Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:29, 12 October 2009

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Peter Hand

Within this article about an obscure Australian radio personality is included an unsupported claim that another Australian radio personality has Asperger syndrome. If this claim can be backed up with proper documentary evidence I guess that's fine, but otherwise it seems pretty dodgy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.61.183 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Theslof

This article is loaded with incorrect and insignificant information and is just overall poorly written. Reads like it was written by a personal friend. Every time I've attempted to clean it up, it gets reverted right back soon after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.229.206 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilson , Politician

There is much attempting to add info about who has called him a racist. The template I added from BLP page only mentions sourcing. Is thee a better tmplate about the being editorially "conservative"? Does who calls a politician a racist really belong in a BLP regardless of sourcing? thanks.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{controversial}}, perhaps? I assume you are referring to the U.S. politician, recently noted for controversial comments towards U.S. President Obama. Though it is true blatant claims of racism, especially those of living persons, do not belong in articles due to the policy on libel, correctly sourced, NPOV phrased statements, such as

In September 2009, Wilson interrupted a speech by U.S. President Barack Obama to a joint session of Congress by shouting "You lie!"^[2] The incident received international attention^[3]and resulted in a formal rebuke by the House of Representatives.^[4]

are appropriate. This is all just all at a glance, of course. I am not especially familiar with this topic, as I do not particularly keep up with international affairs. --Intelligentsium 01:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable, but including every person who has made accusations of racism against Wilson comment's should not be included, no?--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but what about a former president? --kizzle (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on his page. Please appeal to a policy if you want to agrue for a BLP violation.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the article does not cite "every person who has made accusations of racism against Wilson". The article (in between wild swings of editing by a few editors) seems balanced (when it is left to settle for a bit). And begging your pardon, adding a BLP violation template to the article seemed more like making a WP:POINT than an appropriate action. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is a BLP violation and it needs to be rectified.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content issue, not a BLP issue. BLP doesn't prohibit factual reporting about the comments of others, even if we think they are really, really mean. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does require us to be conservative and not repeat slanderous statements.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm clear, what's the specific language of BLP that you believe is being violated? --kizzle (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of te specious MSNbc article that misquotes Carter is a contentious source so it must go. Without that source, any link to what Carter said and Wilson is OR, but that is another thing. Bascially, we have a source, a generally relaible one, which in this case has misquotedCarter, making it a contentious source, and thisu it is a violation of BLP to include it--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your evidence that the MSNBC article misquotes Carter? --kizzle (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Wtch for your self. He never mentions Wilson.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video is truncated. According to many RSs several of which are cited in the Wilson BLP, Carter, both when speaking at the Emory University Carter Center and later with Brian Williams, was responding to specific questions Wilson's outburst. It appears that in the video he was describing the outburst as part of what he sees as a broader issue. Countless mainstream media RSs from across the entire ideological, political and geographical spectrum all specifically state that Carter was referring to Wilson. Given that many RSs have stated the questions were specifically about Wilson, it would be a major stretch for us as WP editors to reinterpret Carter's statements, e.g., as "Carter himself didn't specifically use Wilson's name in his response to the questions". ... Kenosis (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it is fun watching the way purportedly unbiased members contort themselves to justify including an irrelevant allegation of motivation from a third party, it is clear that this content does NOT belong in the article. I have been told that I need 'consensus', but in reality consensus is needed to ADD content, not to prevent its addition. As there is no consensus for adding this content, and as many have noted it violates balanced tone and is completely irrelevant to the section, it should not remain.

Besides these basic facts, Carter recanted his statement - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27808.html - and Bill Cosby was not speaking directly about Wilson, and made no direct accusation against Wilson - http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/09/16/cosby_race/. These are obvious facts that, in an unbiased 'encyclopedia', would immediately ensure the removal of offending content. So why is this still a point of contention? Why has it become a personal cause of Gamaliel? 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs)

A personal cause? Stop projecting. Wikipedia reports facts, and the widely reported fact is that Carter made these statements. We cannot refrain from placing in the article widely reported facts because you find them objectionable or we fear someone else may. That's not at all what BLP is about. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stacy McCain

(9 days later:) Could an admin take a look, please? User Goethean (talk · contribs) wants to mention a blog post by Andrew Sullivan quoting McCain without context (see 2nd para "On February 20 2009 ..." here). I say (1) that violates lots of WP policies and (2) Goethean has repeatedly violated BLP. Also, his snarky comments on talk page and in edit summaries are getting really tiresome. Thanks in advance, CWC 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Salvatore Harmon

On September 24 2009 two changes were made to this article, one was obvious vandalism, the other was an unsourced remarked that was potentially liable. I removed both using the undo function.

On Sept 26th the user [U-Mos] reverted my deletion with the simple remark "this is true" without siting a reference. Again I removed it after which I wrote on the [U-Mos] discussion page requesting that they continue this on the article discussion page as a debated instead of constantly reverting any changes made to the article in order to make it comply with Wikipedia policy.

At this point U-Mos again reverted the page and then nominated the article for deletion.````

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatcher (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 September 2009

Page is still at AfD. Martin451 (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marietta, Georgia

Two IPs (perhaps the same person) keep vandalizing this page with unreferenced comment about Melanie Oudin. They continue to post" Oudin also has the long-time nickname of "The Little Chicken," a nod to the Big Chicken landmark of her hometown'

There is no refence that this is true and in fact may be a slur against this young lady. The IPs are 66.191.125.116 98.251.120.123

They are also vandalizing the entry for "Big Chicken" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.232.57 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 September 2009

Uri Geller

The overall problem with the article is that it appears to be heavily edited by supporters of Uri Geller’s main adversary, James Randi - and due to this, it is heavily biased to one view point, and I believe that it violates BLP in various ways.

Just to bring some perspective, very important figures in Uri Geller's story, such as his wife, and his brother in law & manager, both who have been involved in nearly everything he has done, are mentioned twice. Other people who play an important part in the Uri Geller story, such as Andrija Puharich & Edgar D. Mitchell, are not mentioned at all - Randi, however, is mentioned a total of 52 times!

There are a number of area’s of the article which make allegations that cannot be substantiated, for example in “controversial performances” in the description of the compass clip, regardless of how hard I try to edit this to be NPOV, editors who watch this article like hawks, will not back down from their belief that it should state that he was caught putting a magnet on his thumb – despite the very clear fact that the video does not in fact show this, and that it has never been proven. Any source cited to back up the contrary POV, in order to show both sides of the debate, are very quickly removed.

Until recently, the article even stated that Uri Geller had a different birth name – and the source used for this, was a post on the James Randi blog in which he stated that a friend had told him. I faced a great deal of friction when trying to get this removed, despite adding reliable source.

Similar concerns have been raised in the past on the discussion page for this article, yet the problem still persists.

One of the most active editors of this article, who appears to have a real motivation to keep the article biased towards the negative, skeptical point of view, has recently made what I believe to be serious libelous allegations against Uri Geller on the discussion page.

So, I feel that this article needs to be looked at very carefully. I have tried my best so far to clean this article up, enduring long & tiresome arguments on the discussion page, but I'm getting nowhere fast. Moondial (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the USA Today article taken from Associated Press has all the facts correct, it does state that Geller was caught putting a magnet on his thumb. If you believe the video does not show that, you need to supply a WP:RS to that effect; the video, itself (whether or not further edited at Geller's or someone else's request) is not an acceptable source.

I accepted the removal of the information about the [[YouTube] video, because the relevant reliable sources clearly did not establish whether Geller did have someting to do with the removal, although it has been reported that he has a history of suing his critics for libel, without much success. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK you are replying to just one detail - but this doesn't answer the underlying problem. This whole article is biased, and it's biased because You Arthur, and other editors who are involved in editing this page, clearly have a very one sided point of view, and are unable to edit this article neutrally. Many of your comments finish with put down remarks like this "he has a history of suing his critics for libel, without much success" which all lead me to believe that you have some kind of a problem with Uri Geller - or that you are a follower of James Randi, which is why you're trying so hard to put HIS viewpoint across. And some of your previous remarks on the discussion page have, I believe, been libelous, accusing Geller of criminal activities. Moondial (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moondial, if you're going to make accusations, please provide some DIFFs to back them up as to what exactly you're talking about. Simply making remarks like that with no evidence reflects far more poorly on you than your target. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to spend even more of my time to do this. I've already spent a great deal of time debating on the discussion page, and it falls on deaf ears. My "accusation" is that this article is baised, full of POV, that I feel that it is in violation of BLP, and that it is being edited by editors who have made their opinons quite clear, and who do not appear to be able to edit on this subject from a neutral point of view. You only need to read the article to see if what I am saying is true or not - I should't need to provide DIFFs for this, if anyone reads the article & can see where I am coming from, they are free to go through the edit history themselves.

If I wanted to continue debating, I would do so on the discussion board, I have posted it here to make others aware.Moondial (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine to me. It shouldn't be credulous of his claims when they have been so thoroughly debunked by RS. Verbal chat 08:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel that James Randi - someone who openly wrote that he was out to destroy Geller's career, and someone who personally plays quite a part in this article (52 mentions) should be classed as RS for this article? 11 of the references are his. I have to admit that it's slightly better now, as two of the main area's of concern have changed since I posted this notice (not sure if that's coincidence, as I was having a lot more resistance previously) but I still don't agree with the huge amount of James Randi mentions & reference in this article.

We're talking about someone who has stalked him for decades, this isn't just debunking this is real hatred, if you read the Jonathan Margolis book "Uri Geller Magician or Mystic" you find that it's actually quite sinister, starting off with pleasant letters, growing more & more venomous the more they were ignored, and ending with a 7,000 word letter which stated that he had been researching into his children, and his financial affairs! And then there's the open letter Randi sent to abracadabra in 1974, in which he made his intentions pretty clear!Moondial (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither he nor the publishers (Welcome Rain Publishers (!)) have a good track record, so the book isn't a reliable source except where it references reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have a good track record?? Would you care to explain what you mean by that? He's an award winning journalist & author. See [2]. The original publisher is Orion Publishing Group [3], and the US edition was the published a year later by "Welcome Rain" in 1999 [4].Moondial (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) I found the article quite disjointed and hard to read. I didn't even finish reading the whole thing, although I tried to improve the prose of the lede. The back-and-forth style of writing is typical of subjects such as that, but it is very unattractive. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Randi did write a biography of Geller, circa 1975. Randi, is an expert on sleight of hand, and other magic tricks. He had an opportunity to personally observe Geller, and he had access to the raw videotapes of Geller's failures on the Tonight Show and other incidents. So significant coverage of Randi's accounts in the Geller article is appropriate. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski

I just dropped in there to audit the links. I believe there's been edit-warring, and there's evidence of strong disagreements on the talk page. All I can say is that the article suddenly shows a certain lurid fascination with the current events surrounding the man. The impression is shambolic, hurried, unbalanced. It is a bad look for WP; and the article was clearly not one to be proud of even before the scandal.

May I suggest that at least one independent admin keep a very close eye on this? You might consider taking it back to a previous version and locking it for a while. I'm unsure; I'm not interested in the topic. But caution should prevail. Tony (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have done a bit of tidying there, an ip is ranting on the talkpage and there are some new users adding whatever they like, the page could use watching. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consistent IP and new user vandalism/inappropriate editing, why not ask for protection per WP:RFPP? – ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing dispute even now, with editors seeking to revert private information back into the article, which has been clearly disputed under BLP 4.2. This article needs eyes. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nortom

Please see Talk:Nortom#All_about_Nortom - a rambling comment containing highly contentious, thinly sourced statements about several living people including members of parlament, independent writers, professional historians and so on. It would be great if somebody with experience in phrasing such statements could have a look at it. Poeticbent talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who's labeling the above living public figures with disparaging comments has a long record of edit warring against Poland's documentation of the massacres in Volhynia provided by some of them, which he attempts to undermine from his own distinctly Ukrainian perspective. Poeticbent talk 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, it surprises me, given your listing as a participant in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, that you would maintain an active involvement in contentious issues involving articles on Polish-Russian relations. Isn't that primarily what the arbitration case is about? I haven't checked Faustian's "long record of edit warring" — for all I know it is true — but there is a bit of The Boy Who Cried Wolf here after your group has said the same thing about so many other Russian editors in the past, leading me to be somewhat skeptical. And what on earth is your contention about the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article doing here in WP:BLP/N? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for somebody in the know to take a look at BLP related comments about various statesmen, historians and writers. If you don’t intend to comment on the content of my report, please move on. I don’t care if Faustian is Russian or perhaps Ukrainian. Likewise, my own ethnic background and other unrelated issues are irrelevant to this report. For those of you who would like to make a connection with the article on Volhynian massacres, please read this comment by Faustian in talk about a living Polish historian: "there is no evidence as far as I know that he personally murdered Ukrainian civilians." Please give your feedback on the other disparaging BLP statements from above.[5] --Poeticbent talk 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stedman Pearson

This article has come to my attention today after a report at the 3RR noticeboard and I have had a look and there is a controversy section, when I had a look at it it looked poorly sources and the BLP stub seemed to me to be there purely to negatively portray this subject. I removed the controversy section with a request to not put it back without discussion on the talkpage here and an ip with one edit has revered my BLP protection without any discussion here actually refering to my good faith edit as vandalism, could someone please have a look to see if it is an iissue, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because you are a known troublemaker who has already been blocked for distruption more than half a dozen times this year and you removed adequately sourced information. The sources given on this article in question were from two leading UK music magazines and are suitable for inclusion. You have already been reported to the Admin Notice Board this week other editors for disruptive behaviour as seen here. 80.41.82.61 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments excessive and rude, comment on the edits and not the editor, please be more civil in future. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In defence of Rob, one of the allegations (the death threats) is all based on one report in the Daily Mirror (not the best RS), with the only confirmed information being that police were investigating allegations. There are no news reports following up on it, at least that I can find. It's not suitable for BLP. I have sourced the indecency charge better (NME and University of Michigan press are both RS).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone's come up with a more reliable source for the death threats claim (The Guardian). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks weakly cited and like an attack piece, I would still like an admin to ave a look, please. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Terricloth and Stigmata

Resolved

An apparently single-purpose editor, Vericol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has repeatedly added unsourced information/categories ([6][7]) to both of the above-mentioned articles, despite a request to provide a source. There is no evidence anywhere on the web that I can find that the information might be true, and I have therefore been reverting it per WP:BLP. Each time the information gets reverted, the user returns and undoes the reversion without explanation. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after posting this, the editor responded to a second warning, indicating that they will wait for this to be reported in a reliable source. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of editorials

I see this has been discussed earlier (for example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/N#Need_an_opinion_here:_Talk:Gideon_Levy) but I'd like a clear answer, as this is an active issue on another page I am editing: can material from editorials published by mainstream newspapers, properly attributed to their source, be used in articles that are Biographies of living persons? Millmoss (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Applebaum

Anne Applebaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I have a second opinion of the paragraph about her defence of Polanski. I have removed a sourced paragraph several times, as it gives undue weight to one incident, and the language seems to be a BLP violation. However an IP keeps readding the material. We have taken this to the talk page, where another editor (low edit count) supports the IP. Martin451 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is undue weight; I've reverted again, and warned the IP about WP:3RR. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No original research" must be met to avoid immediate removal. The entry meets all three and everything else can be changed and debated. Wholesale removal is an unnecessary over-reaction. CanuckMike (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment there. The addition seems neither properly sourced, neutrally written or relevant. Kevin (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on all points. See talk page. CanuckMike (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been protected for three days ~~(in the wrong version i.e. the one that Martin and I contend is a severe BLP violation)~~. The dispute continues unabated on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The dispute has abated, now that you and the other censors have gotten your bowdlerized version as the protected one. Krakatoa (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Baker (born 31/12/1922)

Hi,

I want advice on the above Wikipedia entry. I have looked at the policy on living persons, but still remain confused.

A few years ago I added a heading 'Controversy' about the person's bankruptcy. It was removed as there was no source.

I later found a reputable source for the bankruptcy (The London Gazette) and so I recently redid the bankruptcy entry. Someone has since removed this (presumably those close to him as 'Claregate' removed it, and this was the name of his college).

Is the removal correct, along the line of the person is still living? My entry is not sensationalist. It is plainly stating that a bankruptcy happened and a source (a government gazette) backs this up. It is not saying he is bad.

Please can experienced hands advise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectWorldPeace (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty seeing the notability of the subject and have nominated it for deletion. The London Gazette is an unimpeachable source being the place where all bankruptcies in England and Wales have to be announced; however that means it is a primary source and so it might be regarded as original research. Certainly a claim that someone is or has been bankrupt is a controversial claim which brings in WP:BLP. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Ryan

This article includes several claims regarding an extramarital relationship between the article subject and a not-very-notable (no Wikipedia article) but not entirely private person. While the article presents the claims as established facts, the fairly scanty sources present the claims only as unconfirmed rumors (eg, "recent reports suggest," "A Sunday newspaper had claimed"). Under WP:BLP, standards these claims are not "well-documented" and are not "important to the article"; therefore think they must be removed, and have removed them. Garda40 believes the unverified claims should be included because the cited sources are reliable newspapers, therefore justifying the inclusion of rumors in a Wikipedia article. I think this is an open-and-shut case. Does anyone agree or disagree? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed them because of these edit summaries by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz inadequately sourced gossip , fails wp:RS, presented by single source only as unverified gossip and therefore not encyclopedic (secound source IDs 3d party and doesn't mention claimed relationship .I didn't revert these edit since I would be hitting 3RR but BLP violation - iA single news story which presents a claim as an unconfirmed rumor is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article presenting the claim as an established fact and inadequately sourced gossip, BLP issue .

As I pointed out saying the 2 major newspapers in Ireland ,The Irish Times and The Irish Independent are not RS is itself potentially libellous and I also pointed that public figures in Ireland have sued and won when articles got the smallest thing wrong in a an article ( even when they were not named in an article ) .Garda40 (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Letterman section on "extortion attempt"

There are some factual inaccuracies in the turn events per the numerous news accounts and more importantly, do we want to be saying "the perpetrator this" or "the perpetrator that"? The guy's pleaded not guilty and though I've made up my own mind myself, I'm not sure the Encyclopedia should be stating as fact what is now an allegation till after the matter is settled in court. Cheers, 173.171.151.171 (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Browne

Jeremy Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), MP for Taunton, there is a dispute as to whether or not an allegation should be included. I have currently removed it with concerns about WP:HARM and WP:UNDUE. There has been a limited discussion on the article's talk page, which didn't appear to come to a consensus, however User:Verthandi has been repeatedly re-inserting without engaging in the discussion, except to accuse people of censorship or political bias. Since it's not a very well-travelled page, other comments or input would be greatly appreciated --Saalstin (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggy Walker on Johnnie Walker (DJ)

I'm concerned about Tiggy Walker (talk · contribs), a single purpose account which has been making edits to the Johnnie Walker (DJ) article this evening. Tiggy Walker is the name of the subject's wife, but the nature of her edits makes me think that it isn't her and perhaps a case of someone posing as her (as we've heard about so much recently on other sites). TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Judy

Issue transferred from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to here, per Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

RE: Cody Judy - my wikipedia page.

I'm writing you in a consideration of my "personal page" that is being used to promote an agenda of a discriminating group, of which Wikipedia has granted permission. I am a living person, and all attempts to edit my page are so discriminating and biased towards the LDS Group/Mormon, which is how my page started, and is causing me sever pain, grief, and diress as well as significantly hindering my ability for employment and to do buisness as a living person, that I am forced to make this grievence and plainly state that your immediate attention is requested in order to avoid an intent to commence legal action for personal damages.

The information that I have contacted to support my report is found on discussion page of my personal entry as follows:

1- "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism on Wikipedia."

My request has been falling on deaf ears as the multiple times I have tried to edit this page to incorporate facts that continually get edited out. My concern come from telling my wife, it seems like the wikipedia is owned by the "Mormons" because they edit favorably towards them and continually refuse to incorporate "up to date information" or "edits" about me and the "notorious case with which I am associated." Now I found out why!

I plainly request that my wikipedia page be taken elsewhere for review, that edits over the years be considered relevant to the general public and that current information be included, to disparrage the misinformation that is so nefariously reported in an ideal slant for the particular gain both financially, and notoriously within the public arena, regarding myself.

Before I go into detail, please email me back so that I can know whom if anyone this has been given attention.

Please respect my request as a "Notice of Intent to commence action" if by present Wikipedia decides to with their decision to delegate my persons as "property" of the WikiProject Latter Day Saint Movement" of which I most furiously contend, and disagree, must also become a party to disagreement to by a matter of law in court proceedings in harmony with the following:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

The unfair and libellous contention revolves around the light which is shed and the slanted detail of the account which is not documented or sourced correctly. While some aspects attending the event which noticed on the page "Events of Feb 7th 1993, there is much that is not true, that is stated, and is also not documented or sourced.

I am asking that my Wikipedia page be considered my biography, and that true and correct statements be made of which I have tried to insert but have been deleted.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

I can be reached at codyjudy

hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.98.203 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps posting your concerns at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would be better (more noticed) than here. hydnjo (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hydnjo, you seem to have missed the legal threats contained within this. I will report the matter to ANI and ask an administrator to take a look - IP, if you are Cody Judy, or are acting for him, please refrain from making legal threats in the public areas of the encyclopaedia. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en-at-wikimedia.org without further delay. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, you can see the report on Administrators noticeboard here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat at WQA. Read wikipedia;s policy on legal threats here WP:NLT Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ANI post, I have blocked the IP for 2 weeks for the legal threat. MuZemike 23:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't overlook legal threats. Uncle G (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regardless of legal threats, etc. the article is really a mess. He might not be notable at all. Borock (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone actually doing anything about the article? I had a look at it and cannot make head nor tails or it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Birkitt

Stephanie Birkitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - both this article and David_Letterman#Extortion_attempt have been updated to include various personal details about Birkitt that likely fail either the requirement for notability or the criteria enumerated in the section from WP:BLP that applies to Birkitt (either People who are relatively unknown or Articles about people notable only for one event). // 67.100.222.238 (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Birkitt. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus for deletion isn't established and she is considered notable as a former cast member of Letterman's show, coverage of her role in the Letterman extortion/business ethics case is still going to be a BLP issue. 72.244.207.41 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Joe Stork

IronDuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is adding GoogleDocs, a blog, and NGO Monitor in to the article against myself and another editor and is ignoring the discussion on the talk page. The user is also reverting out the tag referring other editors to the discussion on talk.

I thought the process first wanted me to request page protection, which I did here. Could someone comment on the appropriateness of these sources for a biography?

Thanks,--69.208.131.53 (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very familiar with WP policies, for an anon. And that revert list was nice, too: any reason you neglected to include your reversions on the article in question? (That's rhetorical, BTW.) IronDuke 23:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was mentioned that myself and another editor removed your insertion of the material within the posting. But yes, I was one of two editors to revert the inserted material which I found questionable.--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet_Harman

Resolved

This has been added by an IP..

"Her tenure in office has reportedly been forced to come to an abrupt end today (4th October 2009) due to allegations against her, leaving her post as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party immediately. The Prime Minister is said to be outraged by her actions"

I reverted it as uncited and left a comment in the edit summary requesting a citation, it was almost immediately replaced by User_talk:Longstudios . I have left his a message asking him what the source is , as yet I have no reply, I am watching major news stations and there is no comment at all regarding this? A comment like that really needs a citation, I have been reverted once and don't want to get in an edit war about it, could another user have a look. It is in the lede and the edit summaries say (from sources) whatever that means. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Longchamps has reverted his addition. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified him about the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced material of this kind should obviously not be allowed anywhere in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name

That's a mouthful. As is a discursive telling of how the article came to be.

I had moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up with is simply lacking. Do any readers here think perhaps a better name for it might even be "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? (As this, after all, is the name of the case receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here.)

Furthermore, is there a way to balance WP:BLP's "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (and even CSD G10) -- with WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not censored" along with a recognition of the lawsuit's notability? ↜Just M E here , now 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of discussion, the website name is "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com" (link intentionally inactive). As you can see, the domain name itself is a BLP violation, and the site is an attack site. It's an ostensible parody site though, which documents an existing Internet meme having to do with an old comedy routine[8] by Gilbert Gottfried in which he asks a similar scandalous and untrue rhetorical question about his friend Bob Sagat. It's of questionable notability (hence an active AfD), but it does meet the formal criteria. Whereas the site itself is tabloid fodder, the issue of its creation and the subsequent legal questions is a legitimate issue. I think that WP:NOTCENSORED compels us to treat this noteworthy piece of nastiness unflinchingly, only, we have to be very delicate to do so to avoid promoting it as a cultural meme. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We also have to watch out for BLP problems in other articles. I've already removed one inappropriate external link to the WWW site from an article. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to adding it in the Glenn Beck article, as one of the editors, I'm not sure how best to approach this BLP issue since it is claimed to be defamation by Beck's lawyers. So I'm being very cautious. We do have some reliable sources now, but I'm not sure what weight to give it at this point if any. It seems like one thing to put it in a news story, and another to put it in an encyclopedia. The intent of the meme is to spread it.. "do no harm" makes me pause. For example, we do not discuss the false gerbil meme in the Richard Gere article. The legal aspects in this case seem to be unique, though not sure if such would justify it in Beck's biography at this point or in some ancillary article on trademark or domain name law. No law suit has been filed, at this point it's just a compliant to the WIPO. Thanks for any guidance you could provide. Morphh ^(talk) 19:16, 04 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came rather close to speedying it CSD G10 earlier today, see User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Gwen.2C_a_plea_for_your_input.2C_if_possible.3F. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are notable external sources, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no valid reason to delete it. After all, we do cover notable meme's, parodies and conspiracy theories, for example, we cover The Strange Death of Vincent Foster. The threshold is notability, not who will be offended. LK (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Howard, Jr.

Jim Howard, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a post on the talk page that makes it very likely this is a battleground article (a BLP being used for slanting purposes to back up the stance of a party in a real-world legal dispute). There are also hints of possible willful posting of private information.

There is a quite serious risk of coatracking, negative unsourced or unbalanced material, and breach of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT. It should have urgent (probably multiple eyeballs) review to check for any action needed, protection, etc. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkash Singh Badal

Parkash Singh Badal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Indian politician BLP, heaps of apparent libel or gossip about corruption, abuse, nepotism, etc. - all visible from my tagging them here. (Actually, I've yet to run into a BLP from India that isn't wall-to-wall libel or gossip...) // 62.147.27.17 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of those unsourced negative statements. Thanks for pointing them out. Kevin (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audley Harrison

The nick name of Audley Harrison is A - Force. One promoter has used offensives names against this individual via various newspapers columns but this should not be repeated on wikipedia as it is not associated with the individual. It seems like a personal vendetta by the contributor who continues to use these nick names after it has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aforceone (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this WP:SPA is the brother and manger of the person in question.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That very well may be true, however I'd agree with him that names like Fraudley, A-Farce, Audrey, Ordinary don't belong in the infobox as "Nicknames" just because someone insulted him in a newspaper article. If it was in a text section with proper context there might be a place for it. But leaving them as is in the infobox seems like an issue. undue weight if nothing else.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont they belong in the infobox if they are common nicknames and backed up by source - e.g. Jimmy McLarnin. There seems concensus on the talk page to keep them. The official nickname, "A-Force", is seen as a self impossed nickname and the others especially "Fraudley" are just as common if not more so. There is no reason (policy wise) to not have them put into the article. Just because the manager of the boxer doesnt like them it not good enough reason in my mind.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they're in the infobox, even though there's a reference, they lack context. I don't disagree that some of them seem used enough to be mentioned in the article, but in context. Who has nicknamed him this. Why do they call him that. You don't get that by just slamming the insult in the infobox.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well one could say that the "official nickname" also lacks context, the "official nickname" is seen as manufactured and self imposed - but that isnt explained either, nor is why he is called "A-Force" or who calls him it.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the editor-in-question being brother/manager of Harrison violate the COI stuff? GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI is only an essay as long as policy is not broken there is no big deal, afaik. The issue is somewhere else as far as I can see, the edit that inserts about 6 or 7 nicknames into the infobox (most of them derogatory) is the issue for me, I laughed out loud when I was it (with astonishment). Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the multiple nicknames that User:Vintagekits is attempting to inserti in the infobox ... A-Force[1] Fraudley[2 A-Farce[3] Audrey[4] Ordinary .... there is no way that all these nicknames are widely used, I recognise one the A-Force, the others are in general derogatory and not widely known or reported, I can see little value to insisting on adding them , it resembles an attack on the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, remove on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a solid policy based reason for that then I will be reverting on sight - per concensus on the talk page.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*what consensus*? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a compromise at Harrison's article. Check it out folks. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a compromise is nice, two nicknames..One is more than enough, nicknames should only be used if they are widely used widely reported and in general not excessivly derogatory. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh come on, a positive/negative should be used for all Boxing bios Infoboxes. Positive & Negative cancel each other out, thus a Neutral. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "nickname" is an issue. Exactly the same reason that it is an issue is the reason that it has been inserted into the article. Much of the notability linked with this boxer is the derision that he has receiving since turning professional. He is as commonly known as "Fraudley/Fraudly" in boxing circles as he is as "A-Force" - in fact if you said "Fraudley" to a boxing fan they would know immediately who you were talking about - but I reckon they would scratch their heads if you asked them who "A-Force" was. I would liken it to Al Capone who despised his nickname of "Scarface" and attempted to introduce his own nicknames - it didn't work.

Again, they are common nickname and sourced with quality reliable sources - so just because they are less than flattering I don't see that as reason to remove them - wiki is not censored. --Vintagekits (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even better..keep them out of the infobox altogether, if they are widely reported and widely used then they will sit better in the body of the article where they can be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not being written for boxing fans, is it? I have never heard of or read of most of these nicknames and I follow sport and read papers. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to read more then - because I can provide multiple sources.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's become apparent, that my compromise has been rejected & I'm out numbered. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also wrong Vintagekits to say that much of Harrisons notability is the derrision he has recieved..his notability is in the fact that he won some olympic award and boxing titles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need to keep yourself up to date then darling - because since he has turned pro his career has been on failure after another and some might say "A-Farce"!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. Your opinion of this subject is clear for all to see. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Vintagekits has stuffed all the nicknames back into the infobox again, I have left him a 3RR warning on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"stuffed" - the fucking sheer ignorance on this page is astounding. POV not policy based decision ahoy! Any chance you can respond to the substantive points I have had as opposed to making snide comments?--Vintagekits (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting five nicknames into an infobox, how could I have described that? lined up, squeezed in.. Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mike Tyson has the nickname 'Baddest Man on Earth'. That's a nickname that's arguably derogatory. I'm confident if we check all Boxing bios articles, they've positive/negative nicknames aswell. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mad Mike there, I have heard that used in reporting , Evil Mike Tyson? There is no value to adding all these nicknames to the infobox, are they widely used , reported or even known? Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need balance folks, in the Infobox. PS: Suggest we 'blank' the nicknames section, until things are worked out. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of "Evil" Mike Tyson being used as a nickname. "Fraudley" and "Audrey" are frequently used as his nickname by fighters, fans and journalists. Maybe you should read Wikipedia:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. I know you have taken your position with regards this issue and nothing (no matter how many reliable sources are provided) is going to change that but you are wrong and have zero policy based reasons to oppose this.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxers frequently have more than one nickname, many often not given to them by their management term - and often not complimentary. As outlined above the Jimmy McLarnin article has multiple nicknames in the article - most of which McLarnin never liked - e.g. "Dublin Dynamiter" and "Dublin Destroyer" - even though he wasnt from Dublin - "Murderous Mick" - he felt it portrayed him unfairly and "The Jew Killer", "The Jew Beater" and "Hebrew Scourge" - he felt these whipped up unnecessary animosity in the crowds. Although he didnt like them all - they all were used and I dont see any problem with having them in the article.

Removing them is not neutral POV and detracts from the full knowledge that should be provided.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets take one random name.. A-Farce .. could I see the coverage in sources for this name, please. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is allowable to have 'A-Farce' etc within the article content? GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If is is widely used, widely reported, sure.. What value does it add to the article? If you feel he is not very good any more, report that his fight reports.. name calling is not very encyclopediac, is it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the name calling is widespread and becomes part of the notability it is - you are completely missing the point.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random eh! Lets try Fraudley! Sue Mott at The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, [www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Boxing-Give-Fraudley-time-to-prove-he-is-the-real-thing.html The Telegraph again], The Independent, SKY Sports, The Times Eastside Boxing - want more?

No one's trying to give Harrison (or any other boxer) the Chuck Norris/Charles Bronson/Bruce Lee treatment. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, random it was..I had a look at the one of those citations and it is there and , coould be added to the article in some way that benefits the article for the reader, but not in the infobox, that name also seemms to be a bit recentism or whatever it is called, if you think it improves the article put it in somehow, seems a bit like playground name calling to me. I have to go away now for 6 or 7 hours so I will sadly have to disengage from the discussion, anyhow..I have made my points and given some comments for thought, regards Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my way out of the door, one last comment... User Vintagekits has used the article Jimmy_McLarnin as a comparison, the big difference between the two articles is that Audley Harrison is a living person, so they are not comparable, saying that I notice that it is User Vintagekits that is responsible for lining up the nicknames in that article too and the nicknames there seem to be uncited, a few of which seem a bit derogatory too, like jew killer . I'll look a bit more later. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll likely not be around the 'pedia after 1:00pm AST. MLB playoffs start today. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "derogatory" doesnt cut the mustard. See wiki is not censored. "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored." - none of the nicknames are "offensive, profane, or obscene" so that covers that, would the article be "the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" - he it would. You are attempting to sweep information under the carpet just because it doesnt suit the manager of the boxer. If there were BLP issues then the terms wouldnt have been repeated so often by so many WP:RS.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the user documentation at Template:Infobox boxer, only the most common nickname should be inserted into the infobox itself. The other nicknames should only be used in the main body of the article, and that's only if they are properly sourced. Bettia (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt anymore! ;) Anyway it is common practice that multiple boxers nicknames are used - e.g. Mike Tyson, Ricky Hatton and Joe Calzaghe.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it does :D I guess the question now is which nicknames are the most common ones, how many should be used in the box, and whether any distinction should be made between nicknames given by fans and ones given solely by the media. Bettia (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting it to a number seems pretty arbitrary. I would say that it is commonly used and backed up by reliable sources and someone cares enough to instert it then it should be added. However, the "official" nickname should be listed first.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it common practice, on BLP's ? I find it dissapointing that you have not even made an attempt at inserting any of them into the body of the article, that shows how valuable they really are. Perhaps fraudly is commonly known or at rleast recently has been well reported, however it is derogatory kindergarten name calling and should not be in the lede or the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter bullshit and completely without foundation in wikipedia policy - remember those? Wikipedia:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Like I have said just because you or his manager considers it "derogatory" doesnt cut the mustard. "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored." - none of the nicknames are "offensive, profane, or obscene" so that covers that, would the article be "the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" - he it would. You are attempting to sweep information under the carpet just because it doesnt suit the manager of the boxer. If there were BLP issues then the terms wouldnt have been repeated so often by so many WP:RS. If i did have to be fucking around arguing with the likes of you then maybe I would have time to put it into the article - although there is zero reason why it also needs to be in the article as well - why isnt there an explaination for the "official" nickname in the article. You are making no sense whatsoever.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep civil and keep your comments to a friendly tone. The commonly used nickname will more than likely be in his bio or easily findable in one of the citations, he has been called that for quite a while, hasn't he? Also, what is the value to the article of inserting all of these recently termed and not widely used or known childish names into the infobox? None at all. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well its like bashing my fucking head against a brick wall with you. You totally ignore wikiedpedia policy and think the your own WP:OR superceeds it. Which nicknames are "widely used" and which are not?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very dissapointing User Vintagekits has reverted to his favoured version whilst discussion was and is ongoing here, I warned him yesterday that he was on the verge of a 3RR report. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats dissapointing is that you removed sourced information without an policy based reason whilst a discussion was ongoing. Can you not see the hypocrisy of your last statement. Now do you want to get back to the issue at hand?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still favour a 2-nicknames limit in the Infobox, a positive name & negative name. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The derogatory epithets are fine to mention in the article body, as they have been mentioned by many good sources. Listed in order of their prevalence in reliable news sources (per google news), they are "Fraudley" (123 google news hits), "Ordinary" (118 hits, some of them false positives), "Audrey" (50 hits), "A-Farce" (38 hits). For reference, his official nickname, "A-Force", has 244 hits in google news. That said, adding three or four derogatory epithets in the "nickname" field of the infobox fails WP:BLP; it overwhelms the other information in the infobox and appears to take sides; it is not neutral, conservative or encyclopedic. Best to restrict these derogatory terms to the article body, where some context can be given. JN466 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also considering the possible option of eliminating 'nicknames' from the Boxer bio Infoboxes. I'm not certain, but I believe that NHL bio infoboxes no longer use 'nicknames'. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Goldhagen

Here we go again, withUser:Mamalujo. He is in my mind clearly obstructing any progress in making this page worthy of the Wikipedia. I am not surprised at all by his actions, since he is a known and predictable vandal, notwithstanding his lip service to reason. I really think that by doing a complete revert of the entry I made, and not because it's just my entry, he's shown without a doubt that he is a vandal. He's obviously hostile to Goldhagen but to the Wikipedia itself. I have no interest in getting into an edit war with him or be pointy. It's clear that by wholesale deletions, even deleting the name of Goldhagen's spouse, which certainly worthy of inclusion in a BLP, shows his complete lack of interest in supporting the principles of the Wikipedia. I have not gone into his edit history as others have, nor do I really feel I need to. I think at this point the real question is what administrative actions will occur that can help make this BLP free of Mamlujo's and other POV/vandalism that's been going on for some time. I think the page should be protected, and that Mamalujo be dealt with in some fashion. I think User:Nathan made a good first step by forking Goldhagen's books into their own articles, so the BLP could focus on Goldhagen, and User:Moonriddengirl did an excellent job of cleaning up one of those forks, A Moral Reckoning, wrestling it from pure crude to Good Article. Mamalujo and some others have been consistently revert/deleting verifiable information -- (e.g. Name of Goldhagen's spouse. Name of his new book, links to video of Goldhagen, etc, etc, etc.). I assume that if Mamalujo continues in this vein, he will be dealt with by Admin action. I ask that the page be protected, and it develop in the spirit of Wikipedia's new philosophy regarding BLP's. crm411 01:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs) [reply]

David Letterman

I'd just like to request more eyes and opinions on David Letterman. With the public extortion attempt and Letterman's revelation he's had numerous affairs, there's a dispute on the weight of the each in the controversy section. Consensus on the talk page (which I support) seems to be the multi-million dollar extortion plot is the more notable of the events. However, Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is convinced the sexual subplot should be the focus of the section, and has rewritten both the title of the section [9] [10] and the lead sentence [11] to emphasize the sexual contact over the extortion attempt.

While she has discussed this on the talk page, she reverts without actually waiting for discussion, or regard to consensus. This editor seems dead-set on focusing on the affairs. I don't wish to edit war over this, and the talk page discussion seems to be going along an unproductive line, so I would appreciate some further opinions on the matter since this is a BLP. Thanks in advance for your help, whatever opinions you may have. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also definitely need some eyes willing to objectively look at the Stephanie Birkitt AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Birkitt, a closely related topic (the "girlfriend" in the David Letterman controversy). Joe Halderman is the accused attempting "extorter" in the situation. All these articles are quickly bouncing around, and could use the observations of some editors experienced in the area of BLPs and BLP policy.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 05:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayewalker's statement of my interests ("[she is] convinced the sexual subplot should be the focus of the section") is not accurate. What i have said all along is that both the sex-with-employees angle and the extortion angle should have equal weight. The sex-with-employees angle is admitted, multi-sourced, and rs-published. The extortion angle is so far multi-sourced and rs-published, but not admitted; it exists currently as an allegation of criminality against a BLP personage assumed innocent until proven guilty.

The page certainly could use more writers and editors.

To date there has been some horridly sloppy work in the article that named the accused as "the perpetrator" multiple times without trial or conviction (since corrected by me).

There has also been a lot of pointless discussion based on a fundamental misundertanding of the definition of the common English word "affair," which has also muddied the waters considerably and may have increased tension among the current contributors: [12]

In support of my statement that i do NOT wish, as Dayewalker assumes, that the sex angle take precedence over the extortion angle, but rather that both be mentioned in the sub-head title, let me point the reader to these sections of the discussion page: [13][14]

In addition, as per a suggestion on the talk page by Tvoz, i agree it is time to break the sex-with-employees/extortion story off into its own article (as per the John Edwards page, et al) and i outlined a simple procedural plan for that here: [15]

Cordially, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand what I was saying - my point was that the section in the main Letterman bio was getting far too detailed and going off into areas that are not directly relevant to him, his life or his career (such as speculation by Kathie Lee Gifford and Ann Curry about whether or not such behavior - IN GENERAL - could constitute hostile work environment) and it was reaching the point of imbalance vis-a-vis the rest of the article. I said it was time to consider forking it off rather than weighing down the bio as was happening. I said that if Cat wanted to have an article with that level of detail and that angle, she should write one. I did not say she should expand this one into that article. And I also subsequently said that I was not necessarily endorsing a separate article - that any other article would have to stand on its own merits. Further, last time I looked, Cat was the only editor speaking up for all of the detail, the shift in emphasis from the extortion to the sexual relationships, and she proceeded without regard to the consensus that was apparent in the talk page discussions. And yes, many of her edits and comments make it clear that she thinks the sex with employees`is the main story and the extortion attempt the secondary one, including her insistence on including extraneous (to Letterman's bio) laudatory claims about Halderman, the alleged extortionist. Anyone can read the talk page and review the edit history and draw his or her own conclusions - I do agree with Dayewalker and Cat that input from more editors would be welcome there. Tvoz/talk 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Weatherill: Network Television Host, Voice-Talent, Comedian, Play by Play, and Reporter

K. Todd Weatherill Biography Todd Weatherill started his career as a model and commercial talent for Looks Agency in Denver Colorado in the mid 80’s. He worked his way through college as an athlete, a model, and doing small television hosting and reporting gigs. In 1996 Todd was picked up by ESPN/ABC for the original X-Games on ABC/ESPN and then shortly after became the host of the popular “Pro-Wakeboard Tour” and the “Pro-Waterski Tour” television series and events on ESPN and ESPN 2: as well as the international X-Games qualifiers and events. As his television career took off Todd ventured into voice-acting landing several successful national commercials and campaigns including being selected as the voice of a Frosted Flakes Commercial with Tony the Tiger. He now has dozens of national commercials to his credit. Todd also has narrated for top companies like: Porsche, Deloitte, and tons of national and regional projects. Todd is trained by the best at ABC, ESPN, Disney, Kent Skov (famous improv coach), and top Voice-Acting Coach Cathy Kalmenson. He now specializes in Voice-Over Acting, On-Camera Hosting, Broadcasting, Narrating, Stand-Up Comedy, Writing, and Coaching new students to the craft. With the network credits Todd had accumulated, he found it very easy to sell his voice all over the world. Now Todd enjoys a very fulfilling career voicing everything from national commercials; to animation and video game projects. He has hosted many successful hit-series and shows for top US networks. He has also graced the stages of top comedy clubs nationwide, and been paid as a key-note speaker to top companies world-wide. Todd has also owned and run many successful companies in action sports. Todd Weatherill and Partner Stan Strocher own the giant 1070's skateboard brand Bahne Skateboards in Oceanside, CA as well as being VP of Sales for a top Chinese Urethane Manufacturer Verdant Vantage out of Shenzen, China with a distribution center in Chino, CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktdubfly (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Mitterrand

I have just removed a statement regarding this individual as a BLP protection, the comments look to me to be a political slur and weakly cited, no major outlets as far as I can see, it has something to do with the french right wing (le pen) and the polanski story. Could someone experienced with BLP and Citations please have a look here is the edit history. The point is a book that is described as a "literary fantasy" and it is being commented on as if fact. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that removal, and have also removed mention of his comments about Polanski as having undue weight. Why is it as soon as a person comments on Polanski it immediately becomes a notable part of their life? Kevin (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin, at the moment there seems to be more elephant hunters in the room than elephants. The piece I removed was very weakly cited and is not much better than an attack. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Paltridge

Resolved

An editor Ratel (talk · contribs) has created a BLP for the Australian Professor of atmospheric physics, Garth Paltridge, into which he seems to be writing his POV that Paltridge (1) must be in the pay of Big Oil and (2) is a conspiracy theorist (which is always pejorative and suggests "crazy person we don't need to pay any attention to").

he insists that a "See also: global warming conspiracy theory" link is appropriate and is edit warring to keep this link in the article. As with "see also: climate change denial", this link is being used to bypass the need for reliable sources in order to insinuate and label Paltridge as a "conspiracy theorist". There is in fact no "conspiracy theory" here; Paltridge has merely asserted publicly that the CSIRO threatened him with funding cuts if he publicly expressed his climate change skepticism. That doesn't make Paltridge a "conspiracy theorist".

he is insisting on linking Paltridge in the article indirectly to Big Oil (ExxonMobil) despite the fact that none of his sources have made this connection explicitly. Thus, this is WP:SYN.

It might be worth noting that Ratel created this article here ahead of the launch of Paltridge's book, The Climate Caper. At the launch, someone asked Paltridge to comment on this very negative article. It was the read out publicly by a member of the audience who read it out loud from his blackberry. Paltridge responded to the effect, jokingly, and shaking his head, "Sadly, I am not in the pay of Big Oil." I believe that Ratel should be advised sternly please to desist in using Wikipedia to smear living people's reputations. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you report me here without the courtesy of informing me?
Your editing pattern explains this complaint. As usual, you are editing climate pages with a view to pushing your POV that global warming is not real, or at least not caused by man. I ask any admin to browse your long record of POV edits.
The charges you make above are completely false. I have answered them on the Talk page involved or in the edit summaries. If any admin wants to challenge my inclusion of the particular See also link or my mentioning that Paltridge gave a key speech at an oil and coal funded conference, I am more than willing to show that there is no SYN involved and that the edits are perfectly valid. ► RATEL ◄ 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, regardless of who funded the conference, none of the sources have connected the funding with Paltridge's keynote speech. Therefore, it is synthesis for you to make the connection in his biography. It is original research. You are indeed the very clever person who has discovered these two facts and connected them here in Wikipedia for the first time. You found one source that says Exxon et al. were amongst those sponsoring the conference, and then you found a second source showing that Paltridge delivered the keynote speech. But it is synthesis for you to then make the connection/insinuation in Paltridge's WP BLP that these two facts are relevant to Paltridge's historical record. If you wanted to add this to the APEC study centre article, that would be completely different. So far, no one shares your opinion that these two facts are deserving of connection. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say that (1) GP gave the speech and that (2) the conf. was funded by so-and-so. This is not SYN to put the two facts from the same sources on the page. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. AND .... STOP EDITING MY COMMENTS. ► RATEL ◄ 06:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but even if Exxon were the sponsor of the conference, and GP gave the keynote speech, it would be inappropriate to combine the two facts, as any conclusion would be speculative. (Regardless of the fact that I believe Ratel is pushing a POV with which I don't fully agree, I wouldn't agree with this combination if it were Greenpeace rather than Exxon, although it probably wouldn't have been brought to my attention.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This info would be fine in an article on the conference itself, but you have failed to show any connection to Paltridge. Kevin (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is that he was PAID by Big Oil and Big Coal to deliver that speech. He wouldn't travel there and give the speech out of the goodness of his heart. Let's not be so deliberately naive. The sources state openly and clearly that the conference was funded by these companies, and then quote Paltridge's speech at the conference. It is hardly SYN to quote both facts. This is straining at gnats. ► RATEL ◄ 07:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be plain: this source (on the same page!) and this source (in the same article!) BOTH mention Paltridge and the industry sponsors. I am NOT finding different sources and "combining" to form SYN. Retract! ► RATEL ◄ 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is arguing that Paltridge did not speak at the conference, or that Exxon and Xstrata were not sponsors, or that these facts are reported in the same sources. We are saying that this is not proof that he was paid by these companies, and to infer otherwise is a BLP vio. Try listening to what people are saying, although I suspect you understand perfectly. Kevin (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that Paltridge's travel and accommodation etc costs were not paid for by the conference organisers? Not that I am trying to imply that in the article, mind, but just asking this as in "what planet are you living on?" I cannot see why a mere notation about the funding of the conference is verboten. People need to know where the money is coming from when fringe theorists like Paltridge are given platforms to make pronouncements aimed at influencing government decisions. You know, "democracy"? I suppose that for most Americans this has become a foreign concept.... ► RATEL ◄ 08:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American. I'm saying that we cannot infer anything about his travel, accommodation or payments from those 2 articles. Kevin (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, even though we all know what happened. But I am not trying to infer it in the article either. I am simply mentioning who funded the conference at which he spoke. It happens to be Big Oil. The conference happens to have taken place in Australia's centre for government. The conference happens to have featured a plethora of global warming denialists and skeptics. The aims happens to be to influence the public debate on the issue in Australia. Wikipedia should not be censored of relevant details that allow readers to draw accurate conclusions, if they wish. I have no doubt that there are other admins who agree with me. ► RATEL ◄ 08:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that it's a BLP violation, even if he were the keynote speaker, the conference was paid for by the oil companies ("sponsored" is different then "paid for"), and his expenses were paid by the sponsors. Unless you have a specific, reliable source, that he was paid by the oil companies, the juxtaposition is WP:SYN; and the only reason that juxtaposition would be relevant to the article is the further implication that his views were influenced by the sponsors, which is a separate WP:BLP violation. In summary, what needs to be sourced is:

He is the keynote speaker,
The keynote speaker's expenses are paid by the sponsoring organizations,
The sponsoring organizations are oil companies, and
His views (or stated views) are influenced by who pays his expenses.

... and all from the same source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you set the bar even higher, Rubin? Where do you dig up that menu of restrictions, BTW? Looks like a pretty creative interpretation of BLP. ► RATEL ◄ 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this compromise version be acceptable (remove "keynote" and "sponsored by Xstrata Coal and ExxonMobil", insert "industry-sponsored"):

Paltridge delivered a speech at the industry-sponsored 2005 "Managing Climate Change" conference at Parliament House, Canberra,^[1]^[2] in which he stated, referring to the IPCC's scientific consensus on climate change, that "consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money".^[3] He also stated that the apparent convergence of the predictions of the IPCC models into a narrower range of possible temperature rise has to be taken with "a considerable grain of salt".^[4]

^ "APEC Currents - June 2005". www.apec.org.au. Retrieved 2009-10-06.

^ "A cold, hard look at a hot topic". Fairfax Digital. 2005. Retrieved 2009-07-29.

^ "The Week That Was". www.sepp.org. Retrieved 2009-10-06.

^ "The Science of Climate Change - Background Paper No 1/06" (PDF). NSW Parliament. 2005. Retrieved 2009-10-06.

This seems to answer most (all?) objections. ► RATEL ◄ 09:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't answer the objections because you're still combining/associating Paltridge's ideas with "industry-sponsorship" in a way that your sources do not do. It's just a little less blatant. What is the subject of your sentence? Paltridge's view about consensus (let's not even worry about the cherry-picking of quotes for the moment). The reader gets to the end and now wants to know what the "industry-sponsorship" of the conference has to do with Paltridge's view of consensus. The reader asks, is that view of consensus an industry-sponsored view as well? If not, why mention it at all?

Now regarding your quote here is the quote with the original context:

The very least that needs to be done if the IPCC is to maintain its credibility is to insist that all models used in IPCC assessments must calculate and publish the implicit individual feedback factors built into their calculations of the total feedback F. Then (at last?) the climate scientists of the outside world will have some understandable physics on which their intuition can work, and perhaps also a guide to the design of real-world experiment and observation so as to improve the modeller's arbitrary selection of tunable parameters. In other words we have to get away from simply running models and comparing their final output in some sort of search for a consensus on the results. Consensus is not science. Consensus tends to the politically correct. Consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money.

Ask yourself, Ratel, are you trying to communicate Paltridge's actual point of view here, or are you trying to communicate something else? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss the quotes; can't you stick to one thing at a time? Back on topic: the phrase "industry-sponsored conference" does NOT cast aspersions on Paltridge, or rather, it only casts aspersions in the fevered minds of denialists. Are there any non-aligned people on this forum who can comment? (Note: Alex Harvey and admin Arthur Rubin have opposed me on different climate-related pages over time, and their POV is skeptic/denialist. So let's get someone who is not here with an axe to grind please.) ► RATEL ◄ 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratel, if it doesn't cast aspersions on Paltridge, then exactly what does it say about Paltridge? If the answer is, it says nothing, then it needs to be removed as irrelevant to his biography. If it says something, and that something is not negative, then as the editor insisting that it must be included, please tell us what that is. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know your view, now please let someone else comment on my factual compromise edit. ► RATEL ◄ 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a statement of my view; it was a question. My feeling is you'll need to answer both that question and the question about the cherry-picking of quotes before you will ever be able to include this text. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There seem to be no objections except for Alex, and he always objects to everything. ► RATEL ◄ 05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Administrators, please note that Ratel is now edit-warring to include his version above despite the obvious problems with cherry-picking (taking Paltridge's quotes completely out of context). I have reached 2RR and although BLP states 3RR doesn't apply in this scenario, generally no one enforces this. As far as I can see there is no support above from anyone to Ratel's compromise. Some feedback would be helpful. I am also getting a little sick of Ratel's constant personal attacks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that both of you disengage from each other for a bit. There are no BLP concerns here that need to be address NOW. Wait for the opinions of those uninvolved with the dispute instead of bickering between yourselves. -Atmoz (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked this resolved and raised a more comprehensive list of BLP problems in this article below. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Geldof

I added the title of Sir to this article but was told it is apparently wrong. He is a KBE, which according to the article Order of the British Empire, allows him to use the title 'Sir' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.138.179 (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the title 'Sir' is restricted to UK citizens: Geldof is Irish.Martinlc (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levin

Editor Tad Lincoln improperly reverted an edit this am on the referenced article. The edit addressed NPOV and BLP issues with the text, including lack of attribution of the quoted author; undue weight; and direct quoting of inflammatory language instead of paraphrasing in neutral style. The edit was conducted IAW the principles of WP:BLP, which requires the immediate removal without discussion. The editor reverted the edit in violation of the WP:BLP requirement to obtain first a consensus; and in the text of the reason for edit he engaged in a personal attack. This comes immediately after a lenghty and detailed intervention by an administrator admonishing all to avoid personal attacks, and abide by the rules.

The original edit, improper revert, and personal attack appear in the page history file at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Levin&action=history

The administrator's intervention appears on the talk page, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Levin

Flyer190 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Flyer190 deleted w/o discussion a long-standing portion of the article ( critical review, balanced by a more positive one). This comes in the wake of the subject of article exhorting his followers to vandalize the article, resulting in its protection. As soon as the protection was lifted, the deletion at issue occurred.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears odd that an editor alleging one review may be biased is perfectly content to leave in the article a review from a source with which the subject is associated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two responses above both engage in personal attack behaviors specificaly prohibited by the administrator. This editor is not adverse to the inclusion of the deleted material, only that it be presented in a manner consistent with the guidelines of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.Flyer190 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polanski Pedophilia controversy on Frédéric Mitterrand BLP

This edit has been added to the Frédéric Mitterrand article, it is a fall out from the polanski story and I would say it is a violation of BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more eyes are needed on this, and more discussion of sources. The page has had to be protected do to constant restoring of questionable material. Verbal chat 05:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a clued up BLP admin take a look at this please? There are reliable sources for his support of Polanski, and he admits to sex with "boys" (which he says are legal age), but the editorial slant being taken and the tossing about of paedophile in the article and on the talk page seems a bit much. Also, I have zero interest in this article so I'm unlikely to keep an eye on it - I've also been attacked several times by an editor there who calls ever edit he disagrees with, and those that fix his edits that break the talk page, vandalism. He hasn't scared me off btw, I just find it thoughroughly uninteresting and not something I want to spend my spare time on. Someone must be interested in French politics... Verbal chat 11:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a three-month block of Urban XII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This edit is highly libellous, and goes far beyond what Mitterand's political opponents are accusing him of (speakers of French can find the accusations here on the website of the Front national). Physchim62 (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my opinion (you caught my attention with your edit summary, as the nominated vandal I thought you wanted me blocked!) I've not seen so strong a stance on the French news as Urban takes, but I don't watch it that often. Verbal chat 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a three-month block of Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption. The activities of this particular user, i.e. his wiki-stalking of other editors, is becoming highly disruptive. His false accusations that The Times is part of right-wing conpiracy has already been refuted elsewhere. Apparently, he spamming numerous pages with identical false accusations against other editors. Someone needs to stop this disruptive editor. Urban XII (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replaced "vandal" template with user template, note the comment was substantially changed after warning below)Verbal chat 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Physchim62 is the one who has repeatedly used the vandal template when referring to me on several talk pages despite being told not to do so[16]. Also see his own comment above where he does it again. Urban XII (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:NOTVAND. This is your final warning. Verbal chat 16:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is your final warning. Physchim62 is the one who started calling other editors vandals([17], and the continued use the vandal template on talk pages when referring to other editors despite being told not to do so), despite the fact that he is the vandal. Urban XII (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you've repeatedly called me a vandal without any evidence several times, and this isn't the place - you want WP:AIV or WP:ANI for vandalism. Repeating behaviour you've just been warned about is not ok. Verbal chat 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the gang-harrassment, incivility and disruption caused by Physchim62 is what is unacceptable. I'm tired of being attacked by this disruptive editor who is spamming countless pages with the identical false accusations which have already been refuted elsewhere. Urban XII (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the section heading is inappropriate, and probably should be changed to something like "Sex Tourism Controversy," the extensive press coverage makes the notability of the controversy clear. The BBC, within the last few hours, reported not only the details of the controversy, as well as a commentator's suggestion that the dispute will affect European negotiations over supressing the sex trade with Thailand. Mitterand doesn't dispute the central charges, although he does challenge the interpretation of his references to having paid for sex with "boys" as implying underaged males. The Polanski controversy needs to be mentioned only briefly and as the matter which touched off renewed attention to Mitterand's prior statements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't have a problem with using a different heading. What was unaccaptable was the complete removal of sourced and notable content without reason by some editors, who instead of using the talk page to suggest changes have enganged in incivil behaviour and stalking of editors. Urban XII (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware, the reason is the rather important WP:BLP policy, which the section header clearly was in breach of. Further issues are being resolved on the talk page. The clearly contentious material should be removed while the discussion takes place and BLP issues resolved, which is now happening (slowly). Verbal chat 18:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editors have repeatedly used an opinion article from the Guardian's "Comment is free" section to support the claim that Ahmadinejad "has no Jewish roots", in clear violation of WP:RS. The most recent culprit is User:Abie the Fish Peddler, here (with a rubbish misleading edit summary). In the background is a concerted effort to keep recently published information about the claim that Admadinejad does have Jewish roots off the page: the Daily Telegraph is dismissed as a "tabloid" (and the article currently claims that "better informed sources" i.e., the opinion article in question, tell us that the claim is not true), liberal use is made of "fringe" and "undue", etc. Whether the "Jewish background" claim belongs is a content dispute, but the use of the opinion piece is not and editors who continue to insert it ought to be sanctioned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. The report in the DT is a far-fetched over-interpretation of something that never was a secret to begin with. It's also been reported only a few days ago and has already been rebutted not only in the Guardian, but also in the Israeli press [18]. Other reliable sources who mention it explicitly report it as "The DT said", not as a fact. WP:NOT#NEWS, and the purpose of WP:BLP is to protect the subjects from questionable reporting, not to push it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was it never a secret to begin with? The Daily Telegraph is claiming to have a high resolution photo of Admadinejad holding his identity card, and to have interpreted what is written in his card. The previous claims were based on hearsay from political enemies of Admadinejad. This claim is based on photographic evidence of one of the UK's most respected papers. It's a new claim and requires new analysis. Josh Keen (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on his ID card, that he presumably uses to prove his ID, and certainly has used that way hundredth of times before he became prominent. The name change will also have been in the administrative archives. Just because something wasn't known in the west (or because nobody cared to make a big story of it) does not mean it's a secret. Ahmadinejad is a an unpleasant demagogue, but he's not an idiot. Why would he publicly wave his ID card around if it contained a damaging secret? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed the Guardian as a source, as I've never even read it. I have only reverted changes to the article that went against consensus of the matter on the article's talk page. I've never used the words "fringe" or "undue" until this very sentence. Please be more accurate in pointing fingers. And "culprit"? Really? Talk about POV.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, the particular problem is not over whether the "Jewish background" claim goes in -- instead, it is whether the Guardian opinion piece is used to support the "no Jewish background" claim. And the diff above shows that "Abie the Fish Peddler" did re-add it (though he/she is not the only one). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to a footnote, as the claim seems to be incorrect~~, and frankly stinks~~. Whilst the Guardian source is a comment piece, the relevant information is explicitly attributed in it to reliable sources (unlike the Telegraph piece, which declines to name the key source, but finds space to quote an identified Israeli embassy spokesman who has nothing to say...). Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why it is any more acceptable in line with WP:RS to use that reference in a footnote than in main text. Why is this not obvious? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the substance of what I said. Footnoting it, BTW, has to do with the prominence the issue merits. Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given what you said (e.g. re "it stinks") the attention I think it deserves. Prominently or not, the reference in question cannot be used in the way it is being used. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Perhaps you could read the rest of what I wrote. Rd232 ^talk 17:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here from WP:RSN. The Telegraph article, the Guardian article, and the Radio Free Europe piece from months ago that first discussed this are all reliable sources and the story is notable. Even if this turns out to be nonsense, it's still notable nonsense, and how it was reported belongs in the biography. If anyone has any issues place comment back at RSN. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are reliable (and I'd think that the DT, RFE at least are, although reader opinion pieces are not, so if that's all the Guardian has, it's not) but in controversy, what we should do, as always, is report what the reliable sources say and let the reader draw their own conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 10:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said: the Telegraph news piece is written by people who claim an expert source but decline to identify it by name. The Guardian opinion piece (which is not by a reader [19]) is a reliable enough source for reporting the named authorities (one of them a journalist on the same paper) which refute the claims made in the Telegraph. The significance of the Guardian piece is noted here by Die Tageszeitung (German, sorry) [20], saying that the Telegraph story went round the world, but only the Guardian bothered to address it (see also Google News for how widely the Guardian's refutation is reported; includes Haaretz [21]), and since then, it's been all quiet in the media - and the Telegraph notably hasn't followed it up (TAZ says). PS Whilst merely a blog, [22] this has another convincing argument that the Telegraph was simply wrong. Rd232 ^talk 10:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph is a WP:RS. Everything else that you say about the Daily Telegraph is WP:OR. Everything you say about the story without a WP:RS is WP:OR. If a WP:RS claims that an accused anti-Semite was born Jewish, that's certainly enough WP:WEIGHT to go in the body of the entry. Putting it in a footnote violates WP:NPOV.

WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV requires us to include the claim in the story, along with the arguments against the claim. I'd include the Guardian blog, if it can meet the WP:RS criteria for blogs.

I also have difficulty seeing what the problem is. I'd like to see someone give an argument against including the claim without violating WP:OR. --Nbauman (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? It is not OR to say that the Telegraph does not name its source - the Telegraph piece is itself the source for that. The rest of what I said (apart from the PS, which clearly wasn't intended for inclusion) is backed up by the German TAZ article. If you try, you may find something similar in English. And given the reporting by reliable sources (eg Haaretz) of the Guardian online comment piece/blog, there seems little doubt it's a reliable enough source for its reporting of the authorities it reports. As to WP:WEIGHT - reporting a refuted story is, er? Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources named in the Telegraph piece is Ali Nourizadeh. Is one named source enough? Can we trust anonymous sources? Those issues are WP:OR. The only consideration is that the Telegraph is a WP:RS (verifiability, not truth).

It's WP:OR to say, for example, as Stephan Schulz did to start this discussion above, "The report in the DT is a far-fetched over-interpretation." If Stephan Schulz can find a WP:OR to say that the report is a far-fetched over-interpretation, he can add that to the entry, but there's no consensus that it's a far-fetched over-interpretation; that's just Stephan Schulz' opinion.

It's WP:OR to say, "Why would he publicly wave his ID card around if it contained a damaging secret?" And so forth.

To say, as you did, "the claim seems to be incorrect", is WP:OR. You're evaluating the claim, which is the job of a historian, CIA analyst, journalist, or other WP:RS. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In WP, we give both sides of the argument, and let the reader decide.

But WP:OR is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the Telegraph is a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Ali Nourizadeh, cited in the Telegraph, is a source only for the reaction to the claim, not for the claim. Read the source properly. (b) If there was no published RS response to the Telegraph, you'd say, OK, it's a news piece in a solid major paper, it's an RS. But when you end up with apparently reliable sources contradicting each other, you do need to apply some judgement. Maybe one of them isn't actually an RS? Major solid papers publish errors every day. So you can't just say "it's in the Telegraph, it's gospel". You need to apply some judgement as to whether this particular piece is a reliable source with respect to the particular claim being sourced. And much of that involves looking at the authority from which the claim derives (the wilder the claim, the better authority we expect). If it was first hand from an Iran-based Telegraph journalist, OK. But it isn't - it's second-hand from a source they decline to identify. This sort of standard for evaluating newspaper sources is routine, and to say it's OR is to make a nonsense of the meaning of "reliable sources". (c) OR would be saying the claim is false and does not require reporting. I've not done that - I've put the claim and the refutation in a footnote, which is a reasonable interpretation of WP:WEIGHT in this instance. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Michaels

Several editors continue to reinsert material into the lead of the article describing not only who Michaels works for, but who funds these organizations.[23]

Seeing as how there are articles dealing with the Greening Earth Society and the World Climate Report adding additional material about who funds them would seem to be an attempt to skew the article with guilt by association. BLP specifically warns against guilt by association connections, especially when there is no secondary reliable source criticizing or even linking Michaels' work and any funding by the WFA and BLP also states that content should be about the subject of the article specifically. . BluefieldWV (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given [24], your complaints are hypocritical William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And [25] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could enlighten us all on why its ok in the Michael's article and no the Romm article, or cant you stand your own hypocrisy on this subject?

If rules dont apply to everone, then they dont apply to anyone. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall expressing an opinion as to its relevance in either. I'm pointing out that you are removing it from one whilst inserting it in another, which is hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You dont recall expressing an opinion as to its relevance, that must explain why you put it back in the article. BluefieldWV (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Items like these are always problematic, and have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. In the Michaels case (i have no idea about Romm's case) its an issue that quite a lot of reliable secondary sources have taken up, and commented about (including at least 2 books), thus the weight of secondary sources consider the connection relevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Koltko-Rivera‎

This article relies almost exclusively on self-published materials and works written by the subject (especially his blog). I am not sure if this is a violation of BLP or not, (it is my understanding that self-published material written by others is not allowed in BLPs but I am less sure what is allowed when written by the subject) but the extent to which this article is supported by the subject's own writings is a concern nevertheless. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shaughnessy

Elizabeth Shaughnessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This entry is constantly being updated to include unsubstantiated claims. Note the revision history; there is no supporting evidence, and the extra paragraph uses vague terms like "was accused of..." with no reference to who did the accusing. There is also a broken link in the References section, which I have removed several times. // 64.174.147.222 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion. When removing information like that it would help if you filled in the edit summary. Something like "removing unsourced information per WP:BLP" in the edit summary should make someone take a second look and ask themselves if they should be reinserting it or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Philippe Rushton

Would somebody, or several somebodies, review the recent blanking by Needpics (talk · contribs)? They've taken out huge portions claiming the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. I just looked at that, somebody versed in BLP policy really needs to step in there. Editor is one by one removing every source saying the sources "aren't notable" (which I guess he thinks implies they aren't reliable?). He's going a little hog wild....

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Looking at the user's contribs, an admin might want to look into this; it appears to be a single purpose account for highly trollish-tendentious editing of anything to do with race. User has already blown WP:3RR with respect to one today, and otherwise just looks to be not acting in good faith.

In dealing with this user, Needpics (talk · contribs), we should keep in mind the possibility that he may be Rushton himself. Will Beback talk 00:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually brought this up at WP:AN/I; It'd be nice if you could comment there Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admins_take_a_look_at_this..._.28imported_from_WP:BLP.2FN.29. The one page he created has been nom'd for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Asians/North_Africans). But your comments would be appreciated at AN/I.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia smear campaign against J. Phillipe Rushton

(This section was originally entitled as above and was moved into this section by User:98.248.33.198 stating "keeping topic together")

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Phillipe Rushton is a professor with a controversial theory arguing some races are more intelligent & less sexual than others. This is obviously quite offensive to a lot of people so members of wikipedia have responded by litering his article with volumes & volumes of criticism that paint him as an incompetent racist and they are doing this by using sources that are not credible or notable. When I tried to remove the superfluous criticism citing wikipedia policy on poorly sourced libelous statements about living persons & by citing wikipedia rules about giving undue weight to extreme criticism I was reverted twice & told to discuss it on the talk page. This seems to be a pattern with this article. People come in trying to removing libelous material & the article's gate keepers revert them & then wear them down in drawn out arguments on the talk page that inevitabley lead to no change. This article is in desperate need of outside help from anyone who believes in wikipedia's policy towards protecting living people from libelous claims & poorly sourced criticism that is not notable. Needpics (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that writers used as sources for articles be notable themselves. WP:NPOV requires that all significant points of view be included. Some of the sources you deleted were university press books, considered among the most reliable sources. If they have printed libellous material about Rushton then I'd expect him to have made some effort to correct the record, and if he has then we should include that information too. If you could point out, here or on the article talk page, exactly which assertions are problematic then we can address them directly. Will Beback talk 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy naming of BLP subjects

I thought I'd ask here to see if people think this is pointy like I do (and thus should be moved back). See the category Category:Convicted American child molesters. See the two "priests" who have been clarified as "Catholic" (though there's no ambiguity; see the disambig pages James Porter and Barry Ryan). James Porter was moved from James Porter (priest) to James Porter (Catholic priest) on May 11, 2009 by User:JBsupreme with no explanation in the edit summary, no comment on the talk page, nor any consensus whatsoever. I don't think this follows the naming convention (e.g., from the Barry Ryan disambig: Barry Ryan (singer) isn't Barry Ryan (Pop singer), nor is Barry Ryan (footballer), Barry Ryan (Galway United F.C. footballer)). Clarification as such is only given in cases of ambiguity, and I think these articles just appear to have "Catholic" added as a jab at the Catholic church because of its horrible history of child abuses; nevertheless, such specificity is in no way necessitated (and, in fact, discouraged) by policy. Comments?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you started by discussing this with the user concerned since its not obvious that you have. Notifying them of this thread would also be an expected courtesy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular issue with the user (the other page wasn't moved by them); what I'm actually trying to do is my research before I bring it up on the talk page or propose a move back or speak with the editor. What I'm looking for is confirmation that my reading/application of the policy is, in fact, in line with the policy (hence asking experienced editors here) before I make anything of it—i.e., to make sure I'm not totally off base. Is there something wrong with that? If trying to make sure I wasn't misreading the situation before I make an issue out of it is discourteous, I'm obviously socially inept.

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Through my experience working on page move proposals, I can tell you that we try to use the least amount of disambiguation necessary. This means that Samuel Adams the governor of Arkansas in 1844 is at Samuel Adams (governor), not Samuel Adams (Arkansas governor), while Samuel Adams the statesman is simply at Samuel Adams without any disambiguation at all. Maybe the move was pointy, maybe not, but either way it was an unnecessary departure from naming conventions. I would suggest contacting the user to ask for his rationale and probably go through the WP:RM procedure to get them moved back. The rationale would simply be that the pages were needlessly disambiguated without consensus. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratel (talk · contribs) and Garth Paltridge

Resolved

I have spent the last day one by one removing such a large number of BLP violations that it would take too long to enumerate them all. This version here was I believe a fairly neutral presentation of the sources. Ratel has now reverted in toto all of these back his earlier version here. As far as I can see, there is a majority of editors agreeing with the BLP issues I have raised, and he has not obtained or even tried to obtain any support for any of his edits. The POV/BLP problems include, use of unreliable sources (e.g. web archives, websites) to insinuate industry connections; cherry picking of quotes to completely distort the sources he is quoting, to make it appear Paltridge is saying something completely different to what he is (e.g. Ratel's sentence on Paltridge advising humanity to trust in "Luck", after Paltridge mentioned "with a bit of luck", in passing, as a figure of speech; extensive use of scare quotes; a labelling of Paltridge pejoratively as a "conspiracy theorist" using "see also" rather than attempting to satisfy WP:V, and not to mention the fact that I had also just made the writing clearer & the article more encyclopaedic. Please see above in the earlier Garth Paltridge section for documentation of the damage that has already been caused both to Paltridge, and Wikipedia's credibility. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NONE of the (properly cited) items removed were BLP vios. As I said in the edit summaries, Alex is making sweeping deletions of cited material with no discussion in a very high-handed manner. This is not co-operative editing in the spirit of a community encyclopedia. Alex, take a deep breath and calm down. Start working with me, not against me. ► RATEL ◄ 05:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all sysops! Admin Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has a long history of edit warring and has been blocked repeatedly, and who has very strong views (minority views) about global warming (he's apparently a Libertarian and thinks anthropogenic global warming is basically BS) is abusing his broom at Garth Paltridge and 350 (organisation), to name just two pages in which I've seen him in action. He is constantly POV-pushing and editing with bias. This fellow needs to lose the broom asap. ► RATEL ◄ 05:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack as no place here. Accusations of administrative abuse belong elsewhere: higher levels of drama may be found at WP:ANI or WP:RFAR. -Atmoz (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This relates in part to the article in question, in which Rubin has taken a decisive role. I've asked him to explain himself, although I don't hold much hope considering his history. My interactions with him on this page and 350 (organisation) have been decidedly unpleasant since he is not interested in a quality encyclopedia, but rather in pushing his libertarian barrow. One example is the issue of the See also link to Global warming conspiracy theory on the Paltridge's page. I put the wikilink there since Paltridge makes some of the classic conspiracy theory accusations in his book The Climate Caper, including that it's all about world government, socialism, funding for scientists, etc. Classic stuff and so the link was completely, and I mean COMPLETELY appropriate. Alex Harvey predictably removed it with squeals of "BLP" and when I reverted, Rubin rushed in and reverted me, cheekily calling it "vandalism". Only then did Rubin look at the evidence and decide that yes, it was an appropriate link, and reverted himself back to my version. So predictably again, off went ALex Harvey to like-minded Rubin's talk page to press his case for removing the link, and lo and behold, before too long Rubin is removing of the link again. It's just such typiocal POV shit that it really needs to stop. And that's just some of the garbage editing coming from this "admin". ► RATEL ◄ 07:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because it seemed to me that Alex accidentally reinstated the link. As for "vandalism", your other edits seemed in violation of Wikipedia policies, but not technically vandalism, as you appear to have made them in good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct; I reinstated the link accidentally. It seems to me this issue is resolved so I have marked it as such. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a potential problem atm, but this edit introduces some novel ideas without sources. I will have to go soon, so someone might like to check the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Category:Convicted child molesters

This is partially in relation to Roman Polanski (again, I'm afraid) where editors have been inserting this category or one of its subcats. Discussion there is ongoing, however, during the discussion an editor raised examples of the use of this category on other BLPs, so I thought it worth raising here in terms of the more general application.

So, the shortish version: should the Category:Convicted child molesters be limited to people who were specifically convicted of this crime or its direct legal equivalents, or can it be applied more generally to people convicted of child sex offences, such as statutory rape, that are not legally considered child molestation, but may fit a more general interpretation? (Legally, child molestation generally refers to prepubescent children, and is a more serious crime).

Other than Roman Polanski, Debra Lafave has been raised as an example - she pleaded guilty to statutory rape and was convicted, but was not convicted of the specific crime of child molestation. Yet the category is applied there. In the case of Polanski, he was charged with child molestation along with five other crimes, but plea bargained to the lesser statutory rape equivalent (unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor).

I'm inclined to try and check the use of the cat, but I'd like to know if my interpretation is accurate first. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please begin by supporting your assertions with ref's. Precedence here, and the reams of community consensus that were required to have built and populated the individual country specific cat and international cat has accepted that child molestation is a sex crime committed against a minor - nowhere here do we find the definition to be restricted to pre-pubescent children. 99.142.5.86 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question is generic. If the crime is legally child molestation, then clearly the category of "Convicted child molesters" applies. That's a given. If the crime is not legally child molestation, then I ask whether the category applies based on a possible general interpretation, as opposed to a legal interpretation, of the term. This is not case specific, which is why I raised it here. - Bilby (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the cat's recent CfD, where it was dealt with together with many other broadly similar cats, it had been proposed to move Category:Convicted child molesters -> Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse, but this was not specifically discussed, and I wonder if the discussion overlooked the possibility that people who better fit the latter may have been lumped into the former. Is this worth a second look over at WP:CfD? Any thoughts on that? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is the word "child". People can be convicted of the equivalent of statutory rape (as Polanski was) for having sex with a 15-year-old, or even perhaps a 17-year-old in some jurisdictions. Most people would not refer to an adolescent as a "child". "Underage person" or "minor" are more correct. Will Beback talk 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He raped ("having sex" as a euphemism wouldn't apply to his specific case) a 13-year-old girl. I think that the "grey area" that may apply in some cases certainly doesn't apply to Polanski's case, so your example was ill-chosen. Unit Anode 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the probation report, the police sargeant described the victim as appearing 16-18 years of age physically (but with behavior of 13-14). In the grand jury transcript when the victim was asked how she knew she was under the influence, she replied "I can barely remember what happened." A Washington Post report of the time suggested the probation report implied the event may have been consensual (and reported the judge as responding that consent did not matter in this case). THE POINT There were good reasons to have a plea agreement rather than a trial. While the categories and language stressing "child" and "rape" may certainly find justification in the precise meanings of legal charges—that does not mean that such categorizations may not be rhetorically misleading; and therefore low-quality information for an encyclopedia. (I understand this is a perhaps provocative statement given the givens of the moment, but there will be further discussion, I suspect, with regards to the court documents unsealed around 2003—the grand jury transcript receiving the most attention, but due to NPOV, the prosecution's case must be balanced by the probation report (something wisely avoided by not having a trial). Enough for this page, obviously. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category has been added 4 times to RP since lock expired (by same editor)

(re Roman Polanski) Any guidance? There is clearly not consensus on the matter? (I assume this is not the forum for diffs, but have them, along with for 3 deletes by 3 different editors). Everyone is counting (or warning) about reverts, or it would already be reverted again, etc.Proofreader77 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These Cats are more trouble than they are worth, vague and meaningless, perhaps created that way delibrately, Polanski has not been convicted of child molestation so the cat should not be added, imo. People have also added the rapist cat, he is not a rapist either, He is technically guilty of stat rape because an underage person is deemed to not be able to agree to sex. The cat creators don't seem to have created a stat rapist cat, the rapist cat should also be removed. label label and what value are they to the wikipedia? beats me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the same editor has repeatedly added it, without any consensus to do so, and he has been warned, then he is close to going to the 3RR board as he clearly has no intention of seeking consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category is simply inaccurate: he has not been convicted of child molestation. End of story. In view of this, I would say a BLP exemption applies to WP:3RR for anyone removing it. Rd232 ^talk 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rd232

Thanks, and I agree... but there is SO MUCH discussion. (Do you offer a guarantee? lol )
NOTE: As per above. Lots of talk page participation. Claiming of sufficient consensus, but not apparent.
NOTE: Dynamic ip semi-complication.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The child molester cat has been reinserted by User Dream Focus here, this edit warring over the cats is a joke and perhaps if people can't edit responsibly it is time to protect the article again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop Garion has removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Stewart

There have been a number of false and potentially libellous changes made recently to the Rory Stewart site . This is presumably connected to the fact that he is a conservative parliamentary candidate in the forthcoming election. I would suggest you watch the site quite carefully to prevent any (either positive or negative) politically motivated-changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain1970 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Sapone

This was brought up on my talk page, a request for me to review it for BLP issues. I've not got the time to really devote to it. A quick scan doesn't look good though. Tagged since December 2008 as disputed neutrality and for having questionable sources. Appears to be mostly negative in nature, so if anyone has time to go through and verify the claims and verify notability, it would be much appreciated. Lara 15:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of refs that were mentioned on the talk page (NY Times and Washington Post) and removed attack material from the talk page from someone who claims to know her, but other than that, the article seems reasonably notable and sourced to me. Without more specifics, I'd suggest removing the tags.--agr (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama

This seems to be a POV fork with inadequate sourcing (two of the three are opinion pieces). Not sure how to handle it, other than to say it shouldn't exist as a separate article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed similar concerns on the talk page which I've brought to the attention of the article's creator. I'll see what, if any, their response is but I'm inclined to merge it into the other relevant articles. Adambro (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now starting to spill over into Nobel Peace Prize. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has now been redirected to 2009 Nobel Peace Prize which seems sensible. Adambro (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I redirected it, twice now. Trackerwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) undid my redirect once - if he does it again, I will defer to someone else take action on this. Cirt (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should not exist & is clearly a POV fork. Needpics (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redacted

(Noticed during RC patrol) Perhaps that is her name. Article was created that way, but someone has changed to a more usual last name (but no sources provided for this - other than a page without full name specification) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name is very suspect. Searching for all 3 variations of the name return no hits. The article should probably be deleted as a CSD#A7 or as an attack page, since there really no assertion of notability and the name is so suspect as being improbable. I am going to tag both ways and let an admin look at it. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done the article has been deleted. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

This article about an emotionally charged issue has many major problems, but among them are attributions of irresponsibility to two living persons, which do not represent consensus opinion. Two persons are named Colin Scoggins and Col. Marr, with such phrases as "[name] was aware...," "Credibility is strained when [name] asks us to believe...," "[name] had...yet we are asked to believe...," "[name] asked us to believe...while knowing..." On the discussion page the blame continues concerning Marr, and now Maj.Gen. Arnold.

I'm not sure whether these issues rise to the level of importance needed for your intervention, but assigning blame for events that happened on 9/11 is an emotionally charged endeavor. The arguments for assigning blame are outlined in the article, but the conclusion that these people should bear blame is the opinion of one editor, and not a wide consensus (as far as I can tell). These conclusions are stated as fact, not speculation. I believe that the evidence-based conclusions of one person do not constitute encyclopedic content, and in this case I believe they are potentially libelous.

One editor has dominated the article since March at least (from article history page), and has argued vociferously against opinions contrary to his, making his opinions known through personal attacks on the discussion page.

Please help, or offer some suggestions or clarifications. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Louis-Dreyfus

On 9/19 at 03:13, the high school alma mater of Julia Louis-Dreyfus was changed from Holton-Arms School to Sidwell Friends School. I have no idea which is correct, but the Holton-Arms article lists her as a notable alumna, so if she went to Sidwell, the Holton article should be changed, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.92.148 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Schmidt Living Person Biography

Living Person: Ted Schmidt (Talent Agent) Fictitious person: Ted Schmidt (Character in "Queer as Folk")

Continued deletion of Living Person and replacing with Fictitious Character. Fictitious Character has drug and other issues which are libelous to living person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.89.190 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Schmidt was a redirect to the Queer as Folk character, is now an entry on the talent agent, but is now up for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Schmidt. Apparently the issue is that the character happens to have the same name! (see AFD). Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ingram

This article is largely a coat rack for allegations he has made about (illegal and libelous) activities of others. There is also a lot of "analysis" which is essentially an editor's opinion about the motivations of the individual. It probably could be a decent article, but would need a lot of work. I'm thinking that a severe crop would be more BLP compliant than the unsourced raft of allegations as it currently stands. Thoughts? Rockpocket 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree and also I have mentioned before but there is a lot of overlap with the Freddie Scappaticci article which also need a smack of the BLP stick. BigDunc 19:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan_Munasinghe

With a focus on energy, sustainable development and climate change, Munasinghe is the Chairman of the Munasinghe Institute for Development, the Director-General of the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester, UK, and the Vice Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in which position he shared in 2007's Nobel Peace Prize with IPCC colleagues and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.[1] Involved in IPCC from its inception, he is the first Sri Lankan to receive a Nobel Prize.[2]

Specific errors: A) The section above states that this person "shared in 2007's Nobel Peace Prize with IPCC colleagues and former Vice President of the United States Al Gore". The Nobel Foundation's award citation is provided as evidence. However, the Nobel Foundation's citation only states that the IPCC (as an organization) and Al Gore shared in the Nobel prize for peace in 2007. No mention is made of Dr. Munasinghe, or any of his IPCC colleagues, sharing the 2007 Nobel prize for peace, as stated in this entry. Since the Nobel prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, it is erroneous to suggest that Mr. Munasinghe or any other senior staff of the IPCC were recipients of this award in their individual capacities.

B) The sentence that follows states as follows: "Involved in IPCC from its inception, he is the first Sri Lankan to receive a Nobel Prize.[2]". An article for The Guardian is cited as evidence. As previously indicated, the Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded, in equal measure, to the IPCC (as an organization) and to Mr. Al Gore as an individual. As such, it is erroneous to suggest that Dr. Munasinghe was the first Sri Lankan to receive a Nobel prize based purely on an article in The Guardian.

The Nobel Foundation's citation, in which the recipeints of the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace are stated as the IPCC and Mr. Al Gore, can be found at its official website.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html

// Bandana1948 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that this noticeboard is only concerned with factual errors which portray living persons in an unduly negative way. For other factual errors, please see the Content noticeboard. Thank you. Intelligentsium^review 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eyes needed ...

is this discussion on the Pete Townshend talk page getting into areas that warrant deletion per WP:BLP#Non-article_space? the possible problems include numerous tendentious out-of-context quotes and sensationalized passages, and false allegations like "he was 'convicted'" (even though that was promptly corrected, it wasn't edited.) i'm not sure whether BLP policy boundaries are being crossed, and hope some uninvolved editor[s] can provide some input and/or edit the bits that warrant deletion. thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Either a hoax or an actual serial killer... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references added indicate that it is true, however the subject of the article is notable only for his crime, and this biography should probably not exist. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Garlasco

A discussion at WP:RS/N recently discussed whether material from an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen is appropriate for inclusion in the biography of Marc Garlasco. The conclusion was that the source was verifiable for the opinion of the editorial board, but may be undue for a BLP.

The editorial makes a number of possibly contentious and defamatory claims about Garlasco which are unverifiable in other sources:

Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state.
Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious
Among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero.
A screen name Garlasco used was code for the neo-Nazi salute, "Heil, Hitler" ("H" is the eighth letter of the alphabet)

A number of editors have expressed concerns that the inclusion of this material may be undue weight and that a number of the claims in the editorial are not found in other sources. Does this material belong in the article? If not, what is the proper way to handle its constant reinsertion?

--69.208.137.88 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the section of the article in question is unduly favorable, and some criticism is needed. His work on cluster bombs during the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict was criticized, for example. Unfortunately, the Ottawa Citizen editorial is written on a superficial level providing no detail or cites. It may be reliable as to the newspaper's point of view, but it's otherwise a weak source. We should try to replace it with better sources. Fletcher (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A group of editors appear to be using any means of purging anything negative about the article subject. They allow positive articles from sources as diverse as Der Spiegel and the subject's employers, HRW, but call into question an editorial approved by the board of the Ottawa Citizen. How can it be undue weight when the article has been manipulated to a positive excess? Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content not editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "APEC Currents - June 2005". www.apec.org.au. Retrieved 2009-10-06.

[jh-2] "A cold, hard look at a hot topic". Fairfax Digital. 2005. Retrieved 2009-07-29.

[3] "The Week That Was". www.sepp.org. Retrieved 2009-10-06.

[speech-4] "The Science of Climate Change - Background Paper No 1/06" (PDF). NSW Parliament. 2005. Retrieved 2009-10-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Revision as of 23:40, 11 October 2009 edit A Sniper (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers 7,480 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:29, 12 October 2009 edit undo Sean.hoyland (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 32,520 edits →‎Marc Garlasco Next edit →
Line 774:		Line 774:

	:A group of editors appear to be using any means of purging anything negative about the article subject. They allow positive articles from sources as diverse as Der Spiegel and the subject's employers, HRW, but call into question an editorial approved by the board of the Ottawa Citizen. How can it be undue weight when the article has been manipulated to a positive excess? Best, [[User:A Sniper\|A Sniper]] ([[User talk:A Sniper\|talk]]) 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)		:A group of editors appear to be using any means of purging anything negative about the article subject. They allow positive articles from sources as diverse as Der Spiegel and the subject's employers, HRW, but call into question an editorial approved by the board of the Ottawa Citizen. How can it be undue weight when the article has been manipulated to a positive excess? Best, [[User:A Sniper\|A Sniper]] ([[User talk:A Sniper\|talk]]) 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
			::Please comment on content not editors. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Sean.hoyland\|<font color="#000">Sean.hoyland</font>]]''' - '''[[User talk:Sean.hoyland\|talk]]'''</small> 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards