Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:37, 1 February 2013

• 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

Jodie Foster

Foster made an speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards. In her speech (you can view it at YouTube), she said "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago in the stone age", also she said more things I didn't listen to because I watched the translated version. After this, multiple IPs started to add she came out as lesbian, a word she never used. The page is protected, and we are discussing this at Talk:Jodie Foster, but the current article has these two problems: User:Ernestsewell removed material without a reason, and User:Tx1987 added a category that frankly fails WP:BLPCAT. I really doubt this information should be retained in the article because, as now, there is no further evidence beyond that strange speech and the Mail Online (which seems unreliable). Can somebody give your thoughts here or that talk page, or if necessary take actions by removing that material off her biography per BLP. I know that BLPN is for "an extended period" content, but we need more eyes here. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Edit warring now in effect over the categories, which clearly fail WP:BLPCAT. Anyone who enjoys arguing is invited to the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact text of her speech fully supports describing and categorizing her as the nonspecific "LGBT" — the only thing it fails to do is to get more specific than that. Describing and subcategorizing her as specifically "lesbian" would be a BLP violation; describing and subcategorizing her as the general "LGBT" is not. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the part of her speech in which she calls herself "LGBT" or states that she is bisexual or a lesbian. Categories relating to sexuality are assigned based on what the subject says about themselves, not on your inferences. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As our article on coming out makes clear, "coming out" is all about LGBT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, she didn't said anything specific about her sexual orientation, so she can't be categorized as "LGBT".--В и к и T 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst 'coming out' speech ever for not actually saying what she is coming out as. Maybe a furry, who knows, she didnt say. So we cant either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

While I would argue that realistically she wasn't coming out as a potato peeler or supporting the culling of the Western Spotted Marmot, there is not enough there to classify her as LGBT. A note should be made about what she said in the speech, using NPOV wording. Maybe in a few months she'll give an actual interview or something like that that will completely eliminate any doubt as to her sexual orientation, and then the category can be added. §FreeRangeFrog 18:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Loud and proud", "coming out", "my female partner" - Our policy does not say "They must use the words 'I am gay'". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Loud and proud" automatically means gay now? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think she does specifically have to say - interpreting the meaning of a speech is WP:OR. GiantSnowman 17:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is partly correct here: Interpreting the meaning of a speech is original research. Therefore, we must rely on reliable secondary sources for analysis. The analysis is overwhelmingly clear that she did say she is gay so there is no amount of OR that can override our duty to report what is found in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Our policy does not require the use of the exact phrase "I am gay", such that even if her meaning is explicit and unmistakable and fully supported by secondary sources we still can't cite it if you can't find that exact string of six letters in that exact order. People "come out" in all kinds of ways, using all kinds of language, and our policy requires only that the meaning of the statement is clear and properly sourced as such, not that it precisely conforms to one and only one "correct" way of phrasing the statement. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen several sources noting that her statements were not clear. There is no one right way for someone to state their sexual orientation or religious belief, but when there is disagreement about waht they are actually saying, that simply isn't good enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In blogs and opinion pieces, sure, but those don't count as valid sources for our purposes anyway. You can still find sources of that type which still assert that "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" and that "not one single moderate Muslim has ever condemned 9/11", too — but that doesn't mean we're obliged to take them seriously, if the properly reliable sources say otherwise. We do not require, and never have, that every possible source on the planet agrees with complete and total unanimity on any given fact — if we did, Misplaced Pages would be entirely empty, because there's not a single statement in this entire encyclopedia that some potential source, somewhere in the world, hasn't contradicted or said something different than most of the others. (Sometimes that dissenting statement just a research error; sometimes it's a deliberate falsification; sometimes it's a legitimately differing opinion; and yes, occasionally it's even right in a way that just hasn't properly surpassed the burden of evidence yet — but if a statement claims the opposite of what the preponderance of evidence in the preponderance of reliable sources says, then we just discount it and don't concern ourselves with the whys.)

Rather, once the preponderance of evidence in reliable sources supports Statement X, then we accept Statement X whether it's still theoretically possible for somebody to suss out some basis of uncertainty or not, and demand a higher standard of evidence from the people who still choose to claim Not-X — the burden of proof is on the claim that runs counter to the established consensus of reliable sources, not vice versa. I mean, for one thing, Foster already issued a followup statement to clarify the reports that she had announced her retirement from the movie biz — so she would clearly have done the same thing if the statement that she had come out as LGBT were also wrong. (Again, the burden of evidence rests on the claim that she would have acted inconsistently, choosing to correct one error but let another one stand, and not on the claim that she would have acted the same way in both cases — because the claim that she would have acted inconsistently is the one that actually requires original research speculation about what might or mightn't be motivating her to treat the two statements differently.) Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

She said she shares children with another woman, is that not specific enough? RNealK (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't require any original research analysis on our part; the secondary sources (which is what we look for around here) have already done that work for us. The suggestion that she meant, or might have meant, something else would be an WP:NOR violation, not the suggestion that she meant what every single reliable source on the planet has already reported. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

She went to a great deal of effort not to say those words, "I am gay", so we shouldn't put them into her mouth. The whole point of her speech was that her personal life wasn't anyone else's business. Perverting that as a public declaration of homosexuality is wrong. --GRuban (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of her speech was that her personal life wasn't anyone else's business, yes — in the sense that she's not going to give us big tabloid spreads on who she's actually dating and how they manage their relationship and what they did in bed last night and how they do or don't divvy up the housework and how they do or don't choose to raise the kids. None of that is incompatible with a simple acknowledgement that one is LGBT; as even the most militantly out queer activist will tell you, just acknowledging one's basic identity is not the same thing as sacrificing one's personal privacy. I'm openly gay myself, but that doesn't mean I'm giving anyone here an all-access pass into my bedroom to watch me and my partner or partners in action — and the fact that I keep that stuff private doesn't somehow mean I'm suddenly not out about the simple, basic fact that I am gay. So no, nobody's "perverting" anything and nobody's committing "wrong"; you're simply pitting two things against each other that aren't actually in any sort of contradiction. As I noted below, you're free to debate and discuss the sources all you wish — but you are not free to impugn or malign or question the motivations of other people who happen to hold a different view of them than you do. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Er ... thanks for the permission, but I don't think I was impugning, maligning, or questioning anyone's motivations. --GRuban (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, I think the article already reports what secondary sources say - the issue here is the categories. For those, we rely on what she says, per WP:BLPCAT. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCAT, even if WP:RS have drawn some conclusions, we err on the side of caution - even if it doesn't make sense so. Arguments that go against WP:BLP should be redirect to the appropriate policy talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A disagreement about whether a given statement is a BLP violation in the first place is not the same thing as an "argument that goes against BLP". You're free to believe something different than I do about this matter if you wish — but you are not free to simply assert that I'm violating policy. I am, for the record, the person who wrote Misplaced Pages's policy around WP:BLP as it pertains to sexual orientation — and nobody has ever seriously argued that my work in that matter wasn't good enough, except from the position that we should never categorize anyone by sexual orientation at all. And right off the top of my head, I've removed LGBT-related categorization from many, many articles on which it actually was a clearcut BLP violation due to lack of proper sourcing — see Talk:John Baird (Canadian politician) for just one example — so I'm clearly not a person who lacks understanding of what does or doesn't constitute a BLP violation. You're not obliged to agree with my assessment of the sources in question, certainly, and I'm not interested in turning this into a pissing contest — but you are obliged to assume good faith. I'm every bit as intimately familiar with WP:BLP, and every bit as dedicated to upholding it, as you are, so whatever else you may think of my position, you're not entitled to simply assert that I'm violating BLP as a tactic to shut down any attempt to even discuss the matter. Discuss and debate the sources, by all means — but the ad hominem attacks against my basic understanding of what BLP does or doesn't even permit in the first place need to stop. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat thank you for your informed perspective. I think the way in which the topic is now covered in the BLP is appropriate. It quotes from her speech. Does not unnecessarily probe into her private life or make inferences but allows her to make an important comment about her life (in the same way as I would by saying "my wife and I"). Balance is maintained and the important context of her life (which she readily accepts) is acknowledged. XcommR (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research, claims of BLP violation, and reliable secondary sources

There are three problems swirling around this fiasco, and the most blatant is the WP:OR being committed by people who say she didn't come out as gay in her speech. As we can see above from reliable secondary sources, the analysis has been done for us: she came out as a lesbian. Saying that she didn't, or that she danced around it, is depending too much on the WP:PRIMARY source, which as you all know, must be used only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources, and those secondary sources are overwhelmingly unanimous in their analysis of this event. Second, I am concerned that some editors are accusing others of "BLP violations" for inserting the categories into the article. The accusation is being leveled in edit summaries as well as template warnings to editors by one user in particular, Darkness Shines (talk · contribs). I had an unproductive conversation with this user on his talk page and was unable to reach any kind of agreement. He asserts that the reliable secondary sources we have furnished are "gossip columns" and cannot be accepted. This brings us to the final concern that I have. Many news outlets have reported on the Jodie Foster speech. Some are not so reliable, some are tabloids and gossip columns, but some are perfectly reputable sites such as FOX News, UPI, and the Chicago Tribune. I do not know why ordinary news outlets such as these should be called "gossip columns" and discounted. I also am not aware of any reliable secondary sources which have asserted that Jodie Foster did not come out as lesbian. If there were a controversy about her remarks, we would be able to cite sources on both sides and report on the fact that her words were ambiguous, but it seems to me that they were not ambiguous, when all of the reputable news sources came to the same conclusion about her sexuality. Elizium23 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue Angel (person)

Blue Angel (person) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a rather heated discussion going on in Blue Angel (person) about whether or not a certain source in which Blue Angel describes herself as bisexual is reliable. We need more input from other editors. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we accept interviews from Youtube as RS because they can be doctored. This video should be the same case. Even if it isn't doctored she may have been confused by the question because Her english is not the best. She later states it was her only sexual encounter with a girl when she was a teenager and hasn't had any since. Just food for thought.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's a heated discussion; to be honest, I don't really even care about it that much anymore. Basically, one user doesn't agree with the source I added and is now trying to discredit my comments by accusing me of violating guidelines and essays that s/he is actually violating. Anyway, there really is no proof that Blue Angel's English isn't the best (although she does have a thick accent). And if she hasn't had any off-camera lesbian relationships since her first time, that's her choice; it doesn't necessarily mean she no longer identifies as bisexual (unless she explicitly states so, that is; see Jenna Jameson). My thing is, she clearly states in the interview that she is bisexual around the 2:20 mark. Erpert 08:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't thing the English issue is that significant. However if the only source where she mentioned this is in a 'behind the scenes' 'interview' shot during a pornographic shoot intended I presume to be released along with the pornographic video in question (or other videos in which she appears) then I would suggest we do not have sufficient reliable sourcing establishing she identifies as such and the claim should remain out of the article. Note that this doesn't mean the claim is untrue, anymore then the claim she has a 'love for pussy' (evidentally established in the same 'interview') is necessarily untrue, simply that claims made in such a context aren't sufficient for wikipedia purposes as we have no guarantees the intention of the interview was for her to tell the truth as opposed to telling whatever the director thinks their viewers want to hear. In addition, it's unlikely the site in question would be consider a reliable secondary source. We sometimes accept self published sources in BLPs when it involves people making claims about themselves, but not when it involves people making claims about other people, and the publisher here is not the person in question. Of course, even when people make claims in reliable secondary sources, it may sometimes be part of maintaining a persona. In such cases we would generally accept such claims at face value, and publish any later retractions or clarifications, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standard of reliable secondary sourcing, particularly in BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last two sentences were a little confusing. Erpert 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view the BLP as it stands is fine. It is (to be honest) impossible to see the relevance or not of the sexual orientation of a porn star. She is acting out sexual roles and unless this takes on some larger dimension I don't think it is relevant to the BLP. XcommR (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

• Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A claim is stated as follows:

and Idaho journalist Jody May-Chang

Problem is I can find zero sources not directly traced to Ms. Chang calling her a "journalist" at all. Her Misplaced Pages "article" was, IIRC, deleted. The source given is "Letters to Jody May-Chang from Melaleuca "re: infringing and defamatory material on PrideDEPOT.com website (dated May 9, 2008 and February 14 2012" representing an image of a letter which does not call her a "journalist" and as an original document likely does not meet WP:RS for the claim that she is a journalist or that she got a specific letter making "threats." The website is Salon "http://media.salon.com/media/pdf/February_14_2012_letter.pdf" The editor proposing this material states that Salon is the sole "source" of the letter, which I kinda doubt. I removed the claim as there is no cite at all for calling Chang a "journalist" and no source which justifies calling this letter a "threat" directly from VanderSloot. AFAICT, the letter is not signed by VanderSloot, nor does the legal counsel state that the letter is on behalf of VanderSloot. The claim that VanderSloot made a "threat" is thus not supported by the cite given in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There has never been an article by the name of Jody May-Chang. GiantSnowman 15:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My error -- she was in a COI/N discussion however. Collect (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect is assiduously ignoring a source suggested for him on the article talk page: , "Jody May-Chang is an independent journalist". This post here is a complete waste of time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, time wasting exercises like these have been occurring chronically with Collect on the Vandersloot article. There are roughly 5 sources currently cited in the article that refer to Chang as a "journalist" and the primary document linked is from a WP:RS -- i.e., Salon Magazine. Collect's edits, and subsequent baseless assertion on this board, are inexcusable. Contrary to Collect's grossly misleading statement above, the Salon article specifically referred to Vandersloot's defamation threats against Chang (identified in the article as a "journalist" and it describes and links to the article from Vanderlsoot's legal counsel sent to Chang. The article says the following: "Most of those who have been successfully bullied out of their free speech rights are reluctant to talk about what happened for fear of further retribution. But now, VanderSloot may have picked the wrong person to bully. Jody May-Chang is an independent journalist...In response, she was sent a letter from LaClare, Melaleuca’s counsel, accusing her of copyright infringement (for use of the photo) and defamation (for, among her things, her “characterizations of Mr. VanderSloot as ‘anti-gay’”). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are at 5RR on that article. WP:BLP is policy - and I asked for a reliable source for calling Chang a "journalist" and no such source has been given. She is founder of "pride-depot.com" a commercial site with her blog on it (about one post a month) which makes her a !journalist. And the pdf of a letter from a person other than VanderSloot != a source for accusing VanderSloot of "threats" in any case. It might be notable that the first place to hold the copyvios took them down which rather implies that they could not defend them. It is also true that in 2010, Chang added her own column as a source in the Sean Hannity BLP. She is still not a "journalist." Not until you get a reliable source making the claim and not using her own self-description. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, are you going to get around to reading that Salon article I linked to above? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean the one where Chang is used as a source about Chang? I suggest you Google "recursion" and see why such claims are not regarded as "reliably sourced" on Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And where Change asserted it was "normal practice" to use copyrighted images of people without permission or proper attribution? That level of "journalist"? Such behaviour at Commons would result in a ban of any editor - you can not say "everyone violates copyright" as an excuse for violating copyright - especially since real journalists know better than to yank images from websites which have what is jocularly called a "copyright notice" on them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of journalists use copyrighted images without proper attribution, I suggest you Google the 'Tabloid Watch' blog, among others, for plenty of examples from the UK. Yours is not an argument; it is bias and agenda. GiantSnowman 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect is playing the game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's already been pointed out that multiple independent secondary sources cited in the article refer to Chang as a journalist.. This is an exercise in futility; a hallmark of WP:DE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

When in doubt, attack the other person? Nope RIR - that is exactly the wrong way to deal with substantive issues raised above. There are zero sources other than those using Chang as her own source making that claim. Zero. Nil. Nada. Rien. And since anyone can call themselves a "journalist" this is a claim which requires an independent source entirely. What I find are sources that she sells gay-themed goods at a commercial website. And that she thinks copyrights do not mean anything at all. But heck -- go ahead and attack me all you want - but the damn problem about sourcing remains. Collect (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack, it is an expression of complete astonishment that you are still making the claim, which flies in the face of the facts, that no sources refer to Chang as a journalist. When an editor steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the facts on the table, then a reminder about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is warranted. It's highly disingenuous to cloak your own tendentious POV pushing with lame accusations about personal attacks and 3RR violations. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claim is errant and does not represent what I wrote -- there are ZERO reliable sources not directly tied to Chang which make the claim she is a "journalist." Period. Every example you gave directly traces back to Chang. She is a seller of goods and an infrequent blogger. She is not a "journalist" by any accepted definition of the term. She is apparently not even paid by anyone for her writings. She is not "employed" by any newspaper, magazine, journal or broadcast company to write. It is not her "occupation" else somewhere on the web I would find an iota of evidence about her. What we do have is articles citing her which call her a "journalist." That and a dollar will buy a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Given how little is written about her, or articles she has written appearing in national newspapers why is any weight at all being given to her opinions? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No weight at all is being given to her opinions. The article on VS notes VS's actions regarding her, as discussed in multiple sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than her soi-disant categorisation as "journalist", the PDF shows a Melaleuca lawyer making claims - not VanderSloot. The "threats" seem in accord with the copyright violation recognized by the previous site removing the copyvios, and can not be ascribed to VanderSloot unless you think he changed his name to that of legal counsel for Melaleuca. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .

You still haven't clicked on this link, have you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I did. Your snark is irrelevant, annoying, ad hominem, and generally a disgusting waste of a post. And you are getting so far afield here that I consider this topic quite totally dead -- Chang is not a journalist by profession, and the "threat" was not made by VanderSloot per the PDF furnished. Is that settled now for you? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So if multiple reliable sources describe her as a journalist we are nonetheless meant to edit in accordance with your different opinion on the matter?? And we're meant to go with your own WP:OR on a primary source?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Read this: The sources are not independent! They all use Chang as the source for Chang being a "journalist." See "recursion" on Google. You can't use a self-serving statement from any individual as "proof" of a fact about that individual. Find me evidence that she has actually worked as a journalist. You can't. Nothing in print shows her working as a "journalist" so she is no more a "journalist" than you or I. BTW, it is not "OR" to read the source. Collect (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait -- so Glenn Greenwald and Jody May Chang are actually the same person? This is getting strange... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said no such thing, this is pure snark on your part. What is clear is that Greenwald's description of Chang is from Chang herself. And the letter to Chang from a Meleluca lawyer is not from VanderSloot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken this thread is about the text in this edit. Assuming that is correct I would make the following comments: Although Salon is a self described "award winning web site" and would appear to be, in general, a reliable source..... the article being cited is clearly an editorial opinion piece and does not, therefore, substantiate Chang as a "local journalist" nor qualify her as a valid source for contentious claims of multiple lawsuits in a BLP. Likewise the Salon editorial by Greenwald is not a reliable source for lawsuit claims in a BLP and neither is a video of Rachel Maddow's editorial news show. The entire sentence is supported by a citation house of cards and in my opinion should be removed immediately per WP:BLP until reliable secondary sources can be found.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What VS's lawyers did to Chang appears also in this one. We're really not lacking in verifiability here, folks. All of this has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb numerous times; the fact that Collect is still unhappy is not evidence of an actual problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Local News8 article is careful to only report the claims made by Greenwald and Maddow. It does not endorse or substantiate the claims or indicate that it has done any independent research to validate the them. However it does refer to Chang as an "independent journalist and blogger" whatever that is. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true in part, but not entirely. It's clear they talked to Chang: "The Boise-based May-Chang got a letter from VanderSloot's lawyers for some 2007-2008 posts, but she's not backing down." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They flippin' quote her! I'm sorry, but this is one of the more pathetic attempts at biasing an article I've seen in a while. I have a very strong dislike for Glenn Greenwald, but I see every reason to interpret his article as a news piece, not an editorial. There are links to supporting evidence every few sentences in almost every paragraph. And the whole point of his mention of May-Chang, in context, is that VanderSloot's lawyers went after an extremely minor personage in the journalism field. The only improvement I can see is that, given that we don't have an article on her, a better identification of May-Chang is called for. Other than that I don't see an obstacle to including the material. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity here. If a media organisation says in the editorial voice that X got a letter from Y, the only reasonable assumption is the organisation is confident this really happened. If they weren't they would say something like 'reportedly' or 'according to' or give some other indication they are only going by what has been said and aren't confident enough to make the claim as factual. But anyway I'm confused by what's at dispute here. Does anyone besides Collect dispute that 'independent journalist' is sufficiently sourced to appear as a description of May-Chang? Does anyone still dispute that we have source sources to establish May-Chang received a letter from VanderSloot's lawyers about her posts? Does anyone accept the letter from lawyers was received but suggest we don't have sufficient reliable secondary sourcing to establish it was a legal threat? Does anyone accept all that but argue the sourcing is not sufficient to mention it in our article? Unless I'm missing something, we do not use May-Chang as a source in the article for anything but to establish a legal threat was received. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For the edification of all, there was another discussion about Chang here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup -- it's true, there's another discussion. But the issue discussed there isn't a live one, because we don't cite anything written by Chang at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Which lede should be used?

A dispute exists in Frank L. VanderSloot as to (1) whether the company that VanderSloot founded, Melaleuca, is a multi-level marketer (MLM) and, more important in this request, (2) whether that assertion should be included in the lede, as a fact.

A WP policy states: "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."

It is important to note that this is a matter of some contention (to give just two examples; there are many more):

1. User: Andrewman327 has stated that "VanderSloot has explicitly denied that Melaleuca is an MLM several times." (02:21, 25 January 2013)
2. User: Rhode Island Red has stated that "The MLM aspect is a cardinal feature of the company, and it has been established that the company is an MLM." (20:31, 16 January 2013).

We must also note that multi-level marketing can be considered a "defamatory or libelous" statement when it is applied to a biography of a living person, as noted in this excerpt from the WP article on the topic:

MLM companies have been a frequent subject of criticism as well as the target of lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial start-up costs, emphasis on recruitment of lower-tiered salespeople over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring salespeople to purchase and use the company's products, potential exploitation of personal relationships which are used as new sales and recruiting targets, complex and sometimes exaggerated compensation schemes, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion.

Other adverse criticism about MLM, possibly libelous or defamatory when applied to a living person, can be read here.

On 16:59, 23 January 2013, an editor previously uninvolved in this article, User:Barek, gave his opinion as follows:

I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names. The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead.

After a series of comments by editors (see "Consensus" here), User:GeorgeLouis posted Barek's suggestion as a substitute lede at 16:29 January 2013, with the Edit Summary "Slimmed-down version of the lede as suggested by User:Barek."

Rhode Island Red and User:Nomoskedasticity have reverted to the version that includes the MLM description, here and here. The question in this RFC then is, basically, "Which version of the lede should be used? The pared-down rendering or the one that includes thumbnail descriptions of VanderSloot's business activities?" GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should simply have a permanent subpage of BLPN devoted to complaints about VanderSloot? Also, for those not already familiar with GeorgeLouis -- he has a curious habit of referring to himself in the third person; it's an unfortunate tendency, as it conveys the impression that someone else did something and now George is here to support it. The post is also inaccurate insofar as it suggests that only RIR and I (note first-person reference) favor a version of the lede that includes reference to MLM; in fact, as the recent edit history shows there is at least one additional editor who believes it is appropriate, having offered a suggestion that accomplishes both brevity and (imo) proper description. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to avoid making the editor the issue -- there is no doubt that MLM belongs in the body of the article - the only issue here is whether an extended characterisation of a company belongs in the lede. On that people may differ, but attacking someone who has a different opinion is not an impressive argument on this noticeboard. I hold that "a brief lede is a good lede" when it covers all the essential facts and makes no claims which could possibly be contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a maddeningly twisted summary. You (and George Louis) have been campaigning relentlessly (since mid 2012) to remove MLM from the article altogether. I suppose it's a good thing that you are now at least conceding that the company is an MLM, but given that is is, there would be every reason to include MLM in the lead as per WP:LEAD, which states that the lead should be a stand alone summary of the details in the body text. The lead in its present form is not overly long (quite a bit less than the 4 paragraphs suggested by WP:LEAD) so there is no reason to argue that the lead needs to be shortened (and MLM has been mentioned in the lead for many months without drawing any opposition). Rather, it seems that you are merely using this tenuous argument about the lead to camouflage an intense desire to whitewash the fact that the company is an MLM. Stop it already. It's a waste of everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an absolutely accurate summary. At least you do not accuse me this time of "supporting socks" and "tagteaming" and "COI" - why not simply let others read the material rather than have you jump in with inaccurate claims (I had long since stated that MLM should be in the body - your claim that I oppose it is fatuous, and simply wrong) And the inane "whitewash" charge has long since outlived any sense of sobriety! Cheers -- and you could simply remove your personal attack if you really wished to not waste everyone's time here. Collect (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Use pared-back lede. Just for the record (in case it wasn't clear), I have supported using the "pared-back" lede above as a compromise between two camps, one of which believes that Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company and the other of which (me, for example), doesn't think think it is, according to reliable sources. But the main point in this discussion is that tarring VanderSloot with an MLM brush is defamatory and that description of one of his companies should not remain in the lede, although the assertion could probably be discussed in the body of the story, where both sides could be given. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Gloria Allred

Note - The article has been well-referenced, and everything in it is correctly sourced.

Pre-dispute, it had a career section of 18k characters, which contained a lot of things that should have been removed (In my Opinion) So I removed it, and was reverted back. An exchange ensued, on the edit summaries, the talk page, and my own talk page.

My opinion of the article, and the prima facie reason for the original removal is that the article contains an unreasonable amount of details, making it look like a CV. It also appears to be sympathetic to her side.

Can an experienced editor on the same please mediate this issue, and help decide whether the article ought to be cropped, or to remain as it stood pre-dispute?

Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience, Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Polina Such

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

Article about a model of dubious notability, with long term edit warring in an attempt to introduce poorly sourced BLP violations. Recommendations: action against Wrvasd (talk · contribs) and nomination of article for deletion. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, I've brought it to the attention of the project's administrators. §FreeRangeFrog 17:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to you, and to Future Perfect for taking care of this. I think the article is a very good candidate for AfD process. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Moni Aizik Redux

Moni Aizik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Previous discussions at , and .

An editor has removed material from the lead and sourced material from the main part of the article on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and non-RS (this concerned an Advertising Standards Agency Adjudication. I restored it stating "sources are fine, we need to show the background, & Aizik didn't respond to the decision, he responded to the complaint". This was removed again, on the grounds that it was WP:UNDUE and the edit that implies he responded to the adjudication rather than the complaint was restored. I don't think it's too long and I think that the background to the complaint should be there, but I'm happy to hear contrary opinions. I'm a bit jaded since earlier edits by another editor tried to claim that the ASA adjudication was no longer on the ASA site and was more or less null and void.

He also removed all material from the lead mentioning the ASA complaint. I don't object to him removing controversial from the lead (he seems to be controversial but that has all been removed at some time) but the ASA material belongs there, esp. as the article is now so short. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

from what i just wrote on the talk page, where you didn't even engage me in a conversation. but that's ok, i'm a big boy and can handle discussing it here: hey doug - that was quick. i think a discussion here is fair, but sure, blpn is good too. if you are bothered by the one word, then you are right to change that one word only. the rest of my edit is fine. but to wholesale claim something that is not, that's not good. also, did you read wp:undue? it really speaks volumes about what you are trying to do. and please read wp:lede about including controversies there. yes, they can be, but don't have to be. and lastly, i really find no RS outside of the very narrow martial arts world to even justify the existence of the article. it appears that this guy has done some good, hs some notability, and one organization told him to not say 'x' when advertising. (they are not a cout of law).

as for what you wrote above: there are too many times you use the word 'he' and i am not sure if you are referring to me or the other editor you mention. in any case, in a short article, as you say, one needs to be careful. wp:undue really applies. really. in sum, i was just trying to make the article more encyclopedic and less 'doug doesn't like this guy' (which is how it reads). and, i was just trying to improve it. don't like it? suggest a deletion? Soosim (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see no difficulty with the material Doug has restored and do not agree that it is "undue". Past experience would suggest that Soosim edits Israel-related articles from a well-defined POV, and it would be helpful to have additional uninvolved input. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We need pretty good reasons to call someone "controversial" in a BLP. At a minimum, we'd need multiple reliable sources using that terminology. Doug Weller's version had none, and such such, it is clearly inadmissible under WP:BLP. Perhaps there's more to this story than is currently in the article, but at the moment, it looks like a run of the mill business dispute between two competing martial arts schools, during which one competitor appealed to the ad council to have their competitors' ad disallowed. That is all the article should say, based on current sources. This happens every day, and is barely notable, certainly not enough to label one of the litigants "controversial". All Rows4 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit where I said I was happy with the word controversial being removed? There is more that isn't in the article which may have justified the word at one time but not now if we don't include the ASA adjudication. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well , yes, I actually did miss that, and apologize for that. My response was more to Nomoskedasticity who said the materiel you added (which included the "controversial" wording) was ok. W/O that word, I think your content is acceptable, to the extent we describe the ASA issue factually (without the overtones of "under legal pressure" or similar language). I still think the whole thing is only marginally notable , but then again, the subject is arguably non-notable , too. All Rows4 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

can we agree that the content stays but in much shorter form (similar to how i edited it????). in a short article, wp:undue really is significant. Soosim (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is no undue here. We finally had a fine version, finally getting the COI edits under control and poof! here we are again. The man got spanked by the ASA for making claims he can't substantiate. That's FACT. It is very well sourced. Just live with it. The fact that there is not as much well sourced, relevant material as you'd like to distract people from seeing the ASA actions is not our fault. That part is presented in a reasonable manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• niteshift - who is "our" in your comment "not our fault"? sounds like you are more than just yourself. are you representing or tied to the other martial arts place that sued him? in any case, it is UNDUE since "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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." - all's i'm saying is that it needs to be "weight appropriate". i, for one, have no problem with the ASA ruling, but: it can't be the main topic and it is not in RS as you say. so, make it relational. Soosim (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Our" is the consensus. You and a COI editor are the only ones who seem to have an issue here. Every other experienced editor that has opined here or at the previous discussions are fine with the ASA ruling and how much of it is in the article. Your ignorant, completely baseless question about who I'm affiliated with was very, very enlightening. The fact that you immediately jumped into attack mode and started with some conspiracy theory tells me (and everyone else here) that you have an agenda. Please don't bother to lecture me about AGF because you killed that when you started with your 'who are you representing' bullstuff. Who am I representing? ONLY me. It sure looks like you can't (truthfully) say the same thing though. Funny how you can say "we" over and over, but when I say "our", you jump into ridiculous conspiracy theories. Again, very illuminating. And for you to claim it's not in a reliable source.....well that's just absurd. The ASA is a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you. now i know that you speak for "every other editor". whew. i was worried, but now i understand. there is no consensus as to the quantity of material, and it is simply undue - which you don't discuss. "very illuminating". Soosim (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure jack. When you say "we", should I presume you are speaking for everyone else? And try getting it correct. I didn't say I spoke for "every other editor", I said "every other experienced editor that has opined here....." If you're going to quote me, at least show the context correctly so it is accurate and not this crap you just made up. It has been discussed. The consensus is there. You just don't like it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

Carmen Ortiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has added Linus Torvalds' opinion on the Aaron Swartz case to the Carmen Ortiz page. This appears to be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SELFSOURCE (the reference given is Torvalds' Google+ page). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY issue. I've reverted his addition and recommended he add that (if merited) to Swartz' bio instead. §FreeRangeFrog 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject in discussion is "Aaron Swartz prosecution and suicide". The entry highlight a serious statement made by a globally well respected personality Linus Trovalds, against the subject Carmen Ortiz. Aaron Swartz was a computer programmer. Linus Torvalds is one of the world leaders in computer programming. Thus, Linus in his role as a global leader of computing is directly related to the subject. The said criticism has been sourced to reliable secondary sources and meets the standards of a post. The G+ post on the official page of Linus Torvalds. Keeping in the neutral point of view required for all Wiki entries, this statement by Linus should be available for public on Misplaced Pages. Prodigyhk (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the basics of WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE) or WP:BLP. You appear to have a strong opinion on the topic, which is fine for you personally, but we're here to create a professional encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Linus as a global leader of technology reflect the majority concerning the suicide of Aaron. By removing criticism about Ortiz, we have lost requirement of neutral stance to be maintained on a professional encyclopedia. It appears we have editors with strong opinion wanting to protect Ortiz.Prodigyhk (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly support the inclusion of at least some of the major criticisms made of Ortiz by major industry figures (Torvalds, Lessig). We don't need all of them, we certainly don't need the minor bloggers, but some of the people who have stood up and made pretty scathing criticisms of a government figure are substantial and erudite figures in their own right.

The removal argument seems to equate to this, "Joe Hack on the Daily Planet reports on Ortiz and this is WP:RS as a credible newspaper" but if anyone substantial in their own right comments then, "Prof Tweed is giving a personal opinion, thus fails as WP:SPS". So we remove public comments, published through the same newspaper channels, solely for being from a more substantial source?! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms which might fit the Schwartz article are not necessarily proper in the Ortiz article. We generally do not list cases under prosecutors as in many cases the prosecutor does not seek out a case, but presents a case which has been thrust upon them. Collect (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but when multiple law professors at major universities are so vocal in their criticism of a prosecutor, then that's unusual and notable, in that prosecutor's general career. We're hardly likely to remove Woodward & Bernstein from the Nixon article, just because they're also mentioned at Watergate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would note that Andy Dingley proceeds on the basis of an extremely pro-Aaron-Swartz stance. His goal is to present Carmen Ortiz as negatively as possible, since she was involved in prosecuting Aaron Swartz. I question greatly Andy Dingley's ability to be neutral on this issue. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kerry Wendell Thornley/Grace Zabriskie

Kerry Wendell Thornley is still dead, but I am concerned about some new content in "Personal life" (diff) that involves another living person, Grace Zabriskie. For the purposes of BLP, I am also assuming that Thornley and Zabriskie's purported daughter is still alive. The edit does indeed cite sources (, ), but in both cases they are self-published (policy says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."). These sources include some very sensitive information (e.g., page 5 in the 1st link) and I have to wonder how well (or if) it was properly vetted by the respective publishers. That isn't Misplaced Pages's problem, but at the same time, I'm not sure these are good sources for WP:BLP. (I thought this was a better venue than WP:RS/N.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed No, they're not, and more to the point, that's speculative at best. I've removed the paragraph and placed the article on my watchlist. §FreeRangeFrog 20:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 subsection names

An editor has claimed that the "partial quoting of a living person is a violation of not only MOS but also a BLP violation" in an article subheadings. The current claim can be found here. The issue reached pervious consensus here. Casprings (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot have a concensus to overrule BLP violations, and WP:MOS clearly states that quotes be reproduced completely and accurately. Arzel (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:MOSQUOTE Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. Arzel (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Each controversy that uses the quoted name was called that by multiple WP:RS. The context is given in the section. See link above where that was demonstrated during the pervious concensus. Casprings (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That some reporters are using the quote for dramatic effect does not override the BLP protections WE have for living people. That you are wanting to use the headings for dramatic effect does not suprise me in the least. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy with the to abide by the feelings and consensus if not involved editors as to rather it is a violation. I do not think it is. We have articles like, You didn't build that that use partial quotes. Akin's comments were know by two words, "legitimate rape". So I think it is fair to use that in the subtitle, for example. Casprings (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That article is regarding that phrase, and you will note that it quickly goes into the entire quote within the article. You, however, want to just push the dramatic effect in order to attack living people. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Suzy Favor Hamilton

Article as it currently stands has next to nothing about this person's long running career (includes state, national and Olympics), charity work or business dealings. Predictably, I guess, some editors want to keep expanding the section on recent news that she had worked as an escort recently. Previously it was to mention how much men paid for her services, now we have an IP address adding her ranking on some escort review site. Lacking a massive increase in coverage of the things she is primarily noted for I think the escort section needs to be as brief and objective as possible, and even if the rest is updated there are certain kinds of trivial details that would not serve any appropriate purpose ever being in the article. It's not hugely active right now, but I'd appreciate other people keeping an eye on it too. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Seems fine, given the size of the article. And the source (NYT) is pretty much impeccable. I do worry about the image that comes up in a Google search, which is not part of Misplaced Pages or Commons, yet is somehow associated with the GFDL content slurped by Google. We've had a few complaints from folks demanding we "fix" what Google is doing. Sigh. §FreeRangeFrog 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Page has been semi-protected for 1 week.--ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Rogers (activist)

Shall we include alleged reports about people by this subject? He is known for reporting on politicians who have anti-gay record but then ends up involving gay things. I wonder if that is necessary. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as the information is sourced to something other than the guy's blog, sure. Reliable sources and all that. In fact I'd rather see that sort of thing in his bio than in the bios of the people in question, since that sort of thing tends to run over WP:UNDUE rather quickly. §FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bergmann Hotel

Article was recently greatly expanded, mostly turning it into an attack piece on the current owner. Hard to say whether this is a one-shot deal or if this user is determined to keep at it. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Looks like an admin deleted the offending revisions. If the issue persists let us know, or head over to WP:RFPP to request temporary protection. §FreeRangeFrog 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was just the one IP and they have been blocked for 31 hours. If they vandalize again after the block then it may be extended. Btw the geo data doesn't seem accurate, I may try and fix that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Heymann

Stephen Heymann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains undue, non-neutral statements about Heymann that use sources that are not directly related to the topic of the article . --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The AfD on this article was closed as an over-whelming keep just a couple of hours ago. The article is about a prosecutor. The sources complained of here are all secondary sources, about people he investigated, prosecuted, and/or convicted. Far from being "not directly related to the topic of the article," the coverage of these investigations, prosecutions and convictions, in reliable secondary sources, are what make the biography notable.

It's been suggested, not without merit, that the article started out as an attack piece. It's evolved into a fair, balanced biographical treatment of one of the nation's pre-eminent, if controversial, cybercrime prosecutors, because of the addition of the very sources now, quite properly, subject to your scrutiny. Please review the AfD and the edit history of the article. I know the nominator has done so. We both worked so hard on rescuing the article that, at one point, you'll find that we were tripping over one another with edit conflicts. In genuinely collaborative good faith we've turned a blot on wikipedia into an article to point to with some modicum of pride. That we now disagree is no great tragedy. It provides an opportunity for editors with fresh eyes to provide a reality check.

As you review the AfD and the article's edit history,you'll see that both Hirolovesswords and I have stricken comments and refs in response to one another's work. It sure beats the hell out of the way we've watched some of our fellow editors stake out rigid positions and brook no talk of compromise or consensus. David in DC (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Leonardo Jardim

In the last few days a libelous comment has been added to the biography of Leonardo Jardim repeatedly. This is libelous for all involved and an unsubstantiated rumor that has been circulating on the net as part of a joke. Someone has been repeatedly adding this rumor to the article. Myself and user Alexrexpvt have removed it two times but this someone keeps adding it back. He does not have a Misplaced Pages nickname but only an IP address as a name, which keeps changing. I will remove it again, but someone should assist us. Please see below diff links

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leonardo_Jardim&diff=535267712&oldid=534832080

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Leonardo_Jardim&diff=534644725&oldid=534482328

Wikisportedit (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've requested temporary semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. This will temporarily prevent IP editors from editing the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikisportedit (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ramush Haradinaj

Ramush Haradinaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Certain users continue to claim that up to 9 witnesses were murdered during the trials of Ramush Haradinaj at the ICTY. The International Criminal Court, and the International Criminal Courts chief prosecutor have both refuted these claims. To suggest that 9 witnesses were murdered undermines the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court and is potentially a libel against Mr. Haradinaj. It is factually inaccurate.

ICTY Spokesperson: No witnesses were murdered.

ICTY Trial Chamber: "None ... was in the Tribunal's protection programme, nor were any of them under protection measures ordered by the Tribunal in the Haradinaj et al. case. Some of the alleged killings took place before the ICTY had started its investigations in Kosovo against Ramush Haradinaj and his co-defendants. Furthermore, some persons ... were reportedly named as witnesses in a trial before a court in Pristina, in which the ICTY had no involvement," it said.

ICTY Chief Prosecutor: There is no evidence that any witnesses were killed...

I have tried to reflect the fact that witness intimidation was an important feature of the first trial by giving it its own section on the page. In doing so I took great care to read the Court judgments and documents to accurately reflect the trial. They can be found here. The individual changing my edits does not and as a result engages in potential libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeos (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Court documents should generally not be used; see WP:BLPPRIMARY. That said, there are some valid references to allegations of witness tampering, see for example this. So it's not all unfounded speculation. I do agree that referencing all of that to a single source is a bad idea. But again, sources do exist. An article should strive to presents all sides to an argument, and instead of trying to remove the information already there you should discuss with the other concerned editors about the addition of the counterweight your sources suggest. Finally, if you have edited that article while logged out, I'd suggest not doing that again. Logging out to engage in an edit war might get you a block from editing under WP:3RR. §FreeRangeFrog 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2008&mm=04&dd=10&nav_id=49272
2. http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/09/19/feature-03
3. http://daily.tportal.hr/228890/ICTY-prosecution-denies-claims-of-murder-of-witnesses-in-Haradinaj-case.html
4. www.icty.org/cases/haradinaj

Jiří Dienstbier Jr.

Jiří Dienstbier Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I happen to support this guy's policies and admire his history; but the article as written is a bit of a hagiography. Considering that he was recently a candidate for president, I'm surprised nobody brought it up before. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed some of the POV claims before, and I contacted the creator/s, whom I suspected to be members of his election team. The information in the article is correct and verifiable, it's just written as an uncritical essay. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Thomson (diplomat)

resident in New Zealand, and a daughter, Nicola, resident in Fiji.

International Centre at Sevenoaks School, Kent, UK. He later obtained a B.A. in political studies 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.195.170 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have collapsed the draft article, with comment.--ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Karen Berg

This entire article is promotional material, taken directly from the website of her cult ("Kabbalah Centre").

Compare: Karen Berg

http://www.kabbalah.com/blogs/karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.242.138 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted it to a less spammy version. Notability still dubious, IMO.--ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And it has now been redirected to Kabbalah Centre by User:Gamaliel which is an even better solution.--ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Judith Orloff

Judith Orloff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The opening paragraph of Dr. Judith Orloff's article was changed to read "author of four books, the first of which was named in testimony before a US Senate Committee as an example of "irresponsible unscientific work"." This in reference to a written response by Dr. Timothy N. Gorski on United States Senate Special Committee on Aging. In this response, which is the opinion of one doctor, Dr. Gorski attacked several doctors who work in the field of Anti Aging including Dr. Dr. Dean Ornish. The only reason Dr. Orloff is mentioned is because Dr. Ornish reviewed her book, Second Sight, which has nothing to do with Anti Aging, and Dr. Gorski makes a unfounded statement that Dr. Orloff's work is unscientific. Dr. Orloff is an "intuitive" psychiatrist (not a "clairvoyant" psychiatrist as indicated in her article) who uses her intuition to augment (not diagnose) her treatment of patients and has never worked in the field of Anti Aging. It is very defamatory and unjust to include this second hand reference in her opening biography. It is also untrue to say that intuition is unscientific. There is actually research on intuition such as Science Daily, Go With Your Gut -- Intuition Is More Than Just A Hunch, Says New Research, Institute of HeartMath, New Study Further Supports Intuition, and Misplaced Pages's page on Intuition to name a few. If you read Dr. Orloff's book, Second Sight she does mention that early in her life she worked with a group who studied Remote Viewing and they did work at times with police departments. Dr. Orloff only participated in this study for a short period of time and it was never a part of her psychiatric work. Again it is unfair to brand Dr. Orloff for this study that she did prior to becoming a psychiatrist. Also her book, Second Sight (ISBN-13: 978-0307587589) was updated and re-issued in 2010 by Three Rivers Press. I am requesting that all reference to the response by Dr. Gorski be removed from Dr. Orloff's article and that we be allowed to clarify her article to reflect the true aspects of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhondaBryant (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue of "due weight" is important here - he made a short comment about the work in a lengthy written response to a Senate committee, not testimony per se. Placing the aside into a prominent position in the lede of a BLP is clearly undue. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal from the lead, and I've edited the article a bit further to emphasise that it was the first edition of the book that was rebuked and that an updated edition has since been published. More input from those with knowledge of the significance of remarks made by US Senate Special Committees would be helpful – it's now stuffed down in the bibliography, but should it be mentioned at all? However, after having spent some time cleaning up the article, it's clear to me that RhondaBryant and previous incarnations – including Judith Orloff (see User talk), who first created the page in 2008 – has a conflict of interest here and is trying to remove what she sees as the less favourable aspects of Orloff's earlier career. As an unbiased reference work, of course, we must include them as they are well-documented: the article is about Judith Orloff the person, not just Judith Orloff the psychiatrist.  —SMALLJIM  16:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba

Juan Vicente Torrealba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello My name is Juan Carlos Torrealba I'm one of Juan Vicente Torrealba son and I have a concern about some aspect in his biography whoever wrote it not totally correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Carlos Torrealba (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

quote "The poverty of the family and the region were such that he worked as a sharecropper" this is totally wrong, I am one of his son and I can tell this is not true, among other things there.. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Carlos Torrealba (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the item that you quoted. Please let us know about any other factual errors in this article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed almost everything. It's a BLP and has essentially no sources except for one external link. It's been that way for a long time, probably since it was created in 2006 (I didn't check every change). So I've stubbed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Added the single reference in Spanish that I could find. There are more in books that could be useful. §FreeRangeFrog 01:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rodrigo Guirao Diaz

Rodrigo Guirao Díaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pamatthew99 keeps adding that Rodrigo has a twin brother. He does not. He has bothers that are twins. This same person also goes by the name, David Lewis Guirao Tatitlug, claiming to be that very twin. Pamatthew99s name is Matt B and lives in PA.

He should be stopped from putting false information into the database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.51.227 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Meredith Monroe

Meredith Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first inaccuracy is her date of birth and name, whilst on the show Dawson Creek she was known as Meredith Hoyt Monroe born in 1976 which numerous website have logged her under whilst on the show. Recently her name and age has been changed on Wiki and imdb sites to Meredith Leigh Monroe born 1968 however there is no evidence or reason given as to why this was changed, especially her middle name. There have been reports that she did lie about her age whilst on Dawson Creek and reduced it to 1978 or 1977 to fit in with the rest of the cast members as Michelle William is born 1980, Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson are both born in 1978 and james Van Der Berk is born in 1977, so the discrepancy was only report to be 2/3 years rather than 8. Again there is no evidence to support the dramatic age increase.

Also on Meredith biography it reads that Meredith Monroe choose to leave Criminal Minds to pursue a film career, this is definitely incorrect as her contract was terminated just like AJ Cook and Paget Brewster when the CBS show runner Ed Bernero wanted to do a cast reshape which was report on E News. With the changes leading up to the cast reshape unfortunately Meredith Monroe character Haley was the first female character to be targeted this may have been because writers where either thinking about reducing Hotch character or writing him out. Nothing was ever confirmed just Ed Bernero saying in an article that characters secrets would start to be revealed and that Hotch would be shown struggling to cope without Haley. Article was printed on E News online. The character secrets where never revealed as petitions where created to stop AJ, Paget and Thomas from being dismissed from the show and lead to Ed Bernero leaving the show instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a (talk • contribs) 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all the references to her age and motivation since they were uncited. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yael Cohen

Yael Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obviously self written or close to it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.217.65 (talk • contribs)

Recent edits have toned it down a little.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kraus

Paul Kraus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only source right now is the author's own book. This makes it look extremely spammy. Article is proposed for deletion due to NPOV, WP:N and WP:BIO. Delete or provide verifiable, reliable sources.

What about the interview at ABC Australia? The link was present in the article before your edits. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And is the person actually notable? The BLP looks like an ad for his books otherwise. Including the very short interview. Collect (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, the page has been nominated for deletion. I just don't see any serious BLP violation in the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied it up some. His earlier years could stand to be fleshed out some, but on the whole, a good article. Earliest book published was 1985. --Auric talk 13:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this source , Kraus was born on 20 October 1944. The date given in the article in 27 June 1944. Which is correct?--Auric talk 13:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RS. The added sources do not meet that criterion, alas. At all. Collect (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To which sources do you refer?--Auric talk 14:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Clara Kraus book is self-published (Spectrum Publications is a vanity press AFAICT), and the also fails WP:RS and qualifies as SPS entirely. Collect (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that is self-published (by Kraus)? I don't see any evidence of that. It also links to documents that qualify it as a secondary source, I think.--Auric talk 16:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is written by Catrin Bolt who asks for people to send her information, and is self-published by Bolt. There is no indication that it meets editorial oversight for a reliable source, and the site has a disclaimer to that effect. The only likely persons to have given that information on Kraus is are members of his family. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The page links to this, supposedly from the St. Pölten city archive. Do you believe it to be tainted? --Auric talk 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A primary source birth cert != any basis for claiming "notability" of the person at all. The person is still quite non-notable after diligent searching. Collect (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not saying he is notable, just asking if the birth certificate is real or not. The dob it gives is different than the one in the article. Which one is correct? (Yes, I realize I'm discussing what to dress the corpse.) --Auric talk 17:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

Jung Myung Seok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shii continues to post factually false information on the article and cites sources that are not verifiable. I have posted extensively on the talk page about why the sources are dubious and not verifiable. I dont want to be involved in edit warring, however, this individual insists on posting incorrect and slanderous information about a living person thus clearly violating the BLP policy. Please help.MrTownCar (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I invite editors to check out the entertaining history and talk page of this article. Shii (tock) 15:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted your whitewashing changes. It is not a BLP violation if reliable third party sources support the article contents, which they appear to do.--ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither version of the article is perfect but the version that's not pure Providence sourced is closer to being balanced. I wish both sides would have been able to work towards a compromise, rather than continually revert to want they prefer. The end result is the article is now fully protected and it's going to be interesting to see if changes can be agreed upon on the talk page so they can be made in the article. I've been trying to work a section at a time, based on the version that was up when I started. I think the pro-Providence version is the current (and of course the WP:WRONGVERSION). It's got some BLP issues with self-published sources being used for claims about third parties that need to get pulled out. Ravensfire (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Anna Baltzer

Anna Baltzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Baltzer is an American Jew who has controversial views on Israeli/Palestinian, and I've just removed a section about her allegedly fraudulent claims as to her own background, which was sourced solely to a report by the Gatestone Institute, a fiercely pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian organization. I take no position as to the accuracy of the report, just the absence of reliable sources for a claim about a BLP. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to look at the article by Orangemike. I agree with his concerns, and I think the entire Gatestone Institute paragraph should be removed, as it lacks a source other than the Gatestone Institute website. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that and more. It's the usual smear campaign, typical for this topic: a few hyper-Zionist organizations, some op-eds from minor American newspapers, Arutz Sheva, etc. There's no problem noting that she has been on the receiving end of some criticism (I've left a sentence indicating this), but we would need much better sources for the kind of detail that was there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Part of it is already back, just 20 minutes later, via an IP edit. We're likely to need semi-protection here. I can't remove it again, as the article is on 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Her infobox listing of "Ethnicity unknown" was too ludicrous to remain. Collect (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Stoneleigh, Surrey

Please see this diff and a subsequent one where a person is defamed. Redaction is needed, please in both places Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it. Thanks for reporting it, if the vandalism continues I'll request for the page to be protected. §FreeRangeFrog 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Redaction would be pleasant, please. see WP:CYBER. One ay assume the person referred to is living, and it is defamatory, perhaps even cyberbullying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's under control; one of the IPs has been blocked and the other one is about to. Honestly I prefer that to semi-protection any day. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The first one is defamation. The second one looks like the fruit of a meme.--Auric talk 20:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chaps, I never mentioned semi-protection. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the other IP and suppressed the defamatory edits. If there's more vandalism, I'll semi-protect. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

There are several sources, including Barrymore herself herself calling Steven Spielberg her godfather. Two users (which looks like socks; see the case here), insists on that it is not possible, as Spielberg is Jewish.

I have tried to engage with the users at the talk page to no avail. What are your thoughts? Nymf _{talk to me} 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether reliably sourced or not, it seems WP:UNDUE nonencyclopedic trivia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In the context of an article on Barrymore is does not seem "undue" or "trivia", as it is Spielberg who cast her in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, making her a child star. Nymf _{talk to me} 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the article or any comments but when reading the quote "I talk to my godfather Steven Spielberg; I seek advice from him." it gives the impression that Speilberg keeps and eye on her and helps when he can, so not "legally" a godfather but somebody she can turn to for help and advice, FWIW. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion on the grounds that Jews can't be godparents is OR, and moreover is wrong. (I can even attest to this as a matter of personal experience.) I also don't think it can be easily dismissed as undue trivia in light of comments like the one in the 2010 article in The Telegraph that "With Steven Spielberg, the film's director, as her godfather, Sophia Loren for a godmother and several Oscar-winning actors in the Barrymore family (including her great-aunt, Ethel Barrymore, who famously turned down a marriage proposal from Winston Churchill), she was primed for fame." The article goes on to mention instances where she got important advice from him, and from that and other sources it's apparent that her continuing relationship with Spielberg is worthy of mention. I do agree that it's uncertain whether he's a godfather in a traditional ritual sense or in some more general or metaphorical sense--although the mention of Sophia Loren in the same context makes interpretation even more complex. Perhaps this could be handled by rewording to say that he has been described as her godfather, or something along those lines. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Leo Komarov

Leo Komarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Input is required at that blp's talkpage, concerning its infobox content. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Patrick S. Moore

I am the subject of this article. I would like to add several notable honors that I have received, which include 1) Election to the US National Academy of Sciences, 2) the Biennial Marjorie Stephenson Prize from the Society for General Microbiology,3) Appointment as a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Pittsburgh and 4) Receipt of the Heinrich Pette Institute Prize in Microbiology and Immunology.

These are all readily verified facts but I am not keen on adding them to my article since this is a COI. Would someone else be willing to tackle this? Also, all of these same awards should be added to my wife and lab partner Yuan Chang since we were dual recipients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locusceruleus (talk • contribs) 06:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just passing through. I went ahead and added the election to the natl. aced. of sciences per your link, but the link to the Biennial prize takes me to a generic info site, nothing about you receiving the prize, so take a look at that link, OK?. Also, I'm not sure how note-worthy becoming a distinguished professor is, (I am not well versed on WP:PROF), so I'll leave that to someone else. And the Heinrich Pette prize, unless I'm missing something, I don't see a source for that one, so I'll leave that alone for now as well. Thanks for posting here. Ditch ∝ 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

correct list of films done of telugu actor Sri. Chiranjeevi

Please give correct list of films acted by the Sri. Chiranjeevi. at present the no. of films done as per your database is less than hundred. kindly find the correct and list out the films acted by him.

Thank you,

Badari Narayana P V — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.90.80 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles are not required to list all works by a subject. It is permissible to list only the most notable. This is not a BLP issue. Also, did you miss the fact that there is a subarticle, Chiranjeevi filmography? Yworo (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa

Need some editors to have a look at this given the recent edit war with possible BLP violations involved. I have semi-protected it for two weeks and I urge any passing admin to see if any established editors in the history have been violating policy. I'm posting this on WP:FOOTY as well since eyes are necessary. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked User:85.244.75.87 for block evasion per WP:DUCK. Lectonar (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

RS from the 60s

Barbra Streisand has a relationship with Pierre Trudeau mentioned in her article, in the politics section, but no mention in the Trudeau article. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Being discussed here. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Warren David

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

Autobiographical article, created and heavily edited by the subject. Violates NPOV, NOR, and possibly V.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution