull, it's also fairly clear to me, from behavioural and geolocation evidence, that 81.86.100.254 (talk · contribs), 86.129.65.231 (talk · contribs), 82.46.191.221 (talk · contribs), and Christopher Carrie (talk · contribs) are all one single person. There's no overlap in edit times, the IP addresses are all parts of dynamically-assigned blocks for ISPs, and since it is plausible that this person will use the named account only from now on, I have taken no action there, although any further progress down the road of threatening legal action, or use of multiple accounts and IP addresses in the future, will of course lead to revocation of editing privileges by me or another administrator. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I agree with you that the lawsuit does not belong into a biographical overview, it may be added to English defamation law though. So I suggest the following for the article "Tolkien family":

1. We restore the name "Royd Tolkien" per the court record, IMDB and his official website. But let's mention "Baker" too, as his (unsourced) entry at Tolkien Gateway explains how he usually uses his mother's surname instead of his birth bame Baker .
2. Restoration of the section until "Osgiliath"; the appearance in the film is sourced by IMDB.
3. We add Royd Tolkien's other business activities, such as acting in and producing films plus being a literary agent. The combination of all this asserts notability — if not for a standalone article at least for this section.

De728631 (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with De728631 - I think this is an efficient solution. Furthermore I think further discussion re the notability of the court ruling is one for others - perhaps for the English defamation law and related talk pages? isfutile:P (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment copied here from the article's talk page:

The issue appears to be one of Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else.) A search on google and cached pages revealed his website http://www.jtolkien.com has recently been taken down. The information contained in section in question of the WP Tolkien Family entry appears to be properly sourced and verifiably sourced. Whether all of this meets WP notability standards is another question - however this point could be applied (and has been in the past judging by this talk page) to much of the Tolkien Family article. However, the court ruling in 2009 does meet notability criteria on google hits alone and does appear to be a notable precedent in internet/blogging and defamation law in the UK. isfutile:P (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

De728631 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you (and of course anyone else interested) work up some properly sourced and neutral text for that section on the article's talk page. Leave out the court case entirely and concentrate on the stuff that, apparently, has been swept along for the ride. EdJohnston, I, or another administrator will happily put it into the article. But while we're dealing with this issue, let's set the bar high, and ensure that the content that we put in is up to Misplaced Pages standards. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Novice User: Christopher CarrieFirst I did not lose the case, the case was never tried it was struck out, however the case is certainly worthy of mention and I have no objection – I do object to the text which states Christopher Carrie attempted to extort money from the Tolkien Family and Christopher Carrie tried to blackmail Fr John Tolkien both those statements are untrue an invention of Manches LLP the Tolkien family solicitors and broadcast by Royd Tolkien – The sources said to substantiate those libels ie the Sun Newspaper and something called Anonova do not support the claim – there is no police record of such activity and surely if it was true the police would be the first port of call for any Tolkien.I am not good at using the Internet therefore Royd Baker runs rings around me in bullying and slandering, his purpose is to deflect attention from victims of his distant relative Fr John Tolkien - Fr Tolkien was arrested by the West-Midlands police following multiple accusations of child molestation - The West-Midlands police forwarded his case to the Crown Prosecution Services - the case past the evidential stage but was not continued on the grounds of Fr Tolkien's failing health - As far as (Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else) Christopher Carrie stands on his own two feet and has no puppet affiliate - if Misplaced Pages are happy to print libelous comments made by a self seeking egotist such as Royd Baker go ahead and do so - the truth will out Royd Baker's comments supported by puppets are lies and the truth will be just that - for the purpose of clarity I will be posting the full dealings of the court hearing Carrie v Tolkien on MY website http://jtolkien.com for lawyers and anyone else interested to see how and why my libel case against Royd Tolkien was struck out. 17:16 1st August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Carrie (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Carrie More to the point; I did not lose the High Court Action HO: 08X00693 issued by me against Royd Tolkien. Best & Soames the defendants’ solicitors applied to have the case struck out on the basis it had no prospect of succeeding. Sir David Eady agreed with that premise given that law firm Ross & Craig who represented me up until three days before the hearing had listed the wrong domain address in the claim rendering the prospect of sucess void. Foolishly I pressed on unrepresented acting as litigant in person, a lamb to the slauter standing alone against a team of barristers and solicitors. Unsurprisingly the action was struck out on this technicality in favour of the defendant. Consent in this, my case, should not be considered to have set a precedent by any other finding themself in a similar position. Royd Baker should not be credited with winning this case, Ross & Craig my solicitors gifted strike out to the defendant.User talk:Christopher Carrie 2nd August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Carrie (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is not for us to decide on matters of opinion here. The task in hand is to produce an encyclopaedia article which meets notability guidelines and includes factual text backed by verifiable sources. Unsourced assertions are not relevant here - verifiable sources are needed to provide the basis of any new material. isfutile:P (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher CarrieThere is no matter of opinion to decide, it is an absolute fact my High Court action (Case No HO: 08X00693) never came to trial, therefore there was no winner or loser. On application by the defence the case was struck out, no contest no victory. The issue may well have set a precedent, but in no way was that achieved by Royd Baker winning anything. You could just as easily say Christopher Carrie issued proceedings that created a precedent in law. User: Christopher Carrie│Christopher Carrie

• As stated, that assertion would need to be sourced to be termed a fact - that is rather the point. As Uncle G pointed out we are seeking to set the bar high on this page. isfutile:P (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hardy

BLP dispute at this article history over the inclusion of claims about the subject's sexuality. Reverts from multiple editors pro-inclusion and con-, experienced outside input appreciated. Skomorokh 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been reported in sources like the Daily Mail. But they are quoting an interview given to Attitude. So my question to people here is, does the inclusion of something from what we consider a lesser source in better ones, for example Daily Mail, give us the right to publish it on the better source's authority? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While I think that the Daily Mail and similar tabloids are quite weak sources too, they at least generate publicity, so I'd say we can use the "better" source's authority in such cases. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The original source is fairly vague, the better sources even more so (the Mirror is a shoddy source; "string" - not supported by the original material at all :P). A lot of boys experiment in their teens so it is hardly unique for his biography. Throwaway comment in a popular interview - I'd say keep it out unless a better source emerges with more detail --Errant Tmorton166 20:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. But I was under the impression that the Daily Mail was pretty good, is that untrue? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is it is reportage of the original piece... I see where you are coming from - but I think it is reasonable to judge the relevance of material and the source in this case due to it simply being regurgitation. I agnostic though if people consider the DM a reliable source (lets not go there ;)) and stick it in --Errant Tmorton166 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is his sexuality a part of his notability? That attitude link doesn't give me the interview? Never the mirror, why is his sexuality an issue? Is it just like, my names **** and I'm a ****** If we had a link to the actual interview we may understand if it is noteworthy.Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, really I thought tmorton166's first reason for leaving it out was better... it's just not really a very notable thing. Personally, I think it is true and accurate, due to the multiple (non-RS) sources with no rebuttal from Hardy. And if it were worthy of being in the bio, I think endorsement of the material by the Daily Mail, however bad its politics, is sufficient for RS. But I'm really not sure it should be there for the reason he said. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it could well be likely possible true, he says it was not a big deal to him and he messed around when he was younger, personally I don't see any notable reason reason to include. I suppose the mail (which has a better reputation that the mirror and is pretty widely used on wikipedia and is a reliable source) article is the same content as the mirror? From what I can see so far I think its not notable to include..Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my main concern. It doesn't seem notable within the context of his life. And it doesn't seem notable in general (i.e. it is not unusual for teens to experiment sexually). If this is a major thing in his life more solid sources will appear eventually :) (for the record; I was only joshing about the *spit* Mail *spit* :)) --Errant Tmorton166 20:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Mail story for anyone to form an opinion http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298384/Inception-hunk-Tom-Hardy-admits-Ive-sexual-relations-men.html. The big issue for me is that without any additional notable factors we should avoid asserting that men having sex with men is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth mentioning. What would we say? "In an interview with Attitude, Hardy said he'd had some sexual experiences with men years ago and wasn't now interested in men". Meh. Fences&Windows 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Blumas

Why has Trevor Blumas's page been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiagale (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone proposed the article for deletion and the concerns they raised per policy were not addressed within 7 days. --Errant Tmorton166 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trevor Blumas, yes deleted by User_talk:Phantomsteve in March 2010, if you want to work on the article you could ask him to userfy it for you and you could improve it in your userspace. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mariastella Gelmini

The last paragraph of Mariastella Gelmini's current biography contains quite a few non-factual, political statements. Certains words ("privileging", "analogally") also seem to be phonetic transliterations from Italian and certainly do not yet exist in the English language. I humbly suggest this paragraph ought to be scrapped.

"She has been heavily criticized by students, teachers and other state school employees for a new law which she drafted, that will weaken the Italian state school sector whilst privileging the private education sector (mostly owned by the Roman Church); Analogally, she tried to give more power to the religion teacher currently employed in every public school and chosen by the local bishop, by giving them the same right to vote for a student as the other teacher (each one of them had instead to pass complex public exams to obtain his/her desk) had; thanks to her religion teachers also grow more rapidly than any other teacher a seniority that contributes to both their wages and their retirement treatment. Recently (October 2008), demonstrations have taken place all over Italy in order to try and stop the new law, known as Law 133. It gained final approval on October 29, 2008." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excel27 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was a bit skewed but it was broadly correct. I've replaced it with a sourced sentence about the protests against the law. Fences&Windows 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold

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

This article is biased, defamatory, libelous, material has been taken entirely out of context in order to portray a one-sided narrative Biased story. Plain and simple.

There is no basis to support that I am closely aligned with or associated with the subject of this article or I am the author. The issues discussed in the entry for Salon are wrong and this article from the Village Voice contains commentary from Paul Krugman, a Nobel Peace Prize winner as well as Salon, that balances out and makes it more neutral. The editors of the Jason Leopold article simply refuse to include anything about Leopold that would add neutrality to the story. This needs to be included to replace the what is there:

In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article from its website authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had not been adequately credited from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that an email had been "misquoted" according to a report in the Village Voice. As the Voice notes "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." Salon never used the word "plagiarism," according to a report in the Village Voice and Leopold, as the Voice report notes, said the story was credited twice http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/ Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q". The Voice reported and quoted New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who picked up the article: "Obviously, Leopold made mistakes, but it's not at all clear they justify a full repudiation of the story or a revocation of his journalistic license. As Paul Krugman told the Voice, "Everything else in that story checked out. The substance of his reporting was entirely correct." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the IP has both made claims to being Mr. Leopolds attorney and to having no connection to Mr. Leopold . Active Banana (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP had a clear COI (note, claiming to be someones attorney is usually a bad idea on wikipedia) and perhaps it is better to discuss his issues here. As I see it there are cites that refer to plagiarism and there were issues, I don't see any problem? Its all op eds and this opinionated editorial is nothing to write home about so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point something out, and I'm sure all will agree, so I'm only saying this for emphasis. Particularly for the purposes of the BLP Noticeboard, the conflict of interest that may or may not be exhibited by the ip number is of no concern. We are only interested in seeking the truth and a thoughtful, carefully written biography that does not give undue weight to negative claims. The ip may or may not be misbehaving in some way; I propose that we let others worry about that. Our task is to get the article right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely not an oped! It's a report from the Village Voice and includes a quote from Paul Krugman about the substance of the story in question that is included. If nothing to write home about then why not include it? Where does it say that this is an oped? As the Voice story notes, Salon said the story is still available on Lexis, does not state the story is plagiarized, shows evidence that the Financial Times was credited and states that the email in question was "misquoted." It's absolutely relevant. Why are you so determined to be biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• - http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/1.. the village voice.....Our Leopold article has a few issues, COI being no one of the least and too much detail supported by primary reports including many from the subject himself. We currently have this, if someone could have a good look at it to see if it is all correct...you will notice the message from the editors and an apology to its readers.. "this sort of plagiarism is a serious breach of journalistic trust"....Personally, a retraction of the article and an apology, which included a mention of plaglarism is quite substantial imo. Perhaps we could add a rebuttal from the village voice article but the comments should not be given authoritative weight and should be attributed correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• - In 2002, following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had been plagiarized from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject and that key portions of the story could not be corroborated. Salon stated that it could not confirm that validity of an email mentioned in the article in which later Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White was claimed to have said "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q". Leopold's article shows that he cited the Financial Times 3 times in his report, although he used 7 paragraphs verbatim from the story in question. Leopold initially said he believed that the FT had used one of his wire articles and that "I had written the story first and that the FT stole it from me". In his reply to Salon, Leopold admits that his quoting of the Financial Times was a careless mistake and insisted that Salon had all the relevant documents, including the email, before the story was published.

• - http://www.salon.com/letters/editor/2002/10/01/note/index.html

• - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

• - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00063.htm

• Whatever. Despite this rhetoric overflow above, it's pretty clear to me and apparently to many others that there is a COI here--if you'll look at their reversals of a simple copy edit of mine it's obvious that rhetoric is the goal. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that there is much more to this story, based on the Village Voice report, and Salon's letter to Romenesko. You rely entirely on one or two sources and fail to give this any balance. The editors have extrapolated. Salon had changed its story several times based on links that can be found on Google. First they did not use the word plagiarism, then they said the email was misquoted. Leopold's assertion that Salon was under pressure from the Bush White House should be considered. This is not black and white. And Paul Krugman plays an important role since he picked up that story and quoted it and that is what sparked this backlash. So what he says at the end of that Village Voice story is important and as the Voice notes it is not clear what exactly happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The editors and other contributors to this article have absolutely failed to take the time to search for other relevant stories and articles that can be used to balance this out. In doing so, they have shown how biased they are. I challenge the neutrality of this article. I have done a search of numerous other wikipedia articles on journalists and have seen examples of how these individuals have the same cites that are being objected to here. Misplaced Pages must apply the same standard across the board. At this stage, Leopold is being singled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unsigned person, what are you talking about? I'm not relying on anything at all--I am just noticing that you have too much passion for this article and treat Misplaced Pages as a resume (maybe not your own, but I don't care about that). Your rhetorical flourishes, the name dropping, the "look who else mentioned this guy," it's got nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Many of your edits show a blatant disregard for whatever common sense and Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest for objective writing, and remarks like "just do a Google search" are evidence of your misapprehension of that Misplaced Pages is. Why don't you just start a Facebook group for the subject? Drmies (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely does as based on the dozens of other entries of journalists that I reviewed. Why are you not applying the same standard? Again, this is a biased article and lacks neutrality and the powers that be must immediately do something to address it. Instead of attacking me why don't you point to specific examples of where my contributions show "a blatant disregard for whatever common sense..." And I will show you examples of other similar entries that contain identical contributions. So which is it?

And this is an entry that should be included and I'd like to know why it continuously is being pulled?

Bush Administration's Torture Program

Leopold's work on the Bush administration's torture program has been discussed and cited by Countdown with Keith Olbermann http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30499449/, The Washington Independent http://washingtonindependent.com/search-results?cx=002266174228027960838%3Azfnctxmj5lc&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=jason+leopold&sa=Search&siteurl=washingtonindependent.com%2F#581 Harper's Magazine http://harpers.org/archive/2008/12/hbc-90004094, http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004387.

And one of Leopold's exclusive reports on the first high-value prisoner's, Abu Zubaydah http://www.truth-out.org/government-quietly-recants-bush-era-claims-about-%22high-value%22-detainee-zubdaydah58151, may have helped the case of a Guantanamo detainee who is believed to be innocent, in what the Ottawa Citizen described as a "bombshell report," citing Leopold's work http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Harkat+gets+bombshell+help+from+declassified+documents/2749092/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Declassified+documents+present+bombshell+revelations+case+against+accused+terrorist+Harkat/2750542/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• We're headed into Misplaced Pages:Too long; didn't read territory. You could try to address the issue. For instance, what is the point of adding Krugman's Nobel prize? Why not add his date of birth or his astrological sign? Or is the answer, because Krugman has a Nobel prize our subject is a good guy? Drmies (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Well just look at it, its a load of rubbish, detrimental to the article. Also, it is promotional fluff with hardly a mention of yourself. This is a biography not an advert or a resume Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You and I know that, but I was hoping to turn this into a teachable moment and prevent blocks and protection and all that... Drmies (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Attn Misplaced Pages moderators: The contributors here are including defamatory material by extrapolating from multiple sources to build a biased AND UNTRUE narrative. They consistently misrepresent and make absolutely untrue claims about this article and refuse to include contributions highlighting the author's work even though similar contributions appear for other articles. Please address this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The material in the new section "allegations of plagiarism" is wrong and relies almost entirely on Salon, whose story was called into question as can be seen by the Village Voice. The editors here continue to claim this is a biography but fail to even make the slightest attempt to provide balance to this article and when someone else attempts to the material is wiped clean. This must be addressed as they are now entering into libelous and defamatory territory as can be seen by the legal letter on the talk page

The entire section is wholly out of context. According to the Village Voice, "In a curious twist, Salon informs readers that they can still read Leopold's story in the Nexis archives." http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-15/news/smear-for-smear/2 In a correction published by Salon, the news magazine, according to the Village Voice "does not use the term 'plagiarism.' "The correction also states that White's alleged e-mail was misquoted. It should have read, "Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss before the 1Q." Salon decided to respond after Leopold went public with his story being removed from the website.

• I finally read through this, and the section was indeed biased in my view. Using the word 'plagiarism' is too strong for this case, especially in the section title. I don't see why editors have been so insistent on writing this to slant it against Leopold, it's like people want it to be a hit piece. I've edited the section to make it more neutral (and to copyedit it, which it badly needed). Fences&Windows 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is still a biased article and as long as bonewah is around making edits it will continue to be. Each attempt to add factual material to balance it out is met with an immediate edit. This is wrong and something must be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No one must do anything. I'd drop that attitude straight away. Please take a moment to calm down, back out of the personal dispute with Bonewah (which appears to be no longer focused on the content), review the Misplaced Pages policies on biographies and try to make constructive edits to the article. --Errant Tmorton166 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When I first wrote the section concerning Salon and Leopold it didnt have the word plagiarism in the title , and I used the phrase "Following a two week investigation, Salon pulled an article authored by Leopold about Enron due to concerns that portions of it had been plagiarized from an earlier Financial Times article about the same subject." because the source (Salon) says "On Sept. 17, an editor at the Financial Times contacted Salon and expressed concern that some material in Leopold's story might have been plagiarized from an article that ran in his newspaper on Feb. 4, 2002. " and "In the absence of any corroborating evidence to support Leopold's version of events, we decided to post a correction noting what we reluctantly had to conclude was an instance of plagiarism." which sounds exactly like they were concerned about plagiarism. I disagree that the word plagiarism is too strong for the title, given what the sources say, but I never challenged your edits that changed it. Furthermore, I have added a number of citations for claims that previously were tagged with a citation needed, and, where I couldnt verify the claims, I removed them. If the net result of that is an article that is unflattering to Leopold, so be it, in my view, balance does not mean add something good for everything bad.

However, I will admit that tmorton166 is right, of late, my discussions have been mostly unproductive, and, if people think it would help, id be happy to refrain from editing this article for an extended period of time. I only ask, that the article be page protected again, if the IP wants to change the article he can gain consensus on the talk page. Bonewah (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must add my two cents bonewah. The fact is that there are several sides to that story regarding Salon and they are not the final word on what happened. You have various explanations. You have the Village Voice, you have Romenesko's media news, you have Leopold's explanation who also wrote about it in his book and publicly and you have Krugman. To state that Salon is the only authority on this is absolutely unfair and what you have done is given them more weight and have skewed the article in such a way so as to make Leopold look worse. That's a fact. Did you bother including the part where Leopold said that Salon was under pressure from the White House? And Lauerman and others told him that?

You did the same type of editing with the Karl Rove section and even the book section too. The fact is the book section relies upon a description of Leopold's book that wasn't even published! Yet when I and others have tried to edit it and include a description from the actual published version you reversed it. And yet, for someone who has spent so much time editing this article, you have failed to update it and include anything new. Not one thing. It is clear that you do not like the subject of the article and as I said previously your own commentary about Leopold is evidence about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a longstanding dispute over whether a specific sentence belongs in this article. This is the most recent diff adding it: The sentence describes a negative story relating to this person which circulated in 2008, although it notes (as the source does) that this story was a baseless smear. These allegations only seem to have been reported in a single reliable source. The question is, is this a BLP violation? I believe it is; it is not significant enough to belong in a neutral biography, and casts a negative light on both the subject and another notable politician. The main counterargument seems to be 'but this rumour is all she's notable for!' - however, as the article has been kept twice at AfD, once before the rumour existed (1st,2nd), this does not seem to be the case. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think smear campaigns deserve coverage. Keep it out. If all the smears involved in US politics went into BLPs, there'd not be room for anything else. Fences&Windows 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this. there should be clear consensus for inclusion if it is to stay it seems.--Tom (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Its certainly been reported by more than one reliable source. What about here and here? What basis is there to remove it besides partisanship? It's sourced to the Times of London and you can't get more RS than that. If you look at the article on Rush Limbaugh, the biggest section is about his prescription drug use. Huma's salary from Hillary's campaign was about $10,000 for six months, yet somehow she could afford a $649,000 apartment in DC. Kauffner (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides partisanship, it's sleazy,bs, muckracking, gerbil up the azz garbage. I am unemployed and live in a half million dollar house on the water. So what! Reliably sourced garbage is still garbage. feel free to add it to your blog or Twitter page. --Tom (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - baseless rumours have no place in articles. It was simply a smear campaign. Kauffner's question of how she managed to live in that apartment is idle speculation. And did you actually read the New York Observer article? Not a mention of the gossip. And The Insider's post says that "This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from The Insider editorial staff." Sheesh. Kauffner, who are you trying to kid? Fences&Windows 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So the Times of London is somehow not good enough as a source? It's not news that Hillary is bi. That was in Gennifer Flowers book back in 1995. ("Honey - she's probably eaten more p---- than I have," p. 41.) The Congressional travel records show that Hillary is much closer to Abedin than to any other member of her her staff. (Money NYT quote: "Even when Bill and Hillary escape for a relaxing Caribbean vacation, Abedin is part of their entourage.") Abedin is routinely described as very beautiful, extremely quiet, and not all that interested in politics. Kidding no! I tried writing a joke here before, but that was deleted, I assume in accordance with the "no kidding" rule. Kauffner (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Times says it is a smear attack. It doesn't belong in the article, and your BLP violation doesn't belong here either. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be used to propagate smears and attack politicians. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Kauffner, its probably time to put down the stick and move away from this horse. I think I ask above, does any other editor think this rumor should be included in this BLP? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Tvoz/talk 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Above, Kauffner writes: Its certainly been reported by more than one reliable source. What about here and here? What basis is there to remove it besides partisanship? It's sourced to the Times of London and you can't get more RS than that. ¶ The second of these linked sources is a gushy article, "Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma?", in the NY Observer. It drones on and on and my eyes glazed over at times, but here's no hint in it that I noticed of any lesbian relationship. The first is to something called "The Insider", and reads: THE Drudge Report notes: “The TIMES of London starts ‘The Ugliest Month’ with a full page photo takeout on Hillary Clinton and her beautiful personal istant.” “Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin,” reads the caption. So "The Insider" has to cite an unidentified part of Drudge in order to comment on tittle-tattle about this "istant". According to "The Insider", according to "Drudge", according to Murdoch's London broadloid, Clinton has been accused of this -- in a caption which (if it even exists) could for all we know continue "but the accusations are obvious bollocks". Can you source this within thetimes.co.uk, Kauffner, or do you expect people to put their faith in recycled Drudge? -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are claiming what, exactly? That I made it all up? Other people had already added this claim to the Huma article before I came along. It's mentioned in two articles on the Times site, here and here. I should note that the first Times story is cited in Wiki's Condoleezza Rice article to accuse her of being lesbian. Kauffner (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Condi article, I haved edited it accordingly. Poorly sourced , not widely covered muckraking rumors, should only be include in BLPs if there is overwhelming consensus for inclusion. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd drop this if I were you. You clearly have an agenda to spread salacious gossip about Hillary Clinton. Misplaced Pages takes BLP issues very seriously, so your agenda has no place here. Citing Gennifer Flower's autobiography as though it is a reliable source shows your lack of judgement on this issue. Although you should read WP:OTHER, the Condoleezza Rice article places the rumour about her in context, stating that "There was speculation that she was not chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate because of rumors that she was a lesbian, which could have soured evangelicals to the ticket." I am not sure whether it really belongs, but because the rumour might have had a political impact it has more relevance in that article. Fences&Windows 12:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you were citing crap sources. You now cite two more. The first of these says The mainstream US media also managed to ignore one of the most read political stories on the internet last week, an account in The Times about a dirty-tricks campaign in South Carolina, including anonymous allegations that Senator Hillary Clinton is having an affair with Huma Abedin, a female member of her campaign staff. Democrat officials dismissed the allegations as an obvious attempt to smear the frontrunning presidential candidate. So yes, the Times mentions it here, but only as part of a "dirty-tricks campaign". The second says The anonymous e-mails and letters began dropping into inboxes and through front doors this summer. / One claimed that Hillary Clinton was having a lesbian affair with Huma Abedin, her beautiful aide. Welcome to South Carolina, the foulest swamp of electoral dirty tricks in America. This state’s primary race has already become the sleaziest leg of the 2008 presidential campaign. Nobody is sure who is behind the attacks on Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, but the claims of lesbianism and Islamic extremism have found fertile ground on right-wing websites. So yes, the Times reported that there was such a smear. "BLP" issues aside for a moment, does the smear tell us about Clinton, or does it tell us about South Carolina politics and right-wing websites? -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You imagine that this story was promoted by right-wing blogs to help Obama defeat Clinton in South Carolina?? It didn't originate with blogs or South Carolina, but with Michael Musto at the Village Voice months earlier. Kauffner (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I read that this story was promoted by political factions in S Carolina, and right-wing websites. I hadn't known where it originated. The link you give is to an article written in such an arch style that I find it hard to comprehend. Still, I do follow this part: whisper campaigns are claiming that Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a pre-emptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. Well, it's a gossip column; he's paid for tittling and tattling. He doesn't claim that he himself observed anything or even that some informant of his did; instead, he attributes it to unspecified "whisper campaigns". Maybe these are S Carolina political operatives or maybe they're just inside his own head. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mina (singer)

The article is currently using a non-free promotional photo to depict the singer. The appearance of the performer is a central issue in the article and is discussed in length. Although the singer is alive it is absolutely impossible to make a free shot of her as she is living reclusively and makes every possible effort to avoid getting randomly photographed. This was reckongized as sufficient to keep the File:Mina1972 in the article (Rk tag placed). Now a user has raised the issue again, bluntly referring to this policy: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." So far we have interpreted it that as long as it is impossible to get a free photo of a living person, it is alright to use a non-free image for people whose appearance is the matter of discussion and where articles would suffer seriously from lack of image. What is the correct way to go? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the picture. If people want to see what she looks like a quick Google image search would work. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it does fit with a valid fu claim. Here likeness today (even if it could be photographed) isn't as significant as her likeness when she was performing - and you are simply not going to get a free image from that era.--Scott Mac 16:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There must be thousands of photos of her from that era in the personal collections of fans, professional photographers, and magazines. Additionally, she has what appears to be an actively maintained official site, and according to our article "In recent years, Mina has been writing a weekly column on the front page of La Stampa and a page in the Italian edition of the magazine Vanity Fair that answers fan letters." It should not be difficult to get any number of images donated under a free license. That it takes more than 15 seconds of googling, I concede. But that doesn't make it impossible!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have run an in-depth search on Google. A few years ago I contacted the minamazzini.com website with the request. They seemed happy to let Misplaced Pages use her images but I don't think they understood the concept of free license. I can assure no such image exists under any free license.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed, we are not in competion with anyone, our articles do not need pictures, and in regards to living people we do not use copyrighted pictures. Edit summary : - removing non free image from the BLP of a living person where a free picture likely is available. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Football IP Edits

The IP editor from a short while ago seems to be back editing again adding lots of stuff to BLP articles, I have to head off for now but could someone else run through any new additions for BLP issues/problems (history: this IP user has previously been adding a lot of tabloid sourced stuff to BLP articles and tended to use quite non-neutral wording - despite attempts to explain consensus policy) --Errant Tmorton166 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(BTW I think this person does know policy. For example they have made some great edits such as this but then also made ones like this. I can't see a pattern for why some articles are favoured over others!) --Errant Tmorton166 18:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lorenzo Amoruso

Can I get some insight on this article. Particularly this addition which I think is tabloid reportage and is not really relevant to his biography or, indeed, notable. --Errant Tmorton166 10:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That addition is pure not notable tabloid titillation and has no place in a wikipedia BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Entry on Mitch Miller

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/Mitch_Miller

I believe that Mitch Miller died yesterday or the day before. Sorry, but I have no written source on this - my barber (who cut Miller's hair too) received a phone call yesterday informing him of the death. No obits have appeared in the papers yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.69.8 (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We really do need to wait for a reliable source to appear confirming a death before we can report it on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes this means that our noting the death is delayed a short time until there is confirmation, but you can imagine the problems that would be caused if Misplaced Pages—which is usually the number-one Google hit when a living person's name is searched—routinely published unconfirmed death reports that could be rumors, hoaxes, harassment of the subject, and so forth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reported at by MSNBC. Collect (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AP confirms - article is updated. Tvoz/talk 18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

The article has long referenced Clinton's (now current) father-in-law. It mentioned that he is a former Democratic Congressman. He was also convicted of 31 counts of fraud and served a lengthy federal prison sentence - a reference I added. References to the conviction have repeatedly been stricken, while the congressional service and party affiliation reference remain. I believe "former Democratic congressman and convicted felon" would be an appropriate reference. Otherwise... Just mention his name and let people follow the link to learn more. It isn't fair to list one historical credential and not the other. ... and the conviction is probably more historically interesting.

John2510 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is about Chelsea Clinton first of all, we should not publish any negative details for other persons named in the article, unless that is their only reason for notability. The conviction of Edward Mezvinsky is explained in his article and that's where it belongs. There's nothing unfair about that but it's about good measure and about concentrating on the main topic of an article. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should just link to his name, with no further reference? ... or is there an actual policy of not publishing negatives unless that is their only notability? That would seem IMHO to be a poor policy. There needs to be fairness and balance. John2510 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you. The guys page's lead is also weighted towards the fraud disproportionately. Can some people here watchlist Edward_Mezvinsky as well as Chelsea's page? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict..Adding the criminal convictions of her father in law is clear coat-racking and unless the subject of the articles notability is related to the crimes they should clearly not be added, those crime details belong on his article alone. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Things will probably die down in a few days. Chelsea isn't that big of a celeb any more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I made it a straight reference to the father-in-law's name (which is linked). I think that restores balance and neutrality. I don't think we're in the business of "only saying the good things" about a reference. John2510 (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No we're not John but the fact that the person is or was involved in politics is a related notability and could happily stay in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Any "related notability" is insignficiant. It's certainly more historically signficant that the daughter of a President has married the son of a convicted felon. Still... balance and neutrality are maintained by leaving out both positive and negative references. John2510 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well consensus is against your POV John and it has been replaced, please do not edit war over the article and use discussion to seek support for your claims, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The negative info is in the guys article. People can read it there. Whether it's a COATRACK or not is an editorial decision, and the two uninvolved editors here feel that it is. Maybe someone will have another opinion here, but I doubt it. We err on the side of caution with BLPs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The page on WP:Coatrack suggests seeking a balance of what a reader would consider notable about the person. Mentioning his congressional service, without mentioning his prison time is itself coatracking. Mainstream media articles see his felony conviction as having significance on par this his legislative office (e.g.: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/meet-marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clintons-fiance/). I'm only seeking balance and fairness here in what's notable about him. Two (or ten) other editors who want to avoid "negative info" about the in-laws, while including the positive, doesn't make it right. John2510 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, including some references because they're positive and omitting others because they're negative clearly violates Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy. For clarification... are you telling me NOT to engage in further discussion on this? If so... Wow. John2510 (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We are asking you to not restore your version of the article and we furthermore DO ask you to continue this discussion. Please see WP:Edit war for the term Off2riob was referring to. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me for not making that clear and thanks to you De728631 for the clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510 does have a point: NPOV demands we include both or neither, and if BLP requires that we avoid mentioning sourced negative material in an article that he's only tangentially involved in, then that means the positive stuff goes as well. As I read it, the bare link is the best way to meet both BLP and NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have no objections to this position, its a bit pointy though. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"NPOV demands we include both or neither" No it does not. See WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"... in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." from WP:NPOV. As cited, mainstream media seem to consider the fraud conviction as relevent as the congressional history. Further, the congressional reference appears to be an inappropriate attempt at aggrandizement through choice of spouse/breeding. John2510 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

←As I pointed out on the article talk page, "Democratic congressman" is merely an identifier, and many would say not necessarily a positive one - and the reason he has his own bluelinked biography here which is the appropriate place for details of his life. This article is about Chelsea Clinton - it's not the place for going into her father-in-law's past history (or accusations against her own parents, or her uncle's conviction, by the way), but to leave off the main reason for Ed Mezvinsky's own notability - the clear lead of his own article - is a POV decision, in my view. And someone's characterization of Mezvinsky in a recent edit of Chelsea's biography as a "fraudster" I believe illustrates that this is not neutral editing.Tvoz/talk 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Think this logic is correct. If her father-in-law is notable, we give the reason for his notability, not other pointy biographical details unless they are also directly relevant to the biography of the subject of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this is an NPOV issueat all. Aside from the fact that, to many Americans, being identified as a member of Congress is not exactly positive, we're talking about relatively neutral, identifying information relating to the subject's main basis for notability. We haven't required, and shouldn't require, that the articles on David Eisenhower and Edward F. Cox mention that their father-in-law resigned the presidency in disgrace, or that he in effect admitted criminal behavior by accepting a presidential pardon. The article on Rand Paul similarly identifies his father as a congressman, but mentions no criticisms of him. This line of argument leads to absurd results; must the article on Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky include references to Bill Clinton's impeachment or the suspension of his law license simply because it identifies her son's father-in-law as a former President? Including references to the negative information about certain members in the Bush clan in articles on other members would be a full-time job. Must the article on Patrick J. Kennedy mention Chappaquiddick because it refers to his father's political career? Does the fact that the article on Prince William of Wales mentions his mother's charitable activities also require that it be balanced by Tina Brown's characterization of her as a ""spiteful, manipulative, media-savvy neurotic"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "merely an identifier." His name is merely an identifier. Mentioning his status as a former congressman has judgmental implications. If you reject that... then "convicted felon" is merely an identifier as well. As I said, I'm okay with dropping both and letting his name identify him. John2510 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Take a look at WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE sometime if you want to understand why. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read them. What do you think they say that makes my statement "nonsense?" John2510 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You've making a false equivalency, and ignoring both BLP and UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He's asking you to explain your view of why they apply. Telling him he's ignoring them in light of such a request isn't a helpful addition to the dialogue. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe he's doing so from reading each and every comment he's made on this issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What he said I'm doing... is what I'm doing. Citing acronyms and being dismissive isn't engaging in discussiona and dialog on the topic. John2510 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, the editors above have taken the time to explain things to you, an editor with very little apparent experience at editing Misplaced Pages. Could you please spend some time and try to understand what they are saying, rather than repeatedly advancing the same arguments. Otherwise, you'll start to look like a disruptive, single-purpose account, and those situations usually don't end very well. Best regards, and I hope you hang around and do a lot to improve the encyclopedia, Jehochman 00:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, In my experience, condescension only tends to inflame conflicts. If you'd care to participate in the substance of the discussion, that would be great. Regards. John2510 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You quoted on my talk page (which I appreciate), "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." My post on the conviction appears to me to be at least reasonably weighted with his congressional service. News reports on the wedding (as cited above) seem to support that. Do people have an argument to the contrary? Similarly, my post seems to meet the three elements of BLP you cite: 1) neutrality; 2) verifiability; and 3) not original research.

The answer to the "Undue Weight" and "Coatracking" alleagations is found in an honest answer to the following: Which is more noteworthy to the average reader? - "President's daughter marries son of former congressman" or "President's daughter marries son of convicted felon, just out of federal prison." The former appears to be purely an attempt at aggrandizing the subject through her choice of mate, while the latter is ironic and unusual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The question might instead be which appears more noteworthy to reliable sources writing on the topic of C Clinton's wedding? --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, if we were writing an article about the wedding, but even then BLP would trump NPOV. Of course, we're not writing an article about the wedding, so we're not going to pretend otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Marriage, then. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Same answer. The article is about Clinton. It doesn't even have a sub-section about her wedding or marriage. It has one sentence about her marriage. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so our source for that one sentence should be reliable sources writing about her marriage. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/sunday/main6733650.shtml. Wait... crap - it mentions the fraud conviction. Maybe we should keep looking until we find one that fits our biases better? John2510 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources. Plural. And its also not about what the sources mention, it's about how they describe the father in law. If "congressman and fraudster" is a common formulation, then I concede. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the article: "The groom is the son of two former Members of Congress, one of whom, Ed Mezvinsky, served time for fraud." That's the first one that came up when I Googled "Chelsea fraud." There are many others. John2510 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the fact that John2510's only current editing interest seems to be arguing about this point to be deeply unimpressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the redaction of FormerIP's comments on this page is necessary. Although there is disagreement as to whether Mr. Mezvinski's conviction should be prominently mentioned in discussing Chelsea Clinton's marriage, the fact of such conviction is undisputed, it is reported in his own article here on Misplaced Pages, and I don't see how we can discuss whether or not to include it in the Clinton article without at least mentioning it in passing here. In other words, while the letter and spirit of the BLP policy apply in all namespaces, this is not the type of unsourced, negative speculation or libel that it would be inappropriate to mention on a discussion page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The term was already identified as an inappropriate characterization (1 August 2010 (UTC)), and no source has been provided demonstrating otherwise. The discussion has moved well into WP:POINT. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the allegation of WP:POINT, I think it's notworthy that I created the discussion here to avoid an edit and disruption in the page itself - which currently contains the edit I dispute. I'm hoping for a fair resolution. The "inappropriate characterization" allegations are not valid, for the reasons stated. John2510 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Identified by what authority? Go away. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to Ronz) I agree with you that including this characterization in Chelsea Clinton is probably not desirable. My point is just that given all the discussion above, I don't see redacting the term as necessary or helpful on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't remove the BLP violation again, despite BLP requiring us to do so. I will request the editor be blocked if he makes another such violation. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please identify how you believe my edits (adding the reference to the conviction or achieving neutrality by simply linking to the name) constitute a BLP violation. John2510 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John2510, as you observed, you initated the discussion here to seek input on this issue. The consensus seems to be strongly against your view. I suggest that you drop the matter, as your interest in it is clearly disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I tell my friends that Misplaced Pages isn't just a vote of what people want to see. I'd like to think I'm right... but maybe not. John2510 (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No general conclusions should be drawn from the fact that consensus is against you in one instance. I've been editing here for a long time, and I certainly wouldn't have lasted or been very happy here if I'd taken it personally every time people disagreed with one of my edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

John, regardless of the rightness of your arguments, admins here are quick to intervene (or trigger happy if you must) when it comes to BLP issues (or even just perceived BLP issues). At this point, enough editors have disagreed with your interpretation of our "rules", that you are risking being sanctioned. Almost everything we decide on is a grey area, and there is no supreme court (other than the one that Newyorkbrad actually is a part of, since you may not know), so being right when a bunch of other editors disagree is the same thing as being wrong. So, decide if being right is worth being blocked, in which case perform more reverts. Or, continue this discussion, and you may convince some people, although I doubt it. I have no grudge against you, so I just want to tell you what I've seen, and a likely outcome. I say this, because a bad experience early in ones career frequently causes editors to leave and never come back, and I want you to stay. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I initiated discussion on this at an early stage, and haven't reverted since the contentiousness of this subject became apparent. My edits to seek neutrality have been removed. If I risk sanction by even discussing the subject, then so be it. Several of you seem to be attempting to make the point with me that I should defer to your experience in the absence of reason. I've been here long enough to know that sort of elitism isn't appropriate here. John2510 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What other accounts, if any, were you using during that lengthy time? (Your current account has fewer than 100 edits.) You risk being sanctioned because you have carried on the discussion way beyond it's useful end. Jehochman 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Coles

• Robert Coles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-

The "Controversy" subsection violates several aspects of BLP policy. The editorial agenda is obvious and transparent. It maligns and disparages Dr. Coles’ reputation. The general tone of the passage and the subhead itself are in no sense “broadly neutral.” On the contrary, they are narrow and contentious. The supposed accusations raised in the passage are neither verifiable nor neutral. The allegation itself is isolated to a single published source—a book review by a music critic—and relies on hearsay, opinion, and undocumented attribution. Specifically, the writer relies on a single phone conversation. It is not notable, relevant, documented or substantiated anywhere in the vast secondary literature on Dr. Coles’ writing. As such, the “Controversy” section creates controversy where there is none. Harmful, contentious, negative in tone, and poorly sourced, the section makes for a grossly disproportionate biographical profile. As such, it deserves deletion. According to Misplaced Pages policy, "contentious material about living persons that is . . . poorly sourced . . . should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Material that is “negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once . . . " I have deleted the offending material twice. It has been reverted both times. How do I get deletions to stick? // Cooperddc (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Having read the only source provided for the allegations, an editorial about Bruce Springsteen by D. Hajdu, I'd say that the only criticism is coming from Will Percy, denying his uncle's "comments" on Springsteen. But I wouldn't go so far as to call the section harmful and contentious. The conclusion drawn from Hajdu's article seems to be wrong and exaggerated though. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cooperddc continues to remove this material despite comments from several editors e.g. at BLP Noticeboard explaining why removal isn't justified, at least not as a BLP issue. Can I have a hand here? EEng (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrion Aubry

• Jeffrion Aubry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nycapple123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hakeem Jeffries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 66.104.201.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A BLP on a New York State Assemblyman, was fairly stable at this version. A new user, single purpose account Nycapple123 started editing the article, his edits are full of peacockery and weasel words. I attempted to revert them a couple times and advised the user to use references to back up his information and to discuss the changes on the talk page, but the user did not respond just re-reverted without explanation. Since we're at the point of breaking WP:3RR, I'm bringing it to the noticeboard's attention. It's also potentially a WP:COI, given the SPA and the photo the user uploaded which I can't find on the web. — raekyT 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding another page of relevance and the user's IP that he is also editing with. Hakeem Jeffries is being edited the same way with same problems as previous article. — raekyT 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is potentially resolved, the user was banned then unbanned and is now closely being monitored and edits filtered due to COI. — raekyT 04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

John Clark (actor/director)

• John Clark (actor/director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-

I stumbled upon this article a few weeks ago and immediately felt its tone was not neutral. From examining the history it became obvious it was mostly the work of User:JohnClarknew who also happens to be the subject of the article. I therefore posted a Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest template, which was promptly deleted by User:JohnClarknew. Since then I have removed a lot of P.O.V. and added some well referenced and neutral toned content. User:JohnClarknew has now reverted all of my changes.

User:JohnClarknew displays ownership of this article and seems unable to understand or is willing to ignore Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No original research. Memphisto (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

National/ethnic identity lists

I have a query about the applicability of BLP to lists of people by national or ethnic identity, which I posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons since it is about a specific group of lists, but also about the applicability of BLP in policy terms. Opinions would be appreciated on the BLP talk page. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann (climate change BLP)

Michael E. Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:ATren wants to add material to Michael E. Mann#Climatic Research Unit emails to present a number of allegations of corruption and misconduct made against the subject of the article by one Patrick Michaels. The source for this text is this op-ed column from the Wall Street Journal. The section of the article in question is a summary that links out to Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Although the article already refers to Michaels' claims, ATren wants to present a much longer version of those claims, quoting from emails that were stolen and published by a hacker last November.

The following table compares what is there now with what ATren wants to add:

Several editors, including myself, are concerned with this proposal, which raises issues relating to BLP's rules on how to deal with criticism and praise. The main problems are that:

• it represents WP:UNDUE weight on the views of one individual, with no indication of why his views might be more significant than anyone else's, devoting more attention to his claims than to those of every other commentator put together;
• it presents one-sided claims of wrongdoing without any acknowledgement that they have been rejected by Michael E. Mann's university;
• it presents cherry-picked, out of context quotes from stolen emails without any explanation of what they relate to (which would require a lengthy digression);
• it presents entirely speculative claims of corruption, which I feel are unfit for inclusion;
• resolving these issues would unbalance the entire article, making what is supposed to be a summary section into a WP:COATRACK focusing on fringe allegations made by one man.

I'd be grateful for views on what other editors think of this. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems overly detailed (2nd version) - we don't need to go into that level of detail - people who want that level of information can go to the source and check there. Exxolon (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, please review the proposed version again, ChrisO's transcription of my proposed edit was wrong and it made it appear much longer than it really was. Also note, ChrisO is misrepresenting the conflict as something I'm trying to "add" - this content was never in the article until I added the disputed paragraph. ChrisO reverted that version out (twice) and he is now misrepresenting his version as the "current" version and making it seem like I want to add onto it. In reality, his version was never really the accepted version; I just stopped edit warring on it. ATren (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Several points:

• First off: ChrisO is a long time partisan in this debate, and he is whitewashing this article because he is sympathetic to Mann's views.
• Second: ChrisO is hardly the person to be defending BLP standards -- just last week he edit-warred to include a whole paragraph on harsh criticism from an unpublished source into the BLP of Christopher Monckton -- someone ChrisO doesn't agree with. Now he's trying to suppress the Wall Street Journal for someone he likes. The criticism ChrisO added to Monckton was literally published on some obscure professor's university web page. The juxtaposition of these two conflicts is clear evidence of ChrisO's POV pushing in this topic area.
• As for this specific case, the criticism is impeccably sourced and represents the opinions of many others. Even George Monbiot, a longtime supporter of mainstream climate science, was highly critical of the behavior of the Climategate scientists.
• Furthermore, Chris's version omits one of the major points of criticism, and embeds what remains into another paragraph which exonerates Mann. Well, the whole point of the criticism was that the private inquiries were themselves flawed, but ChrisO conveniently omits that point and makes it appear that the inquiries were the final word. This is typical of the POV pushing in this topic area, where even well-sourced and valid criticism is presented in such a way to minimize or even debunk the criticism. This was a huge controversy which generated worldwide coverage; devoting just a single sentence to criticism is clearly POV. And again, when compared to BLPs on the other side of the debate, where far less notable criticism (sometimes even blog sourced!) is covered in detail, the lack of criticism here is startlingly POV.
• ChrisO is also misrepresenting the situation when he implies that his version is the "current version" -- it's not. I added my version of the criticism and he edit-warred to whitewash it, so there is no "current" version, just his preferred (whitewashed) and mine. The only reason his version is the "current" version is because I stopped edit-warring. Once again, this kind of misrepresentation is typical of the editors in this topic area.
• Finally, this is not even a BLP issue. There is no question that the criticism is very well sourced, it's a notable criticism of a very notable event. ChrisO's arguments are about weight and notability, not BLP -- and he's wrong on all counts. The criticism needs to be described in greater detail, and in its own paragraph. That's how its regularly done on other BLPs in this topic area.

If this criticism is muted or whitewashed as ChrisO is suggesting, then I hope the BLP editors here would also help to clean up the other BLPs I've alluded to, BLPs which ChrisO and others have polluted with unweighty and poorly-sourced claims. ATren (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article Atren wants to use—an article in The Wall Street Journal by Patrick J. Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute—is a reliable source, and it explains the issues very clearly. There's no reason not to use it, and no reason not to make clear what its main points are. Citing UNDUE to keep it out is a misuse of the NPOV policy. The Wall Street Journal has seen fit to give him the space, and this is how we judge which views are notable, by looking to see whether notable publications offer them space, not by whether we agree with the views ourselves. SlimVirgin 02:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a little detailed - but then again it seems a balanced addition and, given the length of the article, not necessarily undue. One thing I would suggest removing are the words; which both universities receive. - that gives clear weight to Michaels accusations and is inappropriate to my mind. (as it is I'd suggest contemplating scrapping the whole section of allegation r.e. the universities as it is a bit dubious). --Errant Tmorton166 09:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael's article is an opinion piece, and as such not a RS for facts. It is RS for Michael's opinion, of course. But I don't see how his opinion not only on Mann, but also on the universities is not WP:UNDUE - this looks coatracky to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

SlimV says it very well, reliable source, addition explains the situation very clearly, no reason not to use it. Also agree with Tmorton that both asserts an incorrect assumption and is better removed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, I think you may not understand what a "coatrack" is. This certainly is not one. Michaels' criticism was directed at Mann himself, and it was a highly publicized controversy. Coatracks are mainly about over-emphasis on tangentially-related material, and this is certainly not tangential to Mann. But it's interesting to note how low your coatrack threshold is for people you like, even as skeptic BLPs like Monckton are practically coat warehouses and you do nothing to improve them. I'll be sure to notify you when the next skeptic BLP comes here, so you can apply the same overly-strict standard. ATren (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That particular item is not about Mann. It's not about the reviews. It's not about the committees. It's about the universities that organized the committees that performed the reviews into Mann's work, and it suggests entirely dishonest motives to them. That's the coat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, it absolutely is about Mann, because it specifically addresses the inquiries which investigated Mann. If criticism of those inquiries is coatrack, then mention of the inquiries themselves is also coatrack, and should also be removed. You can't have it both ways, Stephan. But clearly, neither is a coatrack, they are both specifically about Mann and about the specific inquiries into Mann's conduct -- not at all tangential as coatrack describes. ATren (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In a BLP, such an editorial that's not supported by better sources should not be used for such detail per UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that's not the way it works in this topic area, where BLPs regularly include criticism from opinion pieces. Including Michaels' criticism is consistent with the norm here. ATren (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this topic area should have an exemption from WP:UNDUE. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, particularly where BLPs are concerned. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But when the same editors are creating that "other stuff" and polluting it with poorly sourced and non-notable criticism while simultaneously blocking notable, impeccably sourced criticism from people they like, that is clearly a problem. It's called POV pushing, and editors are usually banned for it. But of course, not in this topic area, obviously, or you wouldn't be editing. ATren (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with ChrisO at 18:12)So then we agree it's a BLP violation, just one that's gotten some acceptance elsewhere. Probably best to remove the editorial completely, until it can be supported by better sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a BLP violation in the slightest and I never said that. Stop misrepresenting my words. It was published in the Wall Street Journal, it's highly notable, and it is much more weighty than the stuff that typically goes into BLPs of those skeptical of climate change. In fact, ChrisO himself was just adding ridiculously obscure criticism to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, so his objection to this material is stark evidence of his POV pushing in this topic area. When you reject WSJ criticism on someone you like but accept obscure unpublished criticism on someone you don't like, that's both POV pushing and a BLP violation. My position is neither. ATren (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for making the conclusion that you understand it is a BLP violation. I thought you'd be more familiar with BLP.

We agree that the source is an editorial. As such, it presents only the viewpoints of the author. It is not fact-checked or otherwise reviewed. I hope then we can agree it is a primary source. As a primary source without supporting sources, it fails Misplaced Pages:Blp#Misuse_of_primary_sources, as well as the related policies on the use of primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, criticism is fine as long as it's well-sourced and properly attributed to the author of the piece. I'd assumed you knew this. ATren (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation as indicated because it is a primary source, hence not well-sourced. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then of course you will chime in when such sources are used on the other "side", right? For example, Christopher Monckton has several sketchily-sourced claims (many ironically added by ChrisO) that you will likely want to help clean up. I'll look forward to your help there. ATren (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• We should use the best available sources. In this case, Mann's involvement in "Climategate" was reviewed by two specially convened panels, and the results widely reported as news, by reputable news agencies. That should form the basis of our coverage. Angry partisan op-ed responses may have a place as well, but we seem to have focused on such partisan commentary at the expense of better sources. This approach is not confined to the current instance, but the fact that it's a problem elsewhere does not justify creating a problem here. MastCell  18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources disagree. In that case, we present both, properly attributed, and let the reader decide. And no, it's not a problem elsewhere, it's what's practiced elsewhere. Many of the comments above are from those who have either endorsed those practices or implicitly allowed them by not objecting. I am simply applying the same standard that has been used elsewhere. It is those editors (like ChrisO) who use radically different standards that are causing the "problem" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs)

"The sources disagree" is a bit facile in this case. My point is that one can find reputable, sober, encyclopedic sourcing - straight news articles from reputable sources, academic reviews of Mann's role, etc. One can also find op-eds written by angry partisans. If we're committed to using the best available sources, then we should base the article on the reputable, encyclopedic sourcing (which exists, in this case), rather than playing the dueling-op-eds game. MastCell  19:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll be sure to notify you when these situations arise on the "skeptic" side of this debate, as they often do. I'm sure I can count on you to support the removal of such material from those, right? I don't care if we include this kind of material or exclude it, but I do care that we do it consistently. And right now, it's wildly inconsistent, mainly due to the POV activities of ChrisO and others. ATren (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, MastCell, you can start here, which is filled with the same sort of he-said-she-said sourcing you don't seem to like, and which, ironically, editors like ChrisO have edit-warred to keep. If you feel so strongly about suppressing such sources from Mann, I would hope that you would do so in Monckton, for a start (there are many others). ATren (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

He can't, because another editor's complaints resulted in the article being locked while it was in the middle of a clean-up. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• There seems to be a proposal that we should present "both views". It should be noted that Fred Pearce has stated that "Several other soundbites were subject to perverse or dishonest interpretations by commentators. Patrick Michaels, the climatologist and polemicist for the rightwing Cato Institute, published a long op-ed piece in the DC Examiner, slamming Mann for an email quote about keeping sceptics' papers out of the IPCC report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is". Michaels is an old foe of Mann's, but this genuinely damaging statement was actually made by Jones." DC Examiner op-ed by Michaels.

Michaels made similar allegations in the WSJ on December 17, 2009, which Mann answered in an article the WSJ published on 31 December The July piece by Michaels has been responded to by Mann in a letter published by the WSJ on July 16, 2010.

Presenting only the fringe views promoted by Michaels is clearly undue weight, the question is whether this whole debate belongs in the bio of Mann. . . dave souza, talk 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is most certainly a partisan attack piece on Mann, however, I would like to look at good secondary sources covering the dispute before I make a decision for or against inclusion. The default position for a BLP-related source like this would be exclusion, so I'm surprised to see the amount of debate generated by this poor source. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, if you think this WSJ opinion is poor, you haven't seen what happens in other BLPs in this topic area, where opinions and blogs are used routinely. ATren (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed a portion of ChrisO's "proposed" summary

Note: ChrisO copied the same two sentences twice, making my proposed edit seem much longer than it really was. I've corrected his mistake, because I never proposed that version. ATren (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake - sorry about that. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

George Lusztig

There's an ongoing dispute about whether we should add George Lusztig's complete date of birth. According to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Lusztig requested to have his birthdate removed (OTRS ticket 2010080110026197). As a matter of fact, however, Lusztig's DOB has been published in the International Who's Who, which is available on Google Books. That means it makes no sense to censor this information on Misplaced Pages. The Wiki policy (WP:DOB) isn't clear on this, and it seems like its interpretation has been debated since recently. So, what to do in this case? —bender235 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is he asking for his year of birth to be removed or just not have the exact date in the article? The year of birth gives sufficient context for his birth, we don't need the exact date - if he's requested removal, we should be conservative and leave it out - it's not a necessary inclusion. Exxolon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what he asked for exactly, but User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry left his year of birth in, so I guess that's okay with Lusztig. Anyway, I don't see why Misplaced Pages has to be censored in this case, when the International Who's Who (re-)publishes Lusztig's exact birthdate every year. His DOB has been published already, why shouldn't Misplaced Pages do it, too? —bender235 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We tend to be very conservative with BLPs due to our high visibility on the internet, our BLP policy is formulated with this in mind. If a subject requests removal of a piece of information and removal does not conflict with our core policies we generally do so. We would not for instance remove an arrest and conviction in the public record, but we might well remove intimate details of medical procedures. Exxolon (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, that would make sense if Lusztig's date of birth was unpublished. But it is publicly accessible on Google Books. Right now, his Misplaced Pages article is censored but refers to his International Who's Who entry as source, where anyone can see his birthdate. This is utter nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy seems to support including just the year.--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So I guess we have to change the policy, because if it dictates absurdity, it has to be ignored or changed. --bender235 (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not under an obligation to include something just because we can reliably source it. For example we can easily find a reliable source for the name of the Star Wars Kid but we don't include it in the article on BLP grounds. If leaving out his exact DOB hurts the article, I can't see it. Exxolon (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

• Somalis in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Middayexpress is arguing that BLP applies to this article, in a discussion here. Misplaced Pages:BLP mentions applicability to small groups, but I'm sceptical about whether it applies in this case. Can I get third-party opinions please? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the actual additions (didn't have time to read the material) but WP:BLP policy applies to living people - regardless of where the information is mentioned. So in this sense Middayexpress is correct that BLP policy applies to individuals in that article. --Errant Tmorton166 10:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make clear, the information is not about specific individuals. Basically, I wanted to reference an article by a politician in which she states that khat use is a problem amongst Somalis in the UK and stating the Conservative party's aim of banning it. Middayexpress claims that BLP prevents inclusion of this material because the article is covered by BLP. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok sorry I misread. Well reading it the material is from a reliable source and, whilst potentially negative to the subject, is not a BLP issue as I read it. (though it's inclusion should be treated with care; the piece is clearly direct opinion and should be attributed as such) --Errant Tmorton166 11:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was careful to attribute the claims to the person making them, and had pointed Middayexpress towards WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other comments are welcome before I reintroduce the material. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To the generic point: BLP is "Biographies of Living Persons". I'd say it applies if the groups are so small as to be identifiable as individual persons, but not to generic groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that BLP doesn't apply but citing fairly sweeping statements of fact about khat use in an entire community to an op-ed by a politician doesn't sound like the best approach, attributed or not. I imagine there are probably better sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. There is unlikely to be a BLP issue in this article (except where individuals are named), but selective use of op-ed sources that present a derogatory picture of an ethnic group would be a serious NPOV breach (if that is the case - I haven't considered the actual article in detail). --FormerIP (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is unclear as to if the comment is Warsis opinion or the reports conclusion, seems a bit like band-standing politician type comments to me, the idea that a race of people are underachieving in the education results and the employment market due to kat is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. I think it is a bit undue in the article actually. If the report has come to this conclusion then it is fine but if it is a politician opining and band standing, we will ban this drug..and that drug etc.. Unless there is other qualified sources attributing the same blame to this KAT then I think it should be kept out as an unqualified opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Solid point; it could be used as a general statement about Khat use in the community perhaps? I agree that it probably can't be used to explain education issues etc. --Errant Tmorton166 11:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the contribution using more neutral sources. The main reason for the Warsi reference wasn't to establish the impact of khat use so much as to outline what the Conservatives have said about it, which is important now that they are in government. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we've established that this is not a BLP issue, but here is an edit that I think introduces a balanced discussion of the issue. Comment are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentleman for weighing in. There are a few key bits of information that have not yet been mentioned which I would like to share. For starters, WP:BLP indicates that it "applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages". It also defines a living person as follows: "People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia". Hence, my indicating that WP:BLP would also apply in this case. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it didn't apply; there are still several other polices that clearly do apply in this case such as WP:QS, which indicates that:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."

I've also had the opportunity to take a closer look at what the politician in question actually writes in her opinion piece (), and not only is it not based on any actual study or scientific evidence (as other opinion pieces, ironically enough, have pointed out ), it is also factually inaccurate. She writes that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." However, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. The unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. In fact, an actual study on khat use among Somalis in the UK () states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use. The paper also indicates that only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat", that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat", and concludes that "the overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use." So basically, it's not just an opinion piece citing unsubstantiated, contentious claims about a living third party; it is also factually inaccurate and has been explicitly identified as such too. Middayexpress (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress, you are of course welcome to continue pursuing this as a BLP issue if you wish, but I have started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard since I think that's a better place for discussion of issues relating to opinion and balance. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Citing one politician's completely unsubstantiated claims that there is a correlation between khat use and unemployment in one entire ethnic group as though that opinion piece were a reliable source is and has always be an issue of questionable sourcing (among other policies), as I have repeatedly pointed out. You can try your luck on another messageboard, but there's no changing this basic fact. Middayexpress (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is evident this is not a BLP issue as the comments pertain to a generic group and not to specific individuals. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

POV in Sofia Rotaru

A user is keeping to reinsert POV statements into the lead of the article. My attempts to attribute the POV to the persons who have expressed them have been duly reverted by her. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to recall that before subjectively describing my sourced edits as POV, Jaan Pärn had previously, among ohters, intentionally lied providing a fake translation and often forgets about WP:NPA, including here today.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation in this dispute.--Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Do you really feel there should be statements in the BLP like " Sofia Rotaru is named the Queen of Pop music in Russia and the Show Queen in Ukraine" referenced to a couple of news journalists? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the point Jarhed is making is that that is a factual issue - not necessarily a BLP issue. This board is more for violations that adversely affect the subject, biased writing and so on. This issue is probably suited to WP:RS/N where they will be better able to discuss the legitimacy of the sources provided. --Errant Tmorton166 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, do you feel this should be taken there or now that there is a sufficient number of editors involved in the discussion we can settle this on the talk page?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The calling my edits POV and biased should be balanced against Jaan Pärn's subjective interpretation of reliable sources, fake translation (which may be found in archives of the Sofia Rotaru talk page) regarding revenues of Sofia Rotaru, often personal attacks in my regard and openly bad faith characterisation of my edits whereas they are properly sourced and my numerous references (Jaan Pärn provided no references to support his point of view, except his personal interpretation/translation/reading between the lines of my sources), for example: Sofia Rotaru the most popular pop artist in Russia and topped the Moscow airplay with "Ya nazovu planetu imenem tvoim" in 2008. Sofia Rotaru reported the highest income (100 mln USD) in Ukraine in 2008.....Rubikonchik (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I urge you editors to get some perspective on the nature of your dispute and to settle it amicably on the article talk page. In any case, I don't think this is the place for it.Jarhed (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fernando Ricksen

I know I sound like a bit of a broken tune over these footballer articles... but could someone review this material. I think it is, frankly, tabloid attack rubbish - or at best badly worded (the quotes are cherry picked...). The whole Rangers section is a bit of a mess to be honest and could do with some TLC --Errant Tmorton166 13:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How have they been 'cherry picked'? Which other former team-mates are quoted in the sources? 90.207.105.117 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picked in the sense that this is the entire quote from Rodriguez

I fail to see the rationale for cherry picking "He's missing something in his head" as the pertinent detail from that quote. The cynic in me says it was picked deliberately to reflect especially badly! Then we have the whole tone of the sentence; Reports of Ricksen's instability began to emerge - I mean, OR or NPOV much? :) Whoever wrote this put it in there to attack the guy - it either needs to go or be made a lot more neutral IMO --Errant Tmorton166 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF. The portion of the quote was simply selected as indicative of the whole - which, undoubtedly it is. OR and NPOV? I'm curious how you read the players' assessment of Ricksen? As a compromise, though, I am willing to change the wording (arrived at by consensus with another editor) to encompass the whole quote from Fortes. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not really an acceptable compromise to me because it is pretty undue to have the whole quote. But we could use one of the more toned down parts of the quote: " He was unpredictable and uncontrollable and everyone was glad when he was moved on" perhaps? The OR I refer to is the use of the word instability - that is attributing fact to the opinions of his previous players. More neutral wording might say something like: "Soon after joining Rangers teammates from his former club were reported as saying...." --Errant Tmorton166 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not 'instability' but 'reported instability', ie. Far from being WP:OR it is attributed entirely to the sources. Sources which describe in detail his far-from-stable history. I'm baffled as to why you think that part of Fortes' quote is more toned down than the original bit, but go ahead and use that if you prefer. I shall of course refrain from accusing you of bias or deliberately 'cherrypicking' toned-down bits to show the BLP in the best light. 90.207.105.117 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Describing someone as "mentally unstable" is a very serious claim - we need better than quotes from other footballers who are hardly likely to be trained psychiatrists. Exxolon (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An I am confused how "He's missing something in his head" would be considered a reasonable quote...... It's not 'instability' but 'reported instability' - I have no idea what this means.... "Reports of Ricksen's instability" is the text used in the article; this is unsupported by sources. It is OR because no source refers to them as reports of his instability. More importantly it sets up this instability as a fact ("Rickenson's instability") - which is editorializing and not the way the article should be written (unless a reliable source can be found to support it). I've been as patient as I can explaining this to you over and over; you might have noticed the other editors involved have not lasted half as long posting lots of replies to explain why your additions are not always suitable per WP policy. I'm trying my best, please try and understand how WP BLP's are prefferably written. --Errant Tmorton166 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

here's a new piece of creative writing (on another article). Can someone else look at this - I've reverted 3 times in total on that article and the IP editor does not seem to understand the problem with the wording. If I am wrong and it reads ok someone smack me :) --Errant Tmorton166 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is clearly exactly the same type of disruption created by this IP previously and he needs to take a step back and stop reverting and stop adding attack type additions to some BLP articles and use discussion. I have advised him on his talk page as to the benefits of getting an account and also of the usefulness of WP:ADOPTION to new accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Lester Coleman (closed)

Eliseo Soriano‎, yet again

Another request for more eyes on Eliseo Soriano‎ to ensure that content added/removed by both advocates and opponents is in compliance with WP:BLP / WP:V / WP:NPOV. Active Banana (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of broadcast transcripts as a source for criticism in a BLP

John Gibson (political commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are broadcast transcripts an acceptable source for criticism in a BLP? In the case of John Gibson, over 1/3 of the references in the Controversies section are references to broadcasts.(unsigned comments added by User:Drrll)

Personally I think in the public comments section that these valueless criticisms are excessive, three media matters criticized him, I think they are an often disputed neutral wiki reliable source and also pure attack comments like ..Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist, ... is just a valueless opinionated attack the others are just the same, valueless, lenny said he was an idiot type valueless rubbish.

• - Rick Sanchez of CNN called the comments "outrageous" and said Gibson "has some explaining to do",

• - Dan Abrams of MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams said Gibson was "out of line".

• - Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann called Gibson a racist,

• - Media Matters for America criticized him.

• - Frank Rich of the New York Times criticized Gibson..

• - Media Matters for America criticized him.

• - Time's Massimo Calabresi wrote that Gibson's interpretation of the census data was "wildly wrong".

• - Gibson's remarks were criticized by Keith Olbermann

• - Media Matters for America criticized him and later named his remark one of the top 11 "Most outrageous comments of 2006".

• - MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough called Gibson's remarks "sick"

• - Mary McNamara of the Los Angeles Times called for him to be fired.

Jonny said he was rubbish and harry said he was a fool and larry said he should be run out of town and gordon said he didn't like him either.... Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason television broadcasts from a reliable source should not be treated like any other reliable source. Transcripts and videos of these shows are usually easily accessible if that is an issue, but accessibility has never been a reason to disqualify an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual issue as regards BLP is these valueless insults and personal attack, eleven of them , three from Media matters alone. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue under discussion here, which is the appropriate use of broadcast transcripts. Please start a new section here or elsewhere if you wish to discuss a different topic. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What we do here is we discuss any BLP issues we find with articles that are brought here, we don't start threads for each issue. The actual issue as regards BLP is these valueless insults and personal attack, eleven of them , three from Media matters alone. Its not like they are intellectual retorts, they are mostly simple valueless, he is an idiot type personal attacks.Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I asked about use of broadcasts goes to whether these sources are actually primary sources that haven't been made noteworthy by secondary sources. Also involved is whether selection of specific quotes in the broadcast is cherry-picking solely by the editor. Drrll (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the latter, you could simply examine the source yourself. If you can't access a particular source, I'm sure an editor on the talk page would be glad to assist you. I know I would, time permitting, be willing to email you transcripts provided your request wasn't in the form of an accusation. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of transcripts, but I do have access to these transcripts (most of them, at least). I may disagree with you strongly on many points, but I don't believe I've directed any personal insults in your direction. Drrll (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the general you and the specific you got mixed up in that sentence. My point was that it would be dirty pool if someone phrased it like "You obviously hate Gibson! Prove you aren't cherry picking right now!" Many Wikipedians, unfortunately, are prone to that sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Transcripts are fine. That article is way to heavily weighted towards criticism of him. Six sections? Too much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Those sections were integrated into the rest of the article before Off2riorob separated them out and created those awkward bullet points. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I exposed them, that is all, so that people could see that was all they were was worthless insults and personal attacks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what the talk page is for, not the article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I had edited the talkpage, but also as a decent option, I felt that if by a few minor edits it exposed the poor quality of some of the content it would be beneficial to the article in the long term. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• There was this recent trimming of the insults and bla de bla which actually I do support, this edit at least in the moment as better than this, he said something controversial and john and harry said they didn't like it rubbish position. I an sure something could be added that reflects his notable comments and notable balanced opinions as regards his comments but what we have now is not reflective of that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

More to the point - epithets hurled at the subject of a BLP (or any article) do not automatically become notable in themselves. Else we would have several hundred sources calling Abe Lincoln names (frequently obscene). There is a big distinction between name-calling and actual structured disagreement. It is the reasoning behind an opinion which might be valid in an article, but sraight name-calling is absurd. Is this a problem which is widespread in WP? Unfortunately, yes. Collect (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as a solution we could have the few comments from the subject of the BLP and then a sentence at the end saying that his controversial comments have attracted some partisan criticism, and then two or three of the strongest citations, job done. Does anyone object to this solution? Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked, with the help of User:Yworo. I think it has kept all the detail and removed the valueless attacks.Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems better. I may have learned something from this BLP and the above comment (correct me if I'm wrong). Some guy saying stupid things, which is then commented on in reliable sources...OK. Someone else saying that guy was stupid...not OK. For instance, Olberman criticizing Gibson only makes Gibson's statements of note, not Olbermans. Does that sound right? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Drrll nailed the problem above. Transcripts are primary sources, and relevant material must be supported by good secondary sources, not cherry picked. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Frosty, Heidi & Frank

Lots of potentially libelous material about radio show hosts in Frosty, Heidi & Frank, including speculation about sexuality. I removed much, but was put back. VKIL (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian McGinlay

A user User talk: 90.207.105.117 has been repeatedly reverting material,(here, here, here) on the Brian Mcginlay article which was discussed both here and here in the past. The outcome being that the material was not justified to be included in the article. The user was warned in the past from a previous IP and is well aware of wiki rules.

The same user in question has worked from User talk:90.194.100.16 User talk:194.80.49.252 User talk:155.136.80.35 User talk:90.197.236.12 User talk:90.197.224.58 Monkeymanman (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gareth Darbyshire

Gareth Darbyshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a article created in the last couple of days by a one-edit SPA. BLPs are not really my line; could some eyes decide if this has crossed the line from 'fair comment' into 'attack'? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Blank-tagged as {{db-attack}}. 92.30.106.114 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it.Jarhed (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And it is gone. I can't believe it lasted so long. --Slp1 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

• Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin (AfD discussion)

After Administrators' Noticeboard discussion prompted by an OTRS request, I have sent this article to AFD. See the AN/I discussion and the edit history of the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Himesh Reshammiya

please give semi protection to this article,its the article of a famous Indian singer and its being vandalised again and again

Himesh Reshammiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. High level of vandalism,please semi protect this page.117.204.132.227 (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to make that request on the DFPP page. This is for BLP issues. --Errant Tmorton166 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

Katie Couric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A video of Couric was posted to YouTube which allegedly shows her making fun of Sarah Palin's children's names. It was added unsourced to her article. Within one day, blogs picked up on the item. Now, reliable sources have begun their reporting on it. Like the editted video of another high government official, how should this be treated? When should it be included? 04:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the incident is notable enough for a BLP, it's trivia.Jarhed (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jarhed. 24-hour news cycle trivia. Exclude. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary Hart

The Terry Jonathan Hart that Mary Hart is said to have been married to from 1972-1979 is the wrong Terry Hart. The Terry Hart she was married to was born in 1944, grew up in Sioux Falls, SD, and graduated with her from Augustana College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnpat (talk • contribs) 20:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Young, Craig (01 July 2009). "AIDS Denialism: A South African Tragedy". GayNZ. New Zealand. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Shallit, Jeffrey (09 August 2000). "AIDS conference proves pseudoscience can kill you". The Record. Ontario. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis website
4. Overestimating AIDS Phillip E. Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.
5. Vau Dell, Terry. "Paradise parents face murder, torture charges". Chico Enterprise-Record, 10 February 2010.
6. Martinez, Edecio. DA: Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz Killed Daughter With "Religious Whips" for Mispronouncing Word. CBS News, 22 February 2010.
7. "София Ротару стала лидером 100 самых популярных исполнителей". 2004. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
8. "Россияне любят больше всего Софию Ротару". 2005. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
9. "Самый популярный певец России". 2006. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
10. http://www.yalta-gs.gov.ua/en/news/detail.php?ID=1944
11. http://www.rma.ru/show/news895.html;30
12. "Sofia Rotaru declared the highest revenue for 2008". Деньги.ua, ООО ИД Украинский Медиа Холдинг. 2008-07-20. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
13. The Russian News & Information Agency RIA Novosti (18 July 2008). "Ротару задекларировала самые высокие доходы в Украине за 2008 год" (in Russian). Kiev: RIA Novosti Ukraine. RIA Novosti. p. 1. Retrieved 18 July 2009. Народная артистка Украины София Ротару задекларировала самые высокие доходы за 2008 год, сообщил заместитель председателя государственной налоговой администрации Украины Сергей Лекарь на брифинге в пятницу. При этом, он не уточнил задекларированную сумму, но добавил, что наибольший доход значительно превышает 500 миллионов (гривен) (около 100 миллионов долларов). {{cite news}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
14. Kommersant (28 July 2008). "Евроремонт для "Евровидения"" (in Russian). Moscow: Журнал «Деньги» № 29 (684) dated 28.07.2008. Kommersant. p. 1. Retrieved 11 November 2009. Певица София Ротару задекларировала самые высокие доходы на Украине за 2007 год, сообщил заместитель председателя государственной налоговой администрации Украины Сергей Лекарь. Он не уточнил задекларированную сумму, но отметил, что доход народной артистки Украины "значительно превышает 500 млн гривен" (около $100 млн). Также он сообщил, что по итогам прошлого года 360 украинцев задекларировали доход более 10 млн гривен (около $2 млн). Подобные декларации за 2006 год подали 200 граждан Украины. Более 1 млрд гривен дохода за прошлый год на Украине никто официально не получил. Зампред государственной налоговой администрации отметил, что высокие доходы декларируют футболисты, боксеры, артисты. {{cite news}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
15. http://www.rynok.biz/a/2009/09/25/Rejting_samih_uspeshnih_uk
16. http://vlasti.net/news/62098#
17. http://music.itop.net/Articles/1444

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages BLP policy