Jump to content

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

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
User At Work (talk | contribs)
1,206 edits
→Let's forget about the sockpuppetry for a minute: Noone's complaining that the deleted content should be restored, so why is this being discussed?
Line 954: Line 954:
===Let's forget about the sockpuppetry for a minute===
===Let's forget about the sockpuppetry for a minute===
Getting back to the article content, the restored edit was entirely negative. The fact that another politician referred to Norquist as "Grosser Nosetwist", or that he is listed in the book ''101 People Who Are Really Screwing America'' may be properly cited, but there is literally nothing positive in this article, not even praise from his fellow conservatives, which I assume must exist ''somewhere''. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the article content, the restored edit was entirely negative. The fact that another politician referred to Norquist as "Grosser Nosetwist", or that he is listed in the book ''101 People Who Are Really Screwing America'' may be properly cited, but there is literally nothing positive in this article, not even praise from his fellow conservatives, which I assume must exist ''somewhere''. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Point one: Negative content isn't banned by the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
:Point two: John254 redeleted that content without any dispute.
:Point three: Again, '''noone''' is complaining that the deleted content should be restored.
:So why is this even being discussed? --[[User:User At Work|User At Work]] 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


== [[Jindřich Feld]] ==
== [[Jindřich Feld]] ==

Revision as of 14:14, 12 July 2007

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

    Category:BLP Check

    → In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC

    I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update on {{BLPC}}

    From template page: "Note - this used to use Category:BLP Check, but now shares {{blpdispute}}'s category of Category:Disputed biographies of living persons."   [ Update added here by Athaenara ✉ at 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ] [reply]

    Recent changes to BLPs

    A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced BLPs

    There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable BLP sources

    NNDB Notable Names Database

    Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish Virtual Library

    There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]








    Gwen Shamblin and NPOV's "N"

    → See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Gwen Shamblin

    Gwen Shamblin bio - NPOV's "N" is for "Neutral" not "Negative" or "Newsworthy" right?

    The Gwen Shamblin wiki entry including the recent discussions on the Gwen Shamblin Talk page have gotten Shamblin's attention for once. As an authorized representative for Shamblin, I am sincerely asking for the help and direction of admins and editors alike to consider the difference between allegations and facts, and unintended consequences of allegations. I would at least like to ask that anonymous edits not be allowed on this entry similar to the Phil McGraw entry.

    Everyone has their critics, even Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, and Michael Jackson have their critics, dissentors, disenchanted former employees, and ex-clients. However, some of the allegations reported in the news about Shamblin and now recently re-gurgitated on wiki, rise to a unique level that may be inciting threatening letters, emails, and phonecalls. Recently she has had several close-calls in direct face-to-face confrontations, two of which required local police intervention and subsequent discovered potentially violent intentions. These incedents by total strangers had one thing in common, they involved people who had never even met Mrs. Shamblin and knew nothing about her except what they read in a news article or on the internet where a certain few people have made vague claims that Shamblin has said, done, teaches, or approves of harming children or others. Allegations, Mrs. Shamblin has flatly denied and has repeatedly proven (and been forced to prove to police) that they are false. When someone continues to uphold these unsupported claims that she or her church approve of child-abuse, it tends to get self-appointed vigilante types crazy. A seemingly noble cause is all some people need to snap.

    Media outlets are understandably slow to let go of a shocking controversy, because they sell news that is shocking. But surely, as intriguing as accusations of criminal or pseudo-criminal behavior like this are to the media and those who would stop a reported "monster", this is why wiki has a very well thought out policy on biographies of LIVING persons. I don't want to wait until some sincerely tragic headline news of an attack on Mrs. Shamblin is reported to ask for reasonable consideration of facts and what has merely been alledged, this is very serious. GwenShamblinRepresentative - GwenShamblinRepresentative 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let me know in talk page of that article what is disputed text that you want removed on that basis, and I will take a look. You can also emai me if you feel more comfortable doing so privately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you prefer it, you can contact the OTRS volunteers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Physical appearance of Michael Jackson

    I have removed the "Weight" section from Physical appearance of Michael Jackson. It was unsourced, controversial, potentially libelous, and appears to be original research. (See the first sentence). The diff can be found here. Although unrelated, it also uses weasel words. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the line "Since then, Michael has had his hair gradually straightened" should go, too. This is an encyclopedia, few if any of us are on a first name basis with him, and it's uncited. — Athaenara ✉ 06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia Browne

    After the deletion an editor has restored the material on the basis that I have edited the article before and therefore my action could not accepted as a BLP intervention. I would appreciate if other BLP watchers can comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been a while, and there has been a fair bit of editing in the past few days, but it appears now that the attack site might be a fair critism, and is not given undo weight in the article, which is full of critism of Ms. Browne. --Rocksanddirt 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin LaGuer

    Needs some more eyes. Sorely lacking in inline citations. -- Jonel | Speak 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet

    Resolved
     – Article redirected per AfD consensus and contentious BLP material removed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite contentious unsourced claim of a mental or emotional disability; there is no version of the article without the claim except for a one-liner that was quite correctly tagged for speedy at the time. The article is up for AfD, but this claim should be removed from the history, and no version of the article is really salvageable. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Barrymore

      • It will need to be watched at least for the next few days. He's pretty famous/notorious over here - Phil Spector is the closest US parallel I can think of - and the current murder case will certainly be front-page news tomorrow and probably for some days to come. -- ChrisO 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Radcliffe

    Resolved
     – See above. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Nutter

    George Soros

    G.S. is a very controversial guy and draws many bizarre criticisms, may of which are included in the very long article, e.g. a Prime Minister once called him "a moron," conservatives call him a "Communist" and a self described "far left-winger" suggest that he works with ("for" suggested) the CIA, and there are also allegations (unfounded to my reading of the evidence) about nazi collaberation (when he was 13 years old!) that have been brought up in major publications. Currently, Bill O'Reilly has said something about him contolling US media and the Democratic Party. My feeling is that some of this might be included - but only to show that notable figures make bizzare claims about him. I'm withdrawing from editing this article for the time being - because it's just too hard to decide what is fair and what is not. I hope others will keep an eye on on it from a BLP point of view. Smallbones 09:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the "communist" accusation, which is defamatory as well as being simply absurd. Also I believe it is problematic including what every crackpot thinks of every person in the public eye, and not the role of Wikipedia to be a sounding board for such things.--Samiharris 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, for now that the problem seems resolved, but I'll suggest that there's a strong likelihood that similar things will pop up in the future. BTW, shouldn't the "resolved" be signed? Smallbones 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that {{resolved}} should always be signed. — Athaenara ✉ 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am un-resolving this article. We seem to be having some very novel interpretations of WP:BLP being used to justify the removal of notable, reliably sourced criticism by Bill O'Reilly. Claims of everything from Fox News not being a reliable source to O'Reilly being non-notable are being used. Since I am vigorously defending the inclusion of a neutral, sourced, and notable bit of criticism against threats of "sterner action", I will recuse myself from further discussion here on this topic, except to state that in my experienced opinion as a BLP patroller since the patrol was first formed, the passage I am defending is NOT a blp violation. I will continue the discussion at Talk:George Soros. I will also point out that Gamaliel is also lukewarmly defending the inclusion (or at least not demanding the removal) of such criticism, in a slightly modified form. Those who are using BLP in this situation are, in my opinion, misusing the policy to force a whitewash of this subject. - Crockspot 15:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly object to the way this has been characterized. I asked for the intervention of an uninvolved administrator who had previously intervened on that page. He did so and now Crockspot is seeking to contest that determination. He reverted the objectionable material despite a warning from the administrator that "stronger action" would be taken if the material continued to be inserted in the article. I very much object to this "whitewash" accusation. Soros has come under attack from a political commentator who made an unsubstantiated accusation against Soros that was denied. It appears to be a false accusation. It has been substantiated by no one. It is highly unfair and improper for Wikipedia to repeat this apparently false accusation. BLP states the abiding rule is to "do no harm," and that needs to be applied in this situation. I would suggest that if anyone has an agenda here it is Crockspot, not the persons resisting use of the material.--Samiharris 15:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I particularly object to the term "reliably sourced" as relates to the allegations by Bill O'Reilly. These accusations, by a political commentator with a well-known prejudice against Soros, were unsubstantiated. They were simply accusations, and they were denied. We cannot shirk our responsibility by blandly reporting a very damaging accusation (that Soros is the funding mastermind of left-wing media websites) that is denied and, as coming from a person with an evident political bias, is inherently untrustworthy and unreliable as relates to this particular subject matter.--Samiharris 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight - all the tens of billions of dollars funneled into political campaigns and lobbying efforts by major international corporations is all kosher, but if a guy like Soros funds liberal groups, that's exerting undue political influence? Balderdash. O'Reilly's allegations are fundamentally false and misleading and have no place in an encyclopedic discussion of Soros. FCYTravis 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that the main issue is being danced around. The editors seem to be using their personal opinion of O'Reilly as their reason for not including the reported material. Here is a modified version of something I posted on the Soros talk page:


    What the editors who are against the inclusion of this material need to be reminded of is that this is in a "Criticism" section. It has not been stated as fact in the encyclopedia. Nobody is trying to mislead Wikipedia's readers. What IS being attempted is to report that a major and well known critic, Bill O'Reilly, criticized Soros. In fact, this is not the only instance that he's criticized him. He has done it several times on his program, and has even devoted an entire section of his book to Soros in "Culture Warrior." In fact, the whole premise of the book is based on the alleged manipulation of the media from Soros and others like him.

    O'Reilly has even gone on Oprah and slammed Soros.

    So it is indisputable that O'Reilly is the biggest critic of Soros. Yet, after the revert, the name Bill O'Reilly happens to be missing from the "Criticism" section. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need to include "criticisms" by personalities such as Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken when they are done in such lightweight forums as television or radio talk shows. If such criticism is done in a serious academic forum such as a peer reviewed journal, that would be a different thing entirely. Quatloo 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the policy or precedent for your stance Quatloo? Because, from my experience (albeit limited), Wikipedia is full of such criticisms from such sources. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Quatloo: Peer-reviewed journals for political criticism? That threshold seems to be on the high side. What are the publications that would qualify? R. Baley 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Bellowed: on the other hand I think that currently our threshold is set somewhat too low, leading to a lot of "he said/she said" -back and forth commentary (or insult and counterattack, if you prefer). It would be different if O'Reilly had been pointing out Soros (atypical?) money donations and control because it had been covered in other separately owned, and more neutral (at least ostensibly) sources. Then I think it could possibly meet a notable threshold and be included (while also citing other sources). R. Baley 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean to imply that peer-reviewed discourse was required, I was merely using it as an example to make the point that if criticism is to be included, it need not be taken from the gutter of talk radio/tv. How about from an editorial page? A column from a news magazine? Foreign Affairs? No shortage exists of such material. The absence of opinion from talk programs, as User:Bellowed seems to urgently inform us as a serious omission in need of redress -- that is no omission at all. Quatloo 05:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Replicating criticism from O'Reilly etc. falls clearly under the "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" dictum in BLP. To me it is a very clearcut situation and I regret some of the rhetoric ("whitewash") that is being employed to justify inclusion of this material--Samiharris 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After an apparent threat of a block, I am going to stop editing the article for now. I have been personally attacked and accused of pressing a right-wing agenda, but if you look at Talk:George Soros, the political comments and accustations are certainly not coming from me. My inquiry as to the full meaning of the argument being presented is being ignored so far. There's not much more I can do. There certainly does seem to be a political agenda at work here. It stinks. But I have a clean block log, and this fight is not worth hanging myself out to dry over. I hope that the other patrollers will express their opinion at Talk:George Soros, whether you agree with me or not. I think what is going on is a serious abuse of BLP, and it needs to be dealt with. If the consensus is that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, then I need to know that too. - Crockspot 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's fair to say this is an issue on the borderline. Reviewing WP:BLP the most relevant section seems to be under "Critics"
    "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources,"
    Since the fact being reported is that O'Reilly is critisizing Soros, I think we need to get somebody other than O'Reilly (a secondary source) saying that O'Reilly said... - if it is to be included at all.
    I sort of want the criticism in, since O'Reilly is notable.
    I don't think that this type of criticism reflect badly on Soros, I think it reflects badly on O'Reilly - that he is conducting a smear campaign like this. But I guess the rule works both ways - unless there is a secondary source saying that O'Reilly is conducting a smear campaign then it should not be included. Smallbones 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So anyone who criticized another in multiple books that they have published, and on multiple television and radio broadcasts that are highly rated and listened to/watched, still must have a further secondary source referring to it? Is that the precedent we are setting? I'm willing to work with that IF this precedent is applied fairly across all of the BLP articles on Wikipedia. So for example, anything that MediaMatters puts out must have a reliable secondary news article referring to it, or it cannot be used. Any article that one of the big guys over at the NY Times writes that is critical of someone, must be commented on by another reliable secondary before it can be used (for example this followed by this). I don't believe the editors who are fighing this inclusion would really want that, considering just about every bio of anyone conservative is chock full of critical sources that would have to be removed. BTW, I am no longer recusing myself from this argument here, as I am now resigning as one of the original BLP patrollers. Apparently I don't understand the policy well enough to be attempting to enforce it. - Crockspot 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This problem raises an interesting point which you now allude to. I think it is an open question as to whether criticism must be always be sourced to primary or secondary sources. That being said, criticism cannot be sourced to non-reliable sources -- blogs, message boards, radio or television talk shows, etc. This is true no matter their ratings. Because some blog is widely read or some TV show has high Neilsen ratings, does not somehow magically turn it into a reliable source. Quatloo 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources,"
    The problem is that O'Reilly's criticisms aren't based on any reliably sourced facts. All we can report is the fact that he is critisizing, which it seems from the above BLP policy quote, must be sourced from secondary (not primary=O'Reilly) sources. If he has indeed has put this criticism in multiple books, TV shows, etc. then it should be pretty easy documenting that he said it from a secondary source. For example somebody mentioned that he was on an Oprah show. If anybody asked him even a basic question on this (as opposed to just letting him ramble on) then that would be a reliable secondary source.
    Let's leave other articles out of this discussion for now and just resolve the problem in the Soros article. I've been confused on this borderline question for some time and it keeps coming up in the Soros article - nonfactual criticism from notable people. I asked for help in interpreting BLP on this. If this interpretation of BLP is accepted, then maybe you should get further discussion and put it directly into the BLP policy. Smallbones 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, well O'Reilly's same criticism is on Media Matters website, word for word. I still don't like the idea of having to go to their site to get O'Reilly's quote. It sets bad precedent, in my opinion, because we say that anything that comes from O'Reilly in the future is unreliable. But if that's what it takes I can certainly do that. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. I added it back in using Media Matters's site as a source. Thanks, Smallbones, for your knowledge of policy and your suggestion. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yay! WP assists O'Reilly in smear campaign against dirty commie Jew! — goethean ॐ 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't find me upset that WP assists Michael Moore in his smear campaign and his conspiracy theories. Because noting criticism, however ugly, from a noteworthy and newsworthy source is definately something that WP should be doing. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If its newsworthy, why didn't any newspapers cover it? — goethean ॐ 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well MM did, and I guess that's all that (puts pinkie in mouth) "matters." |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So my point stands. No newspapers covered what you (falsely) claim is "criticism...from a noteworthy and newsworthy source". Essentially, you are attempting to remedy the lack of media coverage of O'Reilly's (non-notable) criticism by having Wikipedia cover it. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually the New York Times did cover it in an editorial piece slamming O'Reilly. But the real issue here, Goethean, was that O'Reilly is notable and he most certainly is, especially in this instance as Soros's number one critic. O'Reilly attacks him everywhere, on TV, on other shows, in print, and Soros does the same for O'Reilly. The two have had a long-standing feud and it was absurd not to note the fact that O'Reilly is his critic. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, corrected that, it was the LA Times, not the NY Times, that talked about the O'Reilly/Soros/Media Matters connection. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, you mean someone from the LA Times has actually heard of Bill O'Reilly? Will wonders never cease. Oh, and just for shits and giggles, take a look at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, particularly the sourcing. - Crockspot 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I object to using Media Matters to source O'Reilly's comments as well. See this diff of discussion in another article about how MM and other blogs slightly twist their quoting of obscure, hard-to-locate articles in order to smear someone like Fred Thompson. When then can't find anything else to smear him with, they put something ambiguous out there to intentionally give the wrong impression. This tactic, which was backed up by another blog, gave several Wiki editors the impression that they were adding a sourced quote of Thompson's to that article. It was not until another editor ponied up three dollars to purchase the article before it was clear that ne never uttered those words. - Crockspot 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clay Aiken

    In the article for singer Clay Aiken I have entered (and cited) information regarding several controversies he was indirectly involved with. One topic was Rosie O'Donnell's tirade against Kelly Ripa when Clay tried to cover her mouth. Ripa as everyone knows remove his hand and O' Donnell labeled this homophobic (in reference to the lingering question on his unpublicized sexuality). [9] There are several other controversies that are not listed in this article, and it is apparent that his die-hard fans called Claymates are deleting this information, which is censorship. User:Triage stated his/her reasons for deletion as having to deal with " "rv to version agreed on due to Bio of Living Persons concerns," but this information has been well publicized and should be included in this article. I see it as a Conflict of Interest that his fans are committing acts on censorship to protect him, and to me that is simply wrong. The information I've entered does not slander nor reveal personal information that can be used by someone to harm him. Simply it should be included in the article as the article already contains citations mentioning the incident, but simply no text relating to the incident. Is there anyway someone can help here? --XLR8TION 15:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't a discussion on the "Talk" page of the article a good first step when there is a disagreement among editors? Instead you go straight for ANI? And this notice board too? If you look at the history of the article, you will see that the controversies you think should be there were not deleted by the so-called Claymate (barf) editors, but by other Wikipedia editors who have rarely or never edited the entry before or since, following an AfD. See [10], [11], [12], [13], and especially [14]. See this comment on Ken Arromdee's page by me following the deletions: [15]. -Jmh123 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You left out that User:Triage posted in his/her edit summary, "Rosie's tirade" (her opinion) is in Rosie's article." In particular to your request, it is inappropriate per BLP to use Rosie's statement to support a position on Clay's sexuality, whether directly in the article or through the title of a reference. This whole issue is widely discussed on the article talk page and is attended to by many editors. Reagrding your assumptions as to who is behind this, you will have a more enjoyable time on Wikipedia if you strive to assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

    Mark Copani

    • That is not an accurate relfection of the editing of that article, there have been only 50 edits in two months, [16], the anonymous users were editing existing material, Burntsauce removed large chunks of the information (as is his usual manner) and it was restored on 4 occasions in the last month, once by one IP [17], twice by another IP, [18], once by Dr Pizza [19], and most recently by Sima Yi [20]. In fact there were only a total of 11 edits in all of May. As for protection, this article has never been protected because of material being added back in, however a number of other articles that were stubbed by Burntsauce have been previously protected.
    • This article is on the list of articles needing sources at the pro-wrestling project and when the information is restored by an editor from the project it will be fully referenced. Darrenhusted 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Margita Bangová

    • Margita Bangová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm the original author of this article, written long ago before inline referencing was common and before WP:BLP existed. The article was based entirely on published sources (local and national news coverage), a few of which were listed at the end of the article. Though most of what was reported about Bangová was negative, I included as much published criticism of the reporting as I could find. The article has now been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is racist and non-notable. As a result I went through and added as many inline references as were still available to me, with the result that nearly every contested statement directly about Bangová is now sourced. Nonetheless, it would be useful for editors more familiar with WP:BLP, and who have no personal interest in Bangová or her ethnicity, could check over the article to see whether it's appropriate. —Psychonaut 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stacy Keibler

    Resolved
     – No BLPN issues raised; I read the article and no BLP issue stood out. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what is the BLP concern with the present version: its a list of events & co-workers.?DGG 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct, this has been resolved and can be removed from this page if it is standard procedure to do so. Burntsauce 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Fred Thompson

    • Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a rather nasty bit of innuendo that has been repeatedly added to Fred Thompson. It [21] concerns a commercial that Thompson did as a part of his ABC radio contract for a company formerly partly owned by a man who was accused (not convicted) of a crime ten years ago. The passage neglects to mention a few of those important details from the source article, only mentioning the co-founder's alleged misdeeds and implying, by inference, that Thompson has a criminal connection. // BigDT 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I read over the article with that passage removed and saw no other BLPN issues. The article reads very well. The post in question has phrases such as "a company that says it fights identity thieves", "co-founded by a man accused of" a money crime. The post in question then describes Thompson endorsement of the company. The information was taken from an Los Angeles Times article having the tag line He promotes the firm of a man once accused of deceiving consumers. The addition to the article was placed under the "Controversies" trivia section of the article. Per BLP Trivia Section, biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections; relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article. The post in question looks like innuendo that presents a biased point of view lacking a clear demonstration of relevance to Thompson notability. See Biased or malicious content. I think you are right to keep it out.-- Jreferee (Talk) 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder of James Bulger

    Very few inline citations, none of which use ref templates. Numerous references to the problems the parents have had/caused. Potentially harmful to these parents and several other people named in the article. violet/riga (t) 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Background - The article originally was titled, "James Bulger murder case", made Article status on April 21, 2004, with no references, was move to James Bulger on October 2, 2004, and was moved to Murder of James Bulger on June 5, 2007. There is a statement in the article that says there is an "injunction against the press reporting on the boys' whereabouts in England and Wales." The article has many more problems than that. It looks like a big BLPN job, which I don't have time for at the moment. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect citation to the BLPN. James Bulger is not a living person. -- 82.166.208.192 07:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His murderers, Thompson and Venables, are still alive, having served their custodial sentences, having been released on license by the parole board in 2001. This is a BLP case inasmuch as it applies to them. It is also subject to the "human decency" considerations relating to Jamie Bulger. --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His parents are still alive too and they are mentioned. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Russo

    I'm thinking of removing the "tirades" and "Russo-isms" sections of this article as being unreferenced and potentially inappropriate per BLP. His tirades or foul ups while speaking can be considered negative material against him. The article seems to be built by a lot of IP editors so it'd be hard to create a discussion at the talk page about this, so I've brought it here for consideration. Thanks, 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    Apparently the guy makes a living being controversial, so I don't agree that this material is inappropriate per BLP. Just an opinion. I do think the entry could use some work; it's pretty much of a mess. -Jmh123 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Lucas (porn star)

    It appears that Lucas uses an anon IP (216.57.17.234) and, until "outed," (see the Talk page) the username User:Lucasent (Lucas Entertaiment), to edit his own Wikipedia page. He usually stays within the boundaries, but has apparently recently recruited some of his fans to make sure external links to his blog, myspace, and Lucas Entertainment are included, as well as a passage about an "unauthorized" biography. (216.57.17.234 claimed in an edit comment that Lucas "can't stand the book," but he and several new anons keep adding the external links and reference to the book back in whenever they are removed.) Another editor has made a good case on the Talk page [22], I think, for not including these links and mention of the biography. Reversions have been going back and forth on this for days. Each contested edit could go either way, as to whether it should legitimately be included or not, but I'm bringing this up now because Lucas may be recruiting others to make sure the entry is written the way he wants it to be written. It's an unusual BLP issue in that the individual is apparently requesting potentially harmful material about himself be included (as well as promotional links)--is it a case of "please don't throw me into the briar patch"? It is my personal opinion based on a long controversy over an entry on one of his new "stars" (now deleted via 2nd AfD and no longer working for Lucas) that Lucas has been around Wikipedia a long time, knows how to work the system, and knows the benefits of Wikipedia for self-promotion and promotion of his company. See Lucas Entertainment (now merged). Any perspective, advice, recommendations, comment? Thanks. -Jmh123 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can offer my observations. When I first came across this article, I immediately noticed some conspicuous omissions vis-à-vis what I'd read about this actor Andrei Treivas (Michael Lucas): e.g., Lucas's work as a male prostitute in Europe and in NYC, Lucas's work under Jean-Daniel Cadinot, the fact that Lucas founded his production company with money he earned from working as a prostitute, and the fact that Lucas located his company in NYC (instead of the more traditional Los Angeles) because of the lack of competition in NYC. Over time these facts were added and some balance was achieved. Along came 216.57.17.234 (hereinafter referred to as "216") who proceeded to, at times, systematically, and at times, haphazardly, delete any mention of these facts or anything else s/he didn't like, most times without any edit summary and almost never with any dialogue on the talk page. The only time 216 wrote on the talk page was in response to a challenge to an awards box; s/he wrote that the challenging editor should go to Johnny Hazzard's page or Chi Chi Larue's page and edit their awards boxes, in effect saying, "this is my page, leave it alone and go edit somebody else's page." I cannot be sure that 216 and Lucas are one and the same, but it's a well-known fact that Lucas is a shameless self-promoter. 216 has added and re-added material that promoted the products of Lucas's production company, sometimes using the same phrasing as that used in the company's website. In a 4 April edit on a related page, that of Lucas's "La Dolce Vita" film, 216 added the entire plot section lifted directly from the production company website. And in one peculiar addition on 24 April, 216 added "lungfish" to the list of animals living with Lucas in NYC. Go try and find anything on the internet about lungfish and Lucas -- you won't. Based on her/his history, I don't think it will be sufficient to place the page under partial protection or to even block 216 from editing. 216's confederates will simply come along and edit as they please, as seen in the activity of Theshape4 while the page was under partial. I don't know the exact jargon to express this, but I would suggest two things: have the activities of 216, Lucasent, and Theshape4 investigated for the issues you've raised; and, have the page placed under the form of protection whereby additions can only be made by an authority from Wikipedia. Thank you for your good work. 71.127.230.77 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Haifa bint Faisal

    This article is somewhat sourced but I think it needs the attention of someone more experienced with BLP issues than I am.--BirgitteSB 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Danah Boyd

    → See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive92#Use of BLP justification getting out of hand

    Resolved
     – Per below. Not really a BLPN issue and matter is being addressed at AN -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Several previous discussions have taken place regarding the titling of this article and capitalization of the subject's name. In a nutshell:

    • The subject of the article has noted that her name is legally lower-cased (self-reporting of information per BLP guidelines), and her university and published academic papers use the lower-case "danah boyd".
    • Mainstream news coverage of the subject has given her name as "Danah Boyd".

    There are, roughly speaking, two camps here: one which believes that per BLP, the article should use "danah boyd" as much as possible, and one which believes, per WP:NAME, that the article must follow the presentation used in mainstream news coverage. Both regular editors and admins of Wikipedia have come down on both sides at different times, and the article has occasionally been tugged back and forth between the two capitalizations. So... could we get some discussion and hopefully a final resolution of whether this is a BLP-related matter of fact, or a MOS-related matter of style? Ubernostrum 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see opinions here. -- Renesis (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Mike Nifong

    This looks like a Coatrack for 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, rather than a biography. Possibly redirect to that article, protected if necessary, would be preferable to holding what amounts to a fork on content. --Tony Sidaway 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo's new WP:NOT:News reports might be applicable: Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary, for instance, where they largely duplicate relevant information. The Early life section of the article seems OK (more information is needed, however) but the rest of the article gives way too many details on his involvement in the Duke lacrosse case, Ethics charges, and Disbarment. The article does not stay focused on the main topics without going into unnecessary detail per Summary style:Levels of desired details. It appears to be well sourced contentious material, but it largely duplicates relevant information posted elsewhere. I think WP:NOT:News reports, NPOV, and Summary style:Levels of desired details would justify reducing the article so that it stays focused on a main topic without going into unnecessary and without duplicating relevant information. For example, the Duke lacrosse case, Ethics charges, and Disbarment can be refocused into a single Disbarment section that highlights (rather than details) the events that played a role in his disbarment since the disbarment is one of the main events that makes up Mike Nifong's life. A good starting point would be to summarize the written order of the North Carolina State Bar on this. Basically, Nifong was disbarred because he "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" by making "Improper Pretrial Public Statements and Misrepresentations", by "withholding or failing to Provide Potentially Exculpatory DNA Evidence", and by "Misrepresentations and False Statements to Court and Opposing Counsel" and "to State Bar's Grievance Committee". Maybe give a little detail on each of the three reasons for the disbarment and call it a day. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Movement to impeach George W. Bush

    Perhaps I am misusing the term POV fork, though it does seem to be information that would normally be in Bush's bio, but has been split off. My main issue, which I am not sure mediation is even looking at, is that there are a large amount of unreliable self-published sources cited in the article. While this article is supposedly about the "movement", it is really about George W. Bush, who is a living person. These sources need to be removed. (These sources aren't allowed in ANY articles except possibly articles about the blogs themselves, per WP:V.) I tried to get some BLP oversight by adding the cats and/or template, only to have them removed. This tells me that the regular editors of that article do not wish to have a high blp visibility on this article. (I would say that they have been pretty successful at it, because I did not even know that this article existed until last week.) Many of these sources are obscured at initial review, because they show up in the footnotes as just a footnote number, whithout even the url visible, or they are inline linked into the article. I was going to do my citation rehabilitation thing on the article, but there is a monstrous list, and I know that many of them should be deleted. It's a bit of work to format and verify each source, so I would like to clean some of the unacceptable sources out before I get into the meat of it. But if editors are going to be obstructing me, I am hesitant to even start. Being under protection makes it sort of a moot point at the moment anyway. - Crockspot 18:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You may want to check out All about Geroge, which seems to fit what you are saying. A first edit might be to refocus Rationales for impeachment to be about the movement itself and to reduce impeachment to one or two sentences since it repeats material that can be found on Wikipedia through a dynamic link. The bulleted items may be addressed by integrating some items into the article in a more organized fashion per Avoid trivia sections in articles or by creating a list article. However, since mediation is going on, it usually is better to discuss revising the article with the mediator before hacking away at the article. IN any event, the main issue really seems to be whether the topic can ever meet NPOV. The article probably should read something like, The movement stared on xxx when President Bush did xxx. The movement grew because xxx and groups such as xxx joined in. Xxxx events helped shaped the movement more or less into a single effort. Today, the movement is xxx. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, the issue I am mainly concerned about is the dubious sourcing being used. - Crockspot 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (I added emphasis to key phrases which pertain to BLP policy.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC) semiprotection was set to expire within 48 hours, which it did. The article is a coatrack, and a huge one: over 115+ kB (longer than BLP/N on a bad day) with a talk page nearly twice that. — Athaenara ✉ 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Terry Semel

    CarlosRodriguez repeatedly adds a bunch of POV text to Terry Semel. Example: "In June 2007, after shareholders expressed their disgust at Semel's exorbitant pay and mediocre performance, the disgraced Semel was forced out of his position at Yahoo." And: "In 2005, Semel was given the UCLA Medal, an award UCLA gives to donors of large amounts of money." Pfalstad 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave the article a once over and posted my revision that removed problem BLP material as a good reversion point. Since this Yahoo! CEO resigned on Monday, June 18th, 2007 in the face of criticism, the contentious BLP posters probably will be around the article for a few days. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Toupee

    Toupee#List of known toupee wearers - Dispute over inclusion of a poorly sourced list of people (living and dead) to wear toupees. I feel this both violates BLP and WP:NOT as a list of useless and potentially harmful trivia. // VanTucky 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The list has been trimmed down to only those toupee wearers who have passed away already. So there is now no living persons problem. Steve Dufour 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lil Jon

    This article seems to be watched by a scant number of registered editors, and is frequently being vandalised, both with defamatory edits, bad information, and just plain vandslism. I can't keep track of the information. Anyone who could watchlist this page would be nice. The Evil Spartan 15:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Maxwell

    Court judgement sourced; Xcommunic8 needs to provide proof of his aquittal (and add it to the article), but the court judgement should remain. He just doesn't seem to get this...(or just can't provide proof of aquittal). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Amir Taheri

    → See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive13

    Amir Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - anons keep reverting to a version containing unsourced and dubious attacks. We had similar problems in May.
    (Also, I'd appreciate a critique of my messages at Talk:Amir Taheri#Amir Taheri is a living person and user talk:Nyisnotbad#Amir Taheri.) Thanks, CWC 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources used for the criticism are usually considered to have a political POV, but that's where political criticism is published. However, it's unfair to present it in totally general terms, and criticism of his work should go with specific references where the work is discussed. It is appropriate to indicate the source more clearly in the article, with a link to the WP page describing it so people can judge. The comment on the lack of sources for his ed. was out of line without a much better source. The current version [[23] seems fair. DGG 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A comparison of recent edits with the previous March/April discussion in BLP/N Archive 13 shows that the same users (with minor variations in the 75.* IP range) are still trying to turn this biography into an attack piece. They also typically remove publishers and ISBNs from the bibliography. — Athaenara ✉ 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Last anti-Taheri edit summary was "RV, well there are about 12 people who are dedicated to blocking your attempted whitewash of the Taheri entry. Either compromise or have fun reverting forever". I've requested semi-protection. CWC 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection granted. Expires in two weeks. Good-oh, CWC 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs) and Unclezeb (talk · contribs) have both reverted to the no-ISBNs, more-POV version. Both seem to be WP:SPAs. I've given both a {{blp2-n}} warning. CWC 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs) has reverted again, so I've issued a {{uw-biog4}} ("The next time ... you will be blocked") warning. I expect Unclezeb to do a revert soon. CWC 09:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Block Requested. Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs) has reverted twice (!) after my warning. This may well be a WP:SPA. Could an admin please administer an appropriate block? Thanks, CWC 11:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    biography president Saleh of Yemen

    Somebody's been inserting insults and/or politically motivated arguments in this biography. I have no personal opinion on the matter, but it's clearly not balanced, objective information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.131.134 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That was vandalism. It was reverted by two other users. — Athaenara ✉ 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Olson

    An unregistered user added a paragraph] to Josh Olson, describing a rumored conflict between Olson and another screenwriting team. The rumor was allegedly described at Craig Mazin's ArtfulWriter.com. I vaguely recall seeing something about this at ArtfulWriter, but I couldn't find any real description of the incident. Plus, I didn't think it was encyclopedic, so I deleted it.

    Another anonymous user then added the rumor back into the entry, along with a link that allegedly demonstrated that Olson had confirmed the rumor. I looked at the link, which seemed to be a discussion thread consisting of (a) people using names like Josh Olsen (note the "e") to parody Olson's style, and Olson himself making fun of the rumor. There was no confirmation. So, I deleted the rumor again.

    Olson has certainly proved himself to be an intense and argumentative guy in various online discussions, but I don't see any reason to include this rumor in his entry. It doesn't seem especially notable, and it certainly hasn't been reliably sourced. --Jacobw 11:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

    There are numerous concerns for this article.

    I'd like to request the following changes be made to the article: ... operates several illegal, web-based, employment scams... How is this verifiable? Is there an arrest record citing these specific websites as the cause of an arrest? Also: Other websites that he owns and operates include: World Poker League, EZ Auctions,Tube Review, Our Classifieds, Good Grades Now, Consumer Business Bureau, United States Human Resources Association, eBand Search, Ask America , VeriResume, Admin Solutions Group, Package Door Now and others. Many of his sites are suspected employment scams. Again, how is this nothing but supposition on part of the original author? It's already been discussed that many of the problems with the original article were that there were no references cited while making exaggerated claims regarding criminal activity. This is another huge leap of logic which either doesn't have references, or if they do, have references which are linked to third-party questionable sites. Given that other allegations have been removed due to the same circumstances, I see no reason why these websites need to be arbitrarily linked to this person when there's nothing concrete to back those claims up. I also thought that the supposed names of employees were being removed due to the same issue of not having a reliable source - I see some have been removed, but not all. Occham 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Valerie Day

    Hi, could you please check the contributions of TheBLPGuy? I think he's taking the BLP guidelines a little too far, but I could be wrong. It seems a shame to gut an entire article like Valerie Day that doesn't seem to be contentious, derogatory or libelous. Thanks. Latr, Katr 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stubbing that article without a discussion or explanation is disruptive not constructive. Perhaps it does violate BLP -- but as an outside observer I don't see how, so if I wanted to fix the problem I have no guidance on the matter -- beyond the obvious need for sources, which by itself isn't enough of a reason. -- llywrch 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Martti Ahtisaari

    A couple of users have been adding a dubiously sourced and probably libellous accusation against the article's subject (e.g. [24]). I've not been able to find any corresponding reports in the English-language media and I strongly suspect that it's been concocted to discredit the subject for his role in current international negotiations. The accusation has been dealt with for now but it may well reappear; we'll need to keep an eye on the article for a few days. -- ChrisO 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick Google news search turned up these: [25] [26]. Presumably this will be picked up by major English-language news sources in the next day or so. —Ashley Y 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The entry itself explains the situation in general. The individual is the focus of a lot of conflict between political entities. The entry contains a lot of rumors and accusations. They are sourced rumors, but rumors nonetheless. -Jmh123 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more than a hint of politics in this situation. Note the source of the rumours. Ahtisaari proposed a formula that would lead to the independence of Kosovo. The Serbs in both Serbia and Bosnia are desperate to avoid losing it, and Russia has hinted at vetoing a possible UN resolution authorising Kosovo's independence. The most likely explanation for this is that someone on the Serbian side is attempting to discredit Ahtisaari in order to provide Russia with a pretext for using its veto. -- ChrisO 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having reviewed this again, I believe that the article's coverage of the Serbian allegations breached WP:NPOV#Undue weight and also the guidance at WP:BLP#Criticism. I've therefore eliminated that section of the article and summarised its contents in two lines in the previous section. I'd be grateful if other editors could review this and provide some independent feedback. See this diff. -- ChrisO 11:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully support your edits and expressed agreement on "talk". -Jmh123 14:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleveland crime family

    I received the same e-mail. Unfortunately the author is totally vague about what the problem is, which doesn't help... -- ChrisO 08:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Niko Dimitrakos and Petr Sýkora

    74.123.70.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 66.241.140.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 72.12.145.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (almost certainly all the same person) have been repeatedly adding unsourced "controversies" sections to these articles [27][28]. The source provided for Petr Sykora's "controversy" (forgiving for a moment that it's a copy of a fox news broadcast on youtube) says absolutely nothing to support it. I have tried warning this user, at first in edit summaries (he is knowledgeable enough to use them, so I presume he reads them as well), and then on his talk pages [29][30]. Despite what I consider my clear explanation of WP:BLP, this user has reverted these two articles five and four times respectively and accuses other editors of vandalism for removing the sections. I'm posting here because I feel that assuming good faith has run its course. Someguy1221 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    CENSORSHIP

    This is to report a gross case of censorship concerning the article on Dan Voiculescu, of the Conservative Party, Romania. The history of the debate is readable in the Talk section of the article, but the outcome of the debate was that one of the contenders - JUDEX73 - has been banned from editing the article, without any logical explanation. Such practices risk to transform Wikipedia into a libelous communication medium and expose it to lawful consequences. They also may induce the suspicion that Wikipedia is involved in the inner political struggle from a certain country - in this case, Romania - and is taking sides in this struggle.I want to ask everybody interested in the welfare and credibility of Wikipedia to follow the debate and express an opinion on the subject.

    JUDEX73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lindley DeVecchio

    There seems to be some blatant plagarism of newspaper articles here, as well as some unsourced opinions which are extremely critical of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.124.139 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not call it plagarism when there are both articles and docs on the discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.20.72 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there are many articles regarding the alleged curruption of this agent devecchio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.20.72 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nearly blanked the article. Please feel free to add material back in with proper sourcing, which means specific in-text citations rather than pointing to the laundry list of stuff on the talk page. The article also needs to maintain a neutral point of view. -- Jonel | Speak 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination) (result: no consensus)

    • 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a biography fork of George W. Bush. The editors at this article seem hell-bent on preventing me or Athaenara from applying the Living people category, (to the point of edit warring), so that this article may be monitored by this group. I personally cannot think of any real good reason for not wanting the category applied to this article except for bad faith reasons (avoidance of oversight). I have been given reasons, but they do not seem like very good reasons. It's not like the category takes up a lot of real estate in the category section. // Crockspot 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, it is my firm belief that this category was created for the purpose of monitoring articles which are primarily about living people, to help with enforcement of WP:BLP. If the BLP patrol group feels an article should have the category, then the article should have it, regardless of what other editors feel is "proper" categorization. - Crockspot 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Living people category

    → See also: Living People Patrol and its talk page

    As the notice at the top of Category talk:Living people says, "Please note: This is not a typical category! Read the archived discussion and reasons for its existence before complaining about the "point" of having this new, administrative-style category." — Athaenara ✉ 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Announcement of the category in January 2006

    Hello.
    I am writing this to announce the creation of a new category on Wikipedia-English: Category:Living people. The category should include the articles of all people who are still alive.
    Before getting into arguments about the scope of this category, I would like to take a moment to explain its importance.
    With our ever-increasing prominence, it is becoming more and more likely that questionable, unsourced information may sneak into articles, despite all of our goodwill and vigilance. Flagging all articles pertaining to living people will mean that our editors can keep a closer watch on these articles, check new articles more closely as they are created, and help to avoid potential problems.
    This is not the ultimate solution. It is, however, one step toward a working solution to ensure that our materials are adequately referenced and NPOV and to avoid potential conflicts with the subjects of these articles.
    Please keep this Category in mind when creating new articles and when reviewing existing articles.
    Thank you.

    — Posted by daniwo50, Jan 19 15:19:37 UTC 2006, Wikimedia Foundation WikiEN-l mailing list      
    Related discussions
    Related feature

    Discussion continued

    I am getting blowback from an admin, User:Stemonitis, who has created a new category that no one knows about, and only has one article in it (well, no articles now), yet he insists that it is the new category that we are supposed to use. - Crockspot 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I announced it on the talk page of, er..., this page, as a suggestion that you may like to consider. I applied it to the one article I knew about that fitted its remit, and encouraged others to add more. When Crockspot reverted to the old, contentious category with an edit summary suggesting that the new category was for talk pages, I assumed he/she had misunderstood the situation and reverted him/her. How this constitutes blowback, I cannot imagine (I would never use the word), and I suspect my intentions are being misrepresented here.
    But anyway, a lot of people find it jarring to have articles whose topics are not living people in Category:Living people. All those articles which should be monitored closely because of WP:BLP concerns, but which do not have living people as their subjects can be placed in Category:Biography of living persons (which may be renamed at will — it's only the first thing I thought of); this category can then be monitored just like Category:Living people is currently. I expect this to lead to an increase in the number of articles in the two categories combined, and thus to improved monitoring, and all without introducing the logical inconsistency of classifying a pretzel incident as a person, which so many people expressly dislike. --Stemonitis 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, when I initially reverted, I didn't realize that this was a newly created category, as it is similarly named to the one that IS used on talk pages. Second, you are ignoring the fact that the Living people category was created exactly for the same reason that you have created this new cat. Read the links that Atheanara linked above, it says "all articles pertaining to living people", not "all biography article of living people". Why should I have to have multiple related changes browsers open to do BLP patrolling, when the one cat/one browser solution will suffice, just because you don't like how the category is being used? The category is not for your use, it is for the BLPP group's use. You mentioned the "political positions" articles not being in the cat. They SHOULD be, and I have been trying to add some of them to it, but I keep getting reverted. The past few days I have been spending all the time I WOULD have been spending on BLP patrol arguing about the application of the freakin' category. That is a waste of my time. And you suggested that I start using your new category, do you also expect me to populate it with about a quarter of a million articles? Gee, thanks for the help. - Crockspot 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we need to clarify better on the category page for "Living people" that: This category is used by the BLPP for monitoring articles that pertain to living people; This category may contain articles that are not biographies proper, but still pertain to living people, and are added at the discretion of BLP patrollers, or other editors concerned about BLP oversight of an article; If an editor feels that the category is improperly applied, they should ask here (BLPN) before removing the category tag from an article. Discuss. - Crockspot 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A policy listing anything other than living human beings in Category:Living people is asking for a nightmare of trouble. Quatloo 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no. Category:Living people should include living persons, and nothing else. Despite its essentially administrative purpose, it is an article-space category that should be as minimally confusing to readers as possible. Putting articles that are about events into this category is not reasonable. If you need a category-based related changes tool for articles that aren't about individual living persons, use a new category, appropriately named. That's really a very slight hindrance compared to forcing Wikipedia to include silly statements such as indicidents being living persons. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone else explained, BLP policy is not restricted to only articles in Category: Living People. So feel free to add the BLP template. Unfortunately, the real problem seems to be this article's very existence. In today's world, any incident like this will garner some media coverage, but I think it's highly dubious to create an entire article on it. I believe this is an invalid use of content forking, and I would question the rationale of its creators. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Magee (journalist)

    3ABN

    This article has had unsourced material (or material from a website meant to change one's opinion) related to one Danny Shelton twice, in a 'criticism' section. I removed it once, and referred to this policy in the talk page. If up to me, it would be removed again, but in the interest of preventing an edit war, I seek further input on the matter on the Talk:3ABN page. Skybunny 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone restored the information without discussion, let alone a consensus to reinsert. I've temporarily removed it again pending discussion on the talk page. Avb 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The same person has once again restored the information, adding a source that unfortunately does not contain the disputed information. On the talk page the same editor demands discussion before deletion, disregarding the fact that I and another editor have explained the problem on the talk page. Currently the disputed unsourced contentious material is in the article. I have left a request for reliable sources and consensus.

    Admin intervention might be helpful here. Avb 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The person who restored the information has posted a source which looks reliable to me. I have rewritten the disputed content based on that source. Avb 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally rewrote the information and called for discussion on the talk page before a revert took place, however the editors continue to revert without first discussing. And now they are accusing me of the exact offense they are committing. It it perfectly fine within the wikipedia community to insert controversies. The controversies were inserted by numerous editors, and to avoid and edit war and to make it more on par with other articles, I rewrote the entire thing and did not state any specifics but pointed out that there are controversies. Rather than the two above editors just reverting and rewriting to fit their agenda, I again call for a discussion before reverting. Show how it is in violation of BLP first. I truly feel that the rewrite from Avb was quite POV and loaded. How the paragraphs stand, it is quite NPOV and simply yet briefly states the controversy. Again, I invite any editor from this board to post comment, but I for the third time ask Avb and Skybunny to first discuss before reverting. --Maniwar (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, Avb claims that the information is poorly sourced. I am not trying to use save3abn dot org, however, within that religious community, the website has made ruffles and is quite known. To mention that save3abn dot org is alleging, again, is withing the scope of wikipedia. Where in the controversies section is BLP in violation? --Maniwar (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maniwar has restored his own edit once again without sources. Doing so, Maniwar removed the two references I had added. The article once again gives a skewed impression of what the source Maniwar gave on the talk page says. See also comments on the talk page by Skybunny and me. Maniwar seems to miss what has been brought forward by us. Especially the fact that WP:BLP prescribes to remove this type of content. It was entirely unsourced when it was removed, and Maniwar has consistently re-added the same content, refused to add sources, and refused to obtain or demonstrate consensus. Maniwar is the only editor defending the disputed text. On the talk page Maniwar claims that many editors wanted the text in, but I do not see anything on the talk page or in the article's history that supports this, except for one or two editors disputing earlier extremely biased versions. It has been explained to Maniwar that instead of reinserting, they need to obtain a consensus on the talk page. Also, in my rewrite I stayed very close to the sources -- not save3abn dot org, but a reliable source commenting on it. I'm sure it is better than Maniwar's opinion on what it is saying and what is important. But my rewrite was an attempt to get the discussion going and is not important.

    The important thing is that Maniwar's text has to be removed as long as it remains unsourced. Perhaps an admin can take a look? Maniwar seems unwilling to acknowledge or unable to understand the arguments on the talk page and here. Avb 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That material lacks context as well as lacking relevancy to the subject. Unless is properly sourced and it is relevant to the article, it does not belong there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jossi, I think I accidentally reverted you. It was unintentional as I was adding a source and hit save twice. Now, as for comment of Avb above, this issue is a large one within the Seventh-day Adventist community. As I explained on the talk page, it has gained international notice within that community. It has made it up the world leadership of the church, the President and the Chairman of the Board of 3ABN is addressing it, and independant investigation is being called by the World Church. What I am trying to say, is that perhaps in the scope of global things it may seem small, but it is quite a large issue within the community. It must be mentioned and it has the attention of the world church. To leave it out supports those who do not want dirty laundry aired. I apologize for the accidental revert, at least I think I did, but because you are not within the community, you don't understand the vast importance of the issue. What are your thoughts? --Maniwar (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maniwar restored the disputed content once again,[31][32] this time adding sources that are in part not allowed, such as Linda Shelton's web site, in part do not support the text. SYN problems e.g. regarding GC and divorce. Conjectural interpretation of sources. I'm sure these things are important and I have no reason to doubt that the disputed text describes what people in this community are talking about. It should be in this article as far as sources allow, but the current content deviates from the sources and builds a picture not apparent from them. The only reliable source handles the issues much more discreetly than the current article. The disputed text is still, as before, in part poorly sourced and for the rest unsourced. I'm not going to edit the article myself again; for one thing I practice 1RR.
    I recommend removal once again pending discussion/consensus and/or rewrite of the section. Maybe Maniwar will want to edit it out? This is, as mentioned in my original edit summary, a temporary solution. Avb 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling

    Resolved
     – Article deleted; see second AfD

    → See also: previous Afd and current Afd

    A dispute exists over whether well documented and sourced content is actually WP:OR. The dispute seems to be because Rowling is admittedly "left-wing" and the material tends to support her declared values. Rather than tagging the material as in dispute, this has already been sent to deletion review.

    Rather than deletion, comments from unbiased editors is desired. Libertycookies 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, it is true that an article created by me was deleted. This article bore no resemblence to the article that Jossi is now trying to delete.
    It is shameful of Jossi to try to compare the two articles in an attempt to bias an objective review of the well-sourced and NPOV article Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling. Although Jossi is clearly aware of this forum to discuss biographies, his preference is to bully people with his admin account and avoid discussion by redirecting articles and attempting to delete without proper review. Libertycookies 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? The article is on AfD, because it is a POV fork created by you after some of the material you added to J. K. Rowling was challenged by several editors, including me. The POV fork is now in AfD, and you have added two RfCs related to this. Now take a break and let the process unfold. Let other editors come and comment on the AfD, without replying to each delete comment and without casting aspersions on other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the article is on AfD because Jossi alleges that it is a POV fork. There has been no determination if his allegations are correct. However, a link to the article on the supposed main article has been deleted in an effort to limit discussion on the supposed POV fork.
    The reality is that most of this content has already been approved and is merely put into a more readable format summarizing all of J. K. Rowling's activism and charity work. Libertycookies 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which proves the point that it is a POV fork. If the content is already incorporated throughout the J. K. Rowling article, taking the content out of context of her biography and framing it as Influence and activism is POV forking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty quick to assume good faith in most situations, but to me it appears that Libertycookies is being intentionally disingenuous. I have been following this issue pretty much since the AfD was created and Jossi has never once even hinted that his reasons for the proposed AfD are anything other than what he has claimed.
    Moreover, I have gone over his past contributions and nothing in it suggests a bias or an agenda. Libertycookies claims are unfounded. On the other hand, that individual's account seems to have been created entirely for the purpose of creating and pushing articles citing the political opinions of J.K. Rowling. Trusilver 19:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be sure, I only claim to be an expert on J. K. Rowling, and found it disheartening that there was no mention of her activism and life's work in fighting social inequities in wikipedia. The article makes no claims, only repeats published facts. Trusilver's claim that their are unfounded claims are themselves unfounded.Libertycookies 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Barney Frank

    The article on Congressman Barney Frank was recently edited by User:TDC to reword the discussion of Frank's gay relationship with Steven Gobie. TDC's version raises BLP concerns. For example, it states, "After learning that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of his apartment, Frank fired Gobie ...." The official finding of the House Ethics Committee was that Frank had no knowledge of any illegal activities. I've put this to a Request for Comment here, but TDC is unwilling to allow the longstanding version to remain in place while the RfC goes forward. I've already reverted it three times today, so I post it here to see if others agree with me that there are BLP concerns (aside from TDC's POV-warring in quoting a tabloidish personal ad, etc.). The last good version is this one. JamesMLane t c 00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First, we have absolutely no indication of what the report did or did not say in its entirety, redacted snippets have been posted on a decidedly partisan webstie, however, this source most definitely does not meet the WP:RS criteria. What we do have are several citations from major newspapers supporting the text. Secondly, the RFC was posted, after my edits. Placing this on the BLP page is a stretch to say the least. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Debbie Schlussel

    • Debbie Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The "death threats" section contains self-published sources that make claims about third parties. (Schlussel's blog, and jihadwatch.com). These sources violate WP:V. I have removed this section several times, but it keeps getting reverted. I added the BLPC template just now, don't wish to carry on a pointless edit war with the editor who is reverting. I have suggested that the section be pared down to where it is supported by the existing reliable primary and secondary sources (court citations, and WND.com), but have not noticed any attempt to comply. - Crockspot 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbie Cummings

    Resolved

    Short, unreferenced negative/controversial biography. Possibly NN as well. Originally tagged for speedy deletion as db-attack, but speedy was declined. Videmus Omnia 15:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blanked it. A quick Google search indicates that most of the article may be accurate, so if anyone actually thinks that there needs to be an article, they can go find sources. But this article, without sources, is absolutely not acceptable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Article was deleted on 2 July 2007; resolved. Avb 12:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gay-for-pay

    Is it a BLP problem to have this image illustrating the Gay-for-pay article? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's allowed. Matt Sanchez is already mentioned in that article, and in his own article, so he had no right to privacy in the first place. There's nothing defamatory in the picture itself. Shalom Hello 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is virtually unsourced. Without sources, how can the reader distinguish fact from rumor from interpretation? -Jmh123 01:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the list and the image, as the former has no sources and the latter's existence is based on the former. Calling someone "gay for pay" seems to me to be inherently an informal, slang term with negative connotations. FCYTravis 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David Birney

    It looks very much to me like David Birney or one of his PR people simply posted his entire resume on his Wiki page. I don't have experience on how to handle a situation like this, so I wanted to pass it along for a second assessment and/or action. Otto1970 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've stubbed the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Mullen (murderer)

    Resolved

    Could someone please check for a one-to-one match between the WP article and the reference article? Shalom Hello 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed material that was not sourced to the reference provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    State terrorism by the United States (General Jovito Palparan)

    Resolved
     – in discussion

    State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Accusations of murder and gross human rights abuses in a selective and slanted presentation against General Jovito Palparan, based on inadequete and contradictory sources. Tom Harrison Talk 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Gulzar

    Resolved
     – in WP:AFD

    Shaun Wilson

    Resolved
     – WP:AUTO - user contacted

    This is a résumé. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.50.157 (talk • contribs)


    Johnny Lee Clary

    I will not repeat the WP:BLP violation here but please look at the history for the article. The article already had a bunch of non-notable opinion (soap-boxing) but I only found that article after someone inserted speculation in the Chris Benoit article and I removed it. I then looked into Clary and found that the same sort of material was there so I removed it. The poster asked about it on my talk page and I clarified. The material appeared again and I removed it again. I am going on vacation and I will not be watching the page so I am looking for some more eyes over there and also if someone is interested in cleaning out the non-RS that is still there. Maybe the article should be stubbed and rewritten or taken back to just the well-sourced material. Thanks. --Justanother 12:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Les Visible

    You might want to post this on the Conflict of interest noticeboard as well. -Jmh123 15:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Richard Gere

    User:WacoJacko is persistently reverting discussions on the talk page Talk:Richard Gere based on the notion that we are protecting Gere from the real truth about gerbils and censoring Wikipedia by archiving. I have warned him and quoted BLP on the topic, but the truth is, it was time to archive that talk page anyway. For him, it's a matter of WP:POINT, I think: see User_talk:WacoJacko. -Jmh123 09:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    May be OK--he didn't see the archive. Some precious gerbil moments are missing from the archive but I'll find them and make sure they are archived tomorrow. -Jmh123 10:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be resolved now. Some of the material was deliberately deleted from a previous archive, and some deleted from the talk page before I archived. All lost gerbil discussions are now preserved for posterity. If the folks here feel that preserving these discussions is a violation of BLP, then I'll defer to you, but I think there's some value in having a record to point to and say, "enough already." -Jmh123 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retaining this type of discussion on a live WP page instead of courtesy blanking it is often problematic in that it keeps or makes the discussion searchable by search engines like Google as well as Wikipedia's built-in search engine. Then again, since this specific discussion was clearly stressing why the gerbil nonsense is nonsense, I have no problem with this restore. Avb 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that the archives are not picked up by Google. Please correct me if I am wrong, because my opinion on retaining the archives would be different if this is the case. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so was I, but I recently zoomed in on what amounted to an attempt to out an editor's real-life identity, and found several links to Wikipedia archives. But that's anecdotal of course -- perhaps someone with more expert knowledge in this area can chime in and enlighten us? Thanks, Avb 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS As an illustration, see this Google search: [33] Avb 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David Pogue

    • David Pogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a vandal has been repeatedly inserting the same incorrect and unsourced material into the article. Some of this unsourced material is extrapolated from sourced material (i.e. "has no educational background in computer science") simply because that source does not mention it. Most egregious are the various points of view of Mr. Pogue's character and motivations. Mr. Pogue has listed several problems in his article in the discussion page, providing source material for his claims. An admin's attention and advice is kindly requested.
      • The page David Pogue has been protected due to BLP concerns. User:++ungood who started out editing the page under several IPs, has insisted on including certain allegations of journalistic fraud by Pogue with sourcing from a blog post and a followup by the same blogger, who happens to be a rival tech journalist. I believe I am correct here, but if not, I would appreciate a comment nonetheless. The discussion has gotten pretty long but is pretty readable.
      • I am asking for your help as we have reached an impasse. While I could just leave things as they are, I am getting rather tired of the whole thing, and I think the situation does need to get resolved sooner rather than later, rather than leaving the page locked, as apparently David Pogue himself has left a lengthy comment on the talk page after engaging in some reversions with the earlier IPs used by ++ungood. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ++ungood is now basically just attacking me and questioning my motivations. So I feel no need to further the dicussion, as I think it is pointless. Perhaps a new voice would help. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Gore III

    I hope it will be deleted. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a place to learn something, not to share gossip about celebrities. Steve Dufour 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation is not improving. After an edit/wheel war, the disputed content was restored and protected. I have explained the problem with that on the talk page but my opinion (redirect, discuss, restore if consensus to restore) does not carry much weight there it seems. Avb 12:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Both discussions mentioned by Jonel have been archived, the AN thread here, and JzG's here.
    Comment: The current protected version is not as bad as other recent versions, but will, I expect, deteriorate when protection is removed. CWC 13:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III and Noelle Bush and #Al Gore III and Noelle Bush. Avb 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Glen Stoll

    • Glen Stoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - some defamatory material has been placed on the talk page for this article by a new user, in good faith I believe, with a question as to whether it can be included in the article. No sourcing is mentioned. The material is only on the talk page and not in the article, and the new user is just asking, so I'm not sure of how to proceed. I gave my suggestion to the new user on the talk page for the article, and on his/her talk page. My question is: Should the defamatory material be immediately deleted from the talk page? Yours, Famspear 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Removing it from the history by an admin as well, if possible, would be ideal. You could run a search and see if you can find any reliable sourcing, but this is seriously defamatory stuff. -Jmh123 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Jmh123: Thanks. OK, I have deleted the material from the talk page. I noticed that the rule or guideline refers to material on ANY Wikipedia page, so I was pretty concerned. It's just that I have never removed another editor's material from a talk page before, so I wanted someone to hold my hand a little. I'm not an administrator, though. Someone with appropriate powers should consider removing from the history, if appropriate. Yours, Famspear 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'm not an admin either.) The whole entry is a coat rack for his legal problems and it isn't clear that he's particularly notable. Everything there is sourced--I'm just not sure what the point is in having a bio about him, other than to publicize that he's a jerk who got in trouble. You could put a speedy delete tag on it, unless you feel that he is notable. -Jmh123 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go ahead and nominate it for speedy deletion. Steve Dufour 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Thompson

    Resolved
     – content dispute

    Cited material is being removed/changed by Eseymour.[34] Is quoting a word a copyright violation? If not, someone needs to review his editors changes and edit summary.[35] This user thinks he owns this article.

    I am posting his from a recommendation at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantocal (talk • contribs)

    This is a content dispute. If you cannot resolve this by engaging involved editors, please pursue dispute resolution ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Wells

    Resolved
     – content dispute

    Some editers continually change content in the article to what is unsupported by the references and actually in complete contrast to the references. What is more is that they continually cite POV and undue weight as their reasons when it is their POV and undue weight that is an issue. The specific instances here is that Wells opposes evolution and rejects evolution when the references refer to Darwinism or Darwinian evolution and Wells' own words says he rejects the theory of evolution. The article also contains other poorly sourced content or sources open to interpretation. It seems pretty clear that a group of editors are trying to subvert policy to keep their POV in the article to discredit this scientist but two or three editors in particular seem very persistent to discredit him. One have even suggested him to not be a scientist and another has just made a threat referring to 3RR which is unwarranted as I have only made two reverts in this instance. What should I do, should I just keep on reverting the changes or should further action be taken against these users who continue to disregard policy. -196.207.32.38 13:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no BLP issue here. 196.* simply wants to push his POV by using the loaded term "Darwinian" evolution. As even the anon acknowledges above "Wells' own words says he rejects the theory of evolution". The anon's claim that he has only reverted twice is also a bit hard to understand given that previous reversions over the same issues were done by 196.38.218.24, 196.38.218.25 (which also made legal threats) all of which trace back to the same geographic area as the IP in question. They are clearly the same person, and he has been repeatedly reverting to his POV version. JoshuaZ 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh is right - there is no BLP issue here. Obviously the anon should try making his case on the talk page, rather than revert-warring. There is an NPOV issue (the anon is trying to insert creationist code words into the article), but I can't see how there is a BLP issue. Guettarda 15:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are contradicting yourselves. JoshuaZ has just supported that Wells rejects the theory of evolution but continues to maintain unsupported by the references that he rejects evolution. This is a clear attempt to discredit. There is also no record that 196.38.218.25 made legal threats which is just another attempt to discredit and is not helping your case. Threats with 3RR warning which is on record after 2 consecutive reverts were made is also unwarranted when it is a matter of following policy. If you have any case that the cited references support your POV please make it. -196.207.32.38 16:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a BLP violation, only a content dispute. There is no possibility of any harm to Jonathan Wells due to these wording changes that you dispute. JoshuaZ's 3RR caution is just that, a caution. He even said "please" as in "please also watch 3RR". Hardly a threat. Taking umbrage here isn't going to win your case for you. Far from it. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I imagine this is the legal threat in question: "Even the references in the article refer to Darwinian evolution and clearly describes the theory of evolution. Stop reverting to slanderous [sic] and liable [sic] content." eaolson 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But is that really a "legal threat"? I think a legal threat requires some hint of action. I remember the big dispute between Kelly Martin and Durin a year or two ago - KM made the point that there is a qualitative difference between calling something libel and calling it actionable libel. It isn't a legal threat to tell someone that what they are doing constitutes a copyvio, even though you are telling someone that they have broken the law. Guettarda 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a content dispute, nothing more. 196.207.32.38 has been a chronic disruptive editor pov pusher and crank who's now resorting to misusing process to game the system. I don't think he's worthy of an RFC since there's so little chance of redemption, but I do think it's time for apply WP:DE. Anyone else agree? Odd nature 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to work on this article before, and (I hope) did a little good. Wells is not a scientist. He is known as the author of a couple of books criticizing the teaching of evolution in schools. The article is about 3 or 4 times too long for his real importance. It goes into details about his college research papers and even into the cover picture of one of his books. However, there is nothing in it that I would consider libel. (p.s. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana.) Steve Dufour 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Defamation / Libel by written or printed words.

    Resolved
     – Kudos to DGG. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Remove Posting that declares that I am a Anarchist Organizer. Scott Crow

    This is defamation and misrepresenting damagingly. Thi information is incorrect.

    the sentence has been edited, now saying just that you are a community organizer.DGG (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie

    Resolved
     – POV fork merged to main article

    Apparent POV fork from the main article. In my opinion, excessive emphasis. DGG (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Merged POV fork. The material needs to be summarized to comply with WP:NPOV#Undue weight ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deep Ng

    Resolved
     – article semi-protected

    The profile page keeps being vandalised and reverting back to deflamatory text regarding the singer. Is it possible to stop anyone else editing till this problem is resolved?--Chaosbladeuk 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)chaosbladeuk[reply]

    Lyndon LaRouche

    Resolved
     – content dispute

    Despite repeated requests and warnings, two editors (User:MaplePorter and User:NathanDW) continue to create fictitious cites to create the false impression that an entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica is really planted there by an anti-LaRouche author (in this case, me in my non-Wiki persona). These actions have repeatedly misrepresented the content and the authorship of the cited material. See: diff; diff; diff; diff. Cberlet 02:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now another editor, User: Don't lose that number is totally misrepresenting an actual quote from Robert L. Bartley, writing in The Wall Street Journal. Bartley terms the LaRouchite "Children of Satan" title "overt anti-Semitism," yet according to User: Don't lose that number, "Most of this stuff is clearly 'coded' -- it's definately not the real thing." Then User: Don't lose that number moves the material under a subheading "Allegations of coded antisemitic discourse." Especially on a BLP page, attempts to minimize, dismiss, or hide published allegations of antisemitism or any form of bigotry raise serious issues for a serious encyclopedia. See: diff.--Cberlet 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Before adding the Encyclopedia Judaica cite to the article, Cberlet boasted on the talk page that he co-authored it: [36]
    The claim by Bartley is duly reported in my edit. However, we are not obliged to consider it authoritative, or to take it at face value. Bartley's article is mainly a defense of the Straussians, and an attack on Seymour Hersh and the New York Times. He then refers to the title of LaRouche's book on neoconservatism, "Children of Satan," as anti-Semitic. It is not -- it's about neoconservatism. To put it in the simplest terms, how believable is it to assume that a book with a big picture of Dick Cheney on the cover is actually about Jews?
    Despite Bartley's disingenuous use of the word "overt," it is clear that he is making the same argument that Berlet's quotes make: criticism of neo-conservatives is actually coded anti-Semitism. It could be argued that these arguments are themselves anti-Semitic, as they trivialize real anti-Semitism.
    It is ironic that Cberlet is invoking BLP here-- it is he that is slandering LaRouche as an anti-Semite, and attempting to "minimize, dismiss or hide" LaRouche's unambiguous statement of opposition to anti-Semitism by placing it at the end of the section. The BLP policy is intended to prevent defamation, not protect it. --Don't lose that number 13:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP/N cannot assist editors with content disputes. If you cannot find common ground, please pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mean Red Spiders

    Can some take a look at this info that I've reverted on Mean Red Spiders. Its uncited, I've been unable to verify it, and it seems to me to be damaging to the subject. Thanks. Ceoil 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You did well, Ceoil. The source used (mySpace) was not a reliable source for that claim. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on revert 3 against a single purpose account and an ip, and have just been reverted. My guess is that this is a gruge; admin help would be welcome. Ceoil 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no 3RR limit on removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material from BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's 3RR to undo the removal actions of another editor on a single page within a 24-hour period, which 74.123.67.42 (talk · contribs · logs) seems to have done. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the raw history entries suggest that 74.123.67.42 is close to violating 3RR, four edits in 25 hours that might be reverts of the same info. But is it worth it to block an IP? How about semi-protection? There is also a named editor, User:Dashumphreys, who could be David Humphreys.
    FIRST REVERT 17:55, 8 July 2007 74.123.67.42 (Talk) (5,904 bytes) (Undid revision 143357139 by Ceoil (talk))
    FOURTH REVERT18:23, 9 July 2007 74.123.67.42 (Talk) (6,070 bytes) (Undid revision 143572358 by Jreferee (talk))
    EdJohnston 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further revision Undid revision 143572358 by Jreferee (talk)

    More: [37] This is a single purpose ip that seems to be static. The info it's adding appears to be malicious. I've checked all sources provide, and then some, and none hint at what it's trying to re-insert. There has been no effort at article talk and no engagement with notes left on its own talk. And no developement of the unvariable info it is continually restoring. Is it possible to determine if the ip is static or dynamic, and implement whichever block is appropriate. Thanks for staying with this. Ceoil 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lindsay Ashford

    Resolved
    • Lindsay Ashford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article has, as its second sentence, "Ashford publicly announced that he was a pedophile at the age of 34.[citation needed]". It then manages to go downhill from there, which is quite an impressive feat. It seems to have gone through afd and got kept based on "notability", which is all well and good, but as an article it's a heaping pile of junk. I don't have the time or the inclination to look into it at the moment, but this really doesn't look good... Shimgray | talk | 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is quite unpleasant, but we should apply policy consistently. I have removed all unsourced material from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan King

    Resolved

    Jonathan King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - hello. Would love a few extra pairs of eyes on this one - to avoid the possibility of a slow burning edit war, and also to analyse the article from the point of view of the living people angle. I won't poisen the well, but the problems lie in the balance between JK's colorful career (and some rather enthusiastic claims), and his convictions for sexual offenses - thanks. Purples 00:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked the article and all claims are well sourced. I moved the prison sentence and his denial to a separate section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zelma Mullins Pattillo

    Possibly autobiography or family-written and edited. Note that it is a poorly-written-poorlysourced orphan. Cross-posted on WP:COIN. Bearian 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Fixed typo, oops. -- Bearian 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added a prod tag to the article and notified Pattillo on his/her user page, also mentioned that Creating an article about yourself might pertain. -Jmh123 05:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The prod tag is gone. It looks likes much of the article may be copyvio of Biography of Zelma Mullins Pattillo. Pattillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page has some prior warnings in it. If someone has the time, listing at AfD might help fix the situation. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Duke Kimbrough McCall

    Duke Kimbrough McCall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The same editor as the one noted directly above in the Zelma Mullins Pattillo BLPN matter, Pattillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has created a similarly written article at Duke Kimbrough McCall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Bearian 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Johnston

    This user repeatedly blanks valid, sourced, uncontroversial biographical information from Alan Johnston on the grounds that it is "unnecessary info for someone who wants obscurity" and thus "is not acceptable". I'm sorry, but this is an award-winning notable journalist. The information is fully sourced and available all over the web, so how is it unnecessary? He's using WP:BLP to justify this removal. However, this is censorship of valid information in my view. There has been no discussion whatsoever. After I approached him on his talk page after the first removal (linked above "blanks") to discuss it here or on the talk page he refused and made the second change (liked above "repeatedly"). – Chacor 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There is a discussion related to these actions here. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawn Butler

    Dawn Butler's entry is repeatedly having a statement that she does not live in her constituency and claims a parliamentary allowance for a second home there. Both these statements are false, and I think that the second could be construed as defamatory.

    Sarah Teather's entry contains a related staement that she is the only Brent MP not to claim a second home allowance. As there are three Brent MPs, and two do not claim such an allowance, this is false. Brentcentral 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When you say second home allowance do you mean Additional Costs Allowance? theyworkforyou.com suggests that Teather doesn't claim this and the other two do. I'm not sure it's relevant beyond simple point scoring, though. I agree that the stuff that's been removed from the Dawn Butler article shouldn;t be there and have watchlisted that article. --Cherry blossom tree 11:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Travesser

    Promotion of someone is not really a BLP issue, but I listed the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Travesser (2nd nomination) which should resolve any BLP issues. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Antin

    Grover Norquist

    After I cleaned up this biography to make it more of an encyclopedia article and less of a political attack page, my edits were summarily reverted with a terse explanation. Some of the material restored consisted of WP:BLP violations of the most serious sort: unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial information. Since material of this nature can be removed without regard to the 3RR, or general prohibitions against edit warring, I have repeated the removal of the most seriously problematic material, and issued an appropriate warning to the editor restoring it. The remainder of the content restored is also problematic insofar as its sheer volume in proportion to the remainder of the biography violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by placing undue weight on the negative aspects of Grover Norquist, insofar as it is written to disparage the subject of the article rather than from a neutral point of view, and insofar as some of the material repeats blatant, gratuitous personal attacks. However, since I believe that it is inadvisable for me to repeat the removal of this latter material at this time, I am requesting additional input relating to this issue. John254 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I sympathize with your task on this page. However, the issues at stake are not crystal clear to anyone who makes a quick visit to the page, and there is no discussion of these items yet at Talk:Grover Norquist. It might help for you to summarize a couple of these points on the Talk page at more length than you can do here. That might lead toward a Talk page consensus, which is useful to have if you want to ask for blocks later on for editing against consensus. EdJohnston 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted to describe some of the remaining WP:BLP problems with this article on the talk page. John254 12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, I'm disappointed in John254. I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted. But I'm primarily disappointed in his complete lack of respect for a fellow editor -- shouting repeated threats of blocking in the history summary ("Do NOT restore without adequate references, or you may be BLOCKED for disruption"), making veiled legal threats with a templated block warning on my talk page, raising this to the level of the Noticeboard, trying to speedy delete a workshopping page in my userspace. It's very difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, let alone trust the good intent of your fellow editors, especially ones willing to exercise their admin authority in articles they are themselves editing and engage in multiple forms of wikilawyering, when they comport themselves in such a manner. Although I personally believe that Wikipedia is improved by including more content rather than less (for example, Tucker Carlson's criticism of Norquist and Norquist's criticism of Bob Taft are illuminating of the nature of all three men and the politics of power), I wouldn't consider the ongoing editing process of the Norquist article to be particularly controversial or worthy of Noticeboard attention. I hope John254 will be willing to consider that I might not be in the defamatory libel personal attack business but am interested in building an accurate resource for scholars, one that is responsible to accuracy but doesn't self-censor. In particular, whereas I recognize that I may lean in one direction in my editing approach, I hope John254 may be willing to admit the possibility of fallibility -- that, for example, mentioning that Grover Norquist founded a controversial lobbying firm is not "defamatory"; and I'm willing to admit that Wikipedia doesn't have to mention that his nickname is Grosser Nosetwist or that Tucker Carlson hates his guts.--User At Work 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User At Work's claim that "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted."[38] is factually incorrect. User At Work did revert all of my edits in their entirety (see [39]), then proceeded to make a content edit [40], and repeated the removal of one of the sections comprised of poorly sourced controversial material concerning a living person [41], but added the offending matter to the talk page [42]. Note, however, that Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material expressly states that the prohibition on unreferenced and inadequately referenced negative information concerning living people applies to talk pages:

    Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.

    Under the circumstances, my edit summaries in removing the offending material for a second time were quite appropriate. Editors who repeatedly insert controversial material concerning living people sourced to political attack websites [43], political blogs [44], and original syntheses of sources to draw general disparaging conclusions [45] may indeed be blocked for disruption per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which states that "A block for disruption may be necessary in response to... persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy..." User At Work's assertion that I was "making veiled legal threats with a templated block warning on... [his] talk page" [46] is likewise without merit. template:blp2 is a widely used, legitimate warning template that informs editors that if they continue to insert unreferenced or inadequately referenced negative information concerning living people into Wikipedia, they may be blocked. In fact, I have actually removed legal threats from blp-related warning templates on two occasions [47] [48].
    Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a fundamental policy. I believe my efforts to enforce this policy were reasonable and judicious under the circumstances. John254 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will simply respond to say that my comment "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted." is factually correct. John254 is demonstrating an excellent ability to link to edit histories and to policy pages but he seems to be lacking a willingness to work positively with me. Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles are also official policy. I don't argue that he can find policy justification for repeatedly threatening me with being blocked. I just question why he chose to do so.--User At Work 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_sockpuppetry_by_The_Cunctator. John254 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_by_John254. User At Work 06:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope you guys don't mind an outside opinion here on this little dispute. From my investigation, it seems that the whole thing started when Cunctator (as User At Work), reverted John254's removal of material which cited BLP violations, with the edit summary "revert whitewash". This was simply a gross mistake. Ones does not simply restore a swath of BLP violating content with that kind of edit summary. Now, User At Work followed up those edits by removing some significant portions, citing poor sourcing as a concern. But this only reaffirms that chunks of the removed material were indeed BLP violating. If some of this material is not in fact BLP violating, Cunctator should have just restored those bit, or even better, discussed with John254 on the talkpage why he removed these other (possibly) more appropriate bits.

    For example, it seems evident to me that the (now removed) "personality" section is rather weak and defamatory. Now given Cunctator's style of editing, he may have been intending to remove that at a later point. But as I said before, that's not a very good style, as it only causes confusion to other editors.

    I do think John254 has overreacted here, but I can see partially at least why. I don't know why Cunctator chooses to use a sockpuppet account, but I don't think using two accounts like this is wise, since it can inadvertently lead to these kinds of situations. I think John254's edit summaries were worded rather strongly, and I think using warning templates on user talk pages of established users can often be seen as rather aggressive. A more personal message, I think, would have been much better. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's forget about the sockpuppetry for a minute

    Getting back to the article content, the restored edit was entirely negative. The fact that another politician referred to Norquist as "Grosser Nosetwist", or that he is listed in the book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America may be properly cited, but there is literally nothing positive in this article, not even praise from his fellow conservatives, which I assume must exist somewhere. Thatcher131 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Point one: Negative content isn't banned by the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
    Point two: John254 redeleted that content without any dispute.
    Point three: Again, noone is complaining that the deleted content should be restored.
    So why is this even being discussed? --User At Work 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jindřich Feld

    I am in correspondence with User:Denis63 who claims to have been a friend of the composer, who, he (?) claims additionally (I can and should I think invite him? here)- died two days ago... (see both [49] and [50] which is not reflected anywhere I can find (including JStor sources) so far..., but then much isn't reflected on the web. (And I have to try again with some other sources I think I have access to- I may have, as a staffperson, access to newspapers etc. not checked by Yahoo. But he is or was a major Czech composer.) Have suggested as a compromise that instead of removing entirely his contributions, I leave them in with {{fact}} (but on reflection since this requires removal from the Living people category and protections therein, that may be a bit much.) Suggestions? Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Gore III and Noelle Bush

    I have nominated both Al Gore III and Noelle Bush to be redirected to their more prominent relatives due to issues related to BLP policy. If anyone here would like to weigh in, pro or con, please do so: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_and_Noelle_Bush. Kaldari 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Souter

    I can't find a single defamatory element in this well-sourced article. --The Cunctator 06:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    are we looking at the same version: [51] accuses the company the runs of various monopolistic schemes, includes a clearly scurrilous quote, contains accusations that he is homophobic, & even discusses the arrest of morals charge of another executive in the company. The material is in each case documented by the BBC or the Guardian, so is presumably correct, but the article certainly does contain strong negative elements, and almost exclusively so. I'd suggest at least removing one or two sentences & seeing if thereis any positive material to add. DGG (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Felton

    This article was first raised on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Greg Felton by Voxveritatis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who says that the article is about him and it has been vandalised with untruths and liabelous comments. Mr Felton has a controversial approach to Zionism and the State of Israel. Can somebody please take a look, when I saw the article and googled him my immediate thought was just to Afd it, but theres probably more to this article than meets the eye. Mike33 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, the material being adding is clearly inappropriate content. The base of the actual article at present [52] is NPOV, with the expression of POV being confined to the titles of one article & one posting he has writtenDGG (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nessan Quinlivan

    Resolved
     – stub and source by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

    Completely unsourced article about an IRA member and two-times escapee from British prisons (The Maze, 1983, Brixton, 1991). There does seem to be quite a bit of material on this fellow around, particularly following the 1991 escape, but I'm unlikely to be able to work on this to bring it up to standard over the next few days. Any volunteers? I'll dump some likely sources on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    not for the first time in my life I'll be a Volunteer.--Vintagekits 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarence Vaughn

    Resolved

    Clarence Vaughn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A borderline case in which we have a content dispute whether to include information about his criminal past, sourced from a government website, even though there are no secondary sources reporting on the situation. More feedback would be quite welcome. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The type of material that should not be added to BLPs. Placed a warning note in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=144185349"