Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Dmitry Martinov

The title of the article needs changing as the spelling of the name is wrong. I made a mistake. It should be Dimitri Martinov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.68.244 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has been redirected to Villieläin, the band. Cheers, I'^mperator 14:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer in Heaven and Earth (book)

We have an editor who insists on a "see also" link to a page called Climate change denial. I tried to remove it twice and had each revert backed out. The issue, as I see it, is that a "see also" link to a page called "Climate change denial" is much the same as simply writing somewhere in the article, "By the way, Ian Plimer is a Denialist". Actually, the very existence of a page called Climate change denial must present a number of potential BLP problems but I guess that's another matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not a BLP issue, so why you posted it here is a mystery.
2. Plimer is called a climate change "denier" or "denialist" all over the place, eg [1] [2] [3] [4] etc etc.
3. Why would there be any problem with the concept of denial? Plimer does deny the concept of anthropogenic global warming, not so? ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I also object to this editor's use of the "See also" to (indirectly) pejoratively label the subject as a "climate change denier". This appears to be a possible BLP violation to me.

None of the sources mentioned above are WP:reliable sources. In order,

1. Plimer mentioned only in a reply to this newspaper blog posting.

2. Personal blog post.

3. Opinion column by a virulently critical opponent of Plimer.

4. Personal blog post. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Tillman. Since when are The Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor not RSes? You're clutching at straws, as is to be expected from one of Wikipedia's most persistent editors of climate-related pages for the denialist cause. ► RATEL ◄ 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it is not obvious, Ratel is the same editor involved in the dispute. We need the help of uninvolved, neutral editors. Thanks in advance. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it's not obvious, editors Alex Harvey (aka Alexh19740110) Alexh19740110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tillman Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are two editors who spend most of their time on wikipedia editing pages to do with climate change, always trying to enhance, protect and boost the profiles of people who, usually for financial reasons, claim that anthropogenic climate change —a concept accepted by over 97.5% of the world's active climatologists— is a scam and bogus. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, as a good faith editor I invite you to remove these personal attacks and false representations and my response here to the same, and then withdraw from this page so that the procedure of escalation to the noticeboard can be allowed to operate without your interference. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought: Why not all three of you hold your tongues and allow some previously uninvolved editors to fit a word in edgewise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue remains open. I would appreciate the input from an uninvolved editor, i.e. someone without interests in the climate change debate. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. As the book ... argues against the scientific consensus on climate change, rejecting the view that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" ... climate change denial is a logical link to include so is certainly acceptable as a "See also" link. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw this earlier but was reluctant to get involved because although I'm not an involved editor, I do have a history in some global warming related articles and may not be seen as a neutral editor. However while I initially shared some of Alex Harvey's concerns (about the linking not the existance of the climate change denial article), after more consideration I now agree with Benjiboy. More importantly, it occured to me that rather then the see also, we could see if there's someway we can link to 'climate change denial' in the article. Would either side object to linking to it via this sentence "Leigh Dayton, science writer for The Australian, expressed dismay at Plimer for having "boarded the denialist ark" and described his arguments"? I've also made the later suggestion in the article talk page where it's perhaps best discussed Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to read these comments as I perceive here a very serious risk of setting a most unfortunate, and damaging precedent (i.e. damaging to Wikipedia's reputation and credibility). Applying Benjiboi's logic, it would follow that any scientist skeptical of any mainstream scientific theory can be, at the arbitrary discretion of any POV Wikipedia editor, called a "denier" or a "denialist."

Here is an example: I am hypothetically skeptical of quantum mechanics due to the fact that it can't be reconciled with general relativity theory and suggests in a way that physical reality is inherently nonsensical. Now quantum mechanics is actually regarded as the most predictively successful theory in the history of science. Yet a very famous skeptic of quantum mechanics, who remained skeptical until the end of his life, was Albert Einstein (see for instance EPR paradox). It would follow by application of Benjiboi's reasoning that Einstein was a "quantum physics denialist."

Now my feeling is that no one would appreciate it if I created a page "quantum physics denialism" (something which persists today; there are still die-hard quantum physics skeptics) and then provided a "see also: quantum physics denialism" to Einstein's article.

The (to me very obvious) problem with all this is that what is "denialism" to one person is "honest skepticism" to the next. Unless someone has a crystal ball and can see inside Plimer's mind, how can anyone in principle distinguish "denialism" from "skepticism"? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(more: in case it is not fully appreciated, the term denialism is irreducibly offensive and inflammatory. It implies either mental imbalance (if someone is truly in denial of reality this would be diagnosed by a psychiatrist as some sort of neurosis) or dishonesty (this would be the case if say Plimer actually knows that climate change theory is true but doesn't want to admit it for say financial reasons). I fully doubt that Plimer himself is truly a "denialist" in any realistic way, and frankly doubt there are too any genuine climate change "denialists" -- there may be real denialists but I would hate to venture much less publish my personal judgement on another living person's psychology. This is serious stuff. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC) )

I am implacably opposed to the sort of sophistry we see from Alex Harvey above. When over 97% of active climatologists endorse AGW, it is fair to say that the people who oppose it are in denial of consensus. In just the same way, almost everyone believes the Holocaust occurred; the minority who do not, deny that it happened, and are known as denialists or deniers. The irony here is that AGW will lead to a much higher death rate than the Holocaust, and deniers will be responsible ab initio for this new holocaust, not merely irresponsible post factum. Now on the Talk:Heaven and Earth (book) page, Alex Harvey has admitted that removing the link is part of a larger campaign to delete the page Climate change denial (He says: Then we can focus our attention on the very existence of this "climate change denial" page, which seems to have resisted AfD proceedings three times already.). So this is not even a good faith entry on the BLP noticeboard, but merely part of an underhand POV campaign to expunge certain well-known and fully justifiable concepts from the encyclopedia. Hell no. ► RATEL ◄ 07:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there you have it, Plimer is now akin to a Holocaust Denier. I hope this will serve to further illustrate the danger of allowing this sort of precedent to stand. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he probably is. He's certainly a denier of AGW, by his own admission. ► RATEL ◄ 08:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And if only Wikipedians could control the courts and legislature as well we could have the bastard locked up in jail, is that pretty much right? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed look like part of an attempt at getting rid of our article on Climate change denial - which was pretty much a snow keep last time it was up for AfD. I wouldn't put Plimer in the same category as a Holocaust denier, but it seems pretty obvious that the climate change denial article is relevant to Plimer's position on climate change. I'd say that as long as we have the article, the link is relevant to Plimer and should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly should be included as a see also, if not linked from the article. Verbal chat 11:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail completely to understand how rational people would see this as anything other than what I said it is. Once again, this is setting a dangerous precedent, if Ratel's edits are allowed to stand, where any editor may thereafter express his personal opinion about a living person's mental state and/or ethics by using Wikipedia to label the person a denialist. It means, moving forwards, that if I don't like Mr. X the skeptic, whether he's a climate change skeptic, or an evolution skeptic, or a quantum physics skeptic, I can simply call Mr. X a denialist by adding a "see also" link at the bottom. No sources are even required, thus totally bypassing the otherwise very rigid Wikipedia requirement that things be reliably sourced, see WP:RS. Now Ratel has rather imaginatively seen this as a conspiracy of some sort of mine to have the climate change denial article deleted. Were it not that others are buying it I was otherwise rather amused. As I noted, it has already resisted three AfD's. Why would I have any better luck if I nominated it a fourth time? My opinion that the article should be deleted and the BLP concerns in linking living scientists to it are two totally unrelated issues, and the fact that I've brought this here, rather starting the fourth motion for article deletion, ought to suggest that I've already rather reluctantly accepted that I probably can't get it deleted. Can I get some other opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How many more opinions from long standing, good faith, and uninvolved editors are required to satisfy you? Verbal chat 14:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll note here that a rather fallacious argument has been made that anyone who "denies" something can automatically be called a "denialist" of that something. Maybe some people are not understanding the meanings of the words here, so just in case, from denial: "Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence." Those arguing against my motion here are implicitly arguing that any editor can, without sources, reasons, just because he wants to, take a person X who "denies" or is skeptical of Y and whack the label "denialist" via a see also on to their biography page. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "When over 97% of active climatologists endorse AGW, it is fair to say that the people who oppose it are in denial of consensus." -- editor Ratel, above.

Speaking as a working scientist, the idea that "consensus" has anything to do with scientific fact is laughable. One need only look back at the history of science to see any number of cases where the previous consensus was overturned by later discovery. A fine example is the history of stomach ulcers. Or, in my field, the history of continental drift.

I would also draw attention to physicist and Nobelist Freeman Dyson's words on this subject:

"Heretics who question the dogmas are needed... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."

Plimer wouldn't be my choice for the best spokesman for skepticism about the AGW dogma. But he doesn't deserve being pejoratively labeled as a climate change denier. Nor can he be, if we follow Wikipedia's rules on WP:BLP. This is yet another attempt to shout down an honest debate, and I'll conclude with another Dyson quote:

"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." -- "Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment"

Should we label Freeman Dyson as a climate change denier? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• From the page on Dyson: "Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists". So no, we do not label him a denialist. ► RATEL ◄ 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Tangent: Freeman Dyson is many interesting things, but if, by "Nobelist", you refer to the recipient of a Nobel award, he does not qualify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right of course. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Comment It seems to me this discussion is getting off track. As far as I'm aware, the question is not, nor has it ever been about whether we should label or put a see also link on Ian Plimer's page. The only question at hand is whether it is relevant to the book. In my opinion it is because it discussed something the book has been widely accused of doing/being part of. While saying that someone wrote a book that is considered something does have BLP implications, it's quite a different thing from labelling someone something Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nil, the problem is that the only reason the denial page discusses something related to this book is because Ratel firstly edited the denial page to create a new "denialist literature" section that Plimer's book could link to (see the diff). I'll also note that during the course of this discussion, editors have now added the "see also climate change denialism" to Plimer's biography page as well. S. Fred Singer has already been labelled a "denialist." Where is this going to stop?

Someone has said above, (I paraphrase), "Plimer is obviously a denialist because he is in denial of a consensus on climate change." This is just completely wrong. Again, there is a basic linguistic misunderstanding here. Plimer would be the first to agree that there is a consensus on climate change, and I am not aware of any climate change skeptics "denying" this. He denies nothing, but simply doubts that the theory is true. That is what scientists are supposed to do. Plimer is no more a denialist than Einstein was with respect to quantum physics.

By allowing Plimer to be labelled a "denialist" by Wikipedia, without reliable sources, as the BLP/N seems to be recommending, we find ourselves in a position where we'd need to start labelling thousands of people "in denial" of all sorts of things. How do we adjudicate here? Is Ratel's opinion sufficient? Once again, this precedent creates a loophole whereby anyone, as Ratel has done, can bypass the need for reliable sources. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) I think Nil Einne has a good point -- also see [5]. We do indeed have a columnist from a RS who expressed dismay at Plimer having "boarded the denialist ark" -- thus a link to Climate change denial there seems appropriate and neutral. We can also eliminate the contentious "See also" link, and make this discussion moot. Other opinions on this? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• (insert) I support the original proposal by Nil (which is actually different from his proposal directly above, where he is saying we should include both). The point I was trying to make earlier is that if a page like climate change denial is allowed to exist here in the first place, there's no reason why people can't link to it, so long as the name-calling (Plimer is a denialist) is reliably-sourced to a particular columnist. The problem with the "see also" is that it bypasses the reliable source, and thus directly presents the opinion of the editor who added it (in this case Ratel). So I support linking to denialism via the "denialist ark" quote. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• [reply to Alex Harvey, 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)]

1. You say that "Plimer denies nothing, but simply doubts that the theory is true". But Plimer has said that the whole idea of CO2 causing warming is "invalid" — that sounds a lot like DENIAL and not DOUBT. [6]
2. Plimer has labelled schemes to control carbon emissions "scams", which is not something that someone who merely "doubts" the truth of AGW would do [7]
3. You don't want him labelled a denier, but he himself has no compunction about labelling other scientists "catastrophists" and "warmists" [8]
4. There are thousands of sources, including scientists active in this field, putting "Plimer" and AGW "denial" together in the same articles. We are a tertiary source, we follow what's out there, and this is most definitely mainstream thought on Plimer and his book.

In short, can think of nobody who better fits the description of denier than this fellow. ► RATEL ◄ 07:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Spot the error
Alex Harvey says:	The Spectator says:
"Plimer denies nothing, but simply doubts that the theory is true."	"Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history."[9]

► RATEL ◄ 08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"that sounds a lot like DENIAL and not DOUBT" and "In short, can think of nobody who better fits the description of denier than this fellow." - Unfortunately your personal opinion on the matter carries no weight in this discussion. We need to operate from WP:RS that demonstrate that Plimer fits the definition used in the climate change denial article. --GoRight (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that this precedent has already been set with other denialism articles, such as AIDs denialism, etc. This is also the wrong place for a general policy discussion. Verbal chat 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and I see that you've been defending the AIDS denialism article there in an exactly analogous dispute that that article, by its very title, is inherently and irreducibly POV, e.g. here. Which is fine, but it also means that if calling a living person a "climate change denialism" was ruled contra WP:BLP as it seems clear to me that it is then so would calling people "AIDS denialists." I don't think you are truly uninvolved on this issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can guess what your definition of uninvolved involves. Per wikipedia policy, I was uninvolved in this dispute. If you want to change wikipedia policy or BLP policy, this is the wrong place. Uninvolved opinion is that a see also link to climate change denial is not a BLP issue, and that's the topic here. Verbal chat 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Verbal's "uninvolvement" extended to adding the "Denier" tag to Plimer's wikibio -- then accusing me of "edit warring" when I reverted & commented: [10] --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead to Climate change denial specifically asserts that "climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change". Do you have a WP:RS that links either the book or Ian Plimer to a "disinformation campaign" which has been "funded by a group with a finanicial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change"? If not he does not belong there, and this see also link would not be appropriate either given that he fails to meet the stated criteria for the article. --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This question answered, and discussion continued, on the Talk page for Climate change denial. ► RATEL ◄ 09:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is yet another one of the supposedly uninvolved editor Verbal's edits: diff. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are all perfectly proper edits. I was uninvolved until I became aware of this discussion here, hence my opinions here were those of an uninvolved editor. All those edits were made since. Do you hound all editors who disagree with you like this? Very poor behaviour. GoRight, for example, is highly involved. Please stop these abusive,hounding, edits that are beside the point of this thread, and therefore offtopic, and very poor ad hom attacks. Alex, Pete: If you wish to complain about my editing please follow standard WP:DR procedure. Consider this formal notification. Verbal chat 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The full quote from the lede of the Climate change denial article is Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby. That means the label "Climate change denial" implies bad faith and membership in a funded disinformation campaign. Such a claim falls squarely under BLP and requires very strong, explicit sources. I've removed the contentious section from the Climate change denial article and commented on the talk page there.--agr (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have misread the article. Did you not read the qualifier "usually" in the lede? Do you understand that it means "in most cases but not always"? Your deletion of the section was incorrect. Please reinstate the section you erroneously removed. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying a living person is in a class that "usually" acts badly falls squarely under BLP and requires high quality sourcing. I've removed the link from the book article as well. --agr (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Related policy discussion

An editor above started a related policy discussion here, directly related to (although not referencing) this discussion. BLP and BLPN are both on my watchlist. Verbal chat 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue remains unresolved as Ratel is still reverting any attempts to remove the "see also: denialism" link (diff). Alex Harvey (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is right that I should revert. Firstly, linking to the page on Global warming denialism does not impugn Plimer in any way. Please show Policy statements in wikipedia that cover this novel interpretation of the See also section. Secondly, there are many reasons justifying the See also link, such as:

• "[Plimer] has boarded the denialist ark" (Leigh Dayton, Science Correspondent for biggest Australian daily newspaper) [11]
• "Professor Ian Plimer, author of the book Heaven and Earth, is the new champion of the climate change deniers" (George Monbiot, correspondent for The Guardian) [12]
• "Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer" (Prof Brook, Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide) [13]
• "Thanks to Plimer .... Australia is likely to become the developed world’s third Denier Nation". (Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud) [14]

So we have major newspapers, correspondents, expert scientists and writers all linking Plimer to AGW denialism. The link must stay. ► RATEL ◄ 07:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has reverted agr's edit this time (diff). Alex Harvey (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• New policy: WP:BLP#See also sections was recently revised. It now reads:

See also sections are not exempt from the requirements of neutrality and verifiability based on reliable sources. Links placed here do not need to be cited, but may not create implications that are unsupported by the body text. Additionally, neutrality may not be endangered by needlessly repeating links already given in the body text. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• • This is a new clarification, but it had never been the case that "See also" links were exempt from NPOV and V. This doesn't alter the discussion above. No new policy here, please don't spin this into something it isn't. Verbal chat 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the addition of a see-also link to a clearly related topic is a BLP issue. That link does not claim Plimer is a denialist, or his book is, and there is absolutely no doubt that his book is part of the political debate on climate change and has been instrumentalized by the fringe side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If the claim is only that the book has been used by climate change denial groups, just say that explicitly in the article text, instead of using See also link. That removes all innuendo and then it really won't be a BLP issue. Plimer is not responsible for what others do with his book--agr (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If Plimer or the book are not mentioned on the related article then it is inappropriate to create the innuendo implied by the link that he is a denier. If he fails to meet the stated criteria for being included on the Climate change denial page itself there is certainly no reason to link to it from either the book or Plimer's BLP. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose closing this discussion, and adopting Nil Einne's & COM's compromise solution

Just wikilink the article appropriately in the text where the context is clear and be done with it. There's no need for it to be a see also, and several editors have explained why it's a BLP issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Second to that (again). That makes 4 editors in favor of this solution: myself, ChildofMidnight (previously uninvolved), Nil Einne (who proposed this solution, previously uninvolved; and Alex Harvey. I hereby propose to adopt COM's solution, and close this seemingly-interminable discussion. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC). Bump, --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Ahmad Hussein

Judging from the fact that the controversial statement by Muhammad Ahmad Hussein has not been recognised by any major news agencys, I find this citation deeply problematic - especially as the exact same citation has been attached to his predecessor Ekrima Sa'id Sabri. Could anyone please provide other sources and/or more context for verfication?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Gallulus (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you show us where this statement has been attributed to Ekrima Sa'id Sabri? Without some specific evidence of misquoting by the source, I see no problem with the citation. Kevin (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

• The Man Who Would Be Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Along with several related articles, this article has been a long-standing battleground for transsexual activists to smear sexologist J. Michael Bailey, whose notion that transwomen's motivation for sex reassignment is (partly) related to sexuality (instead of just being a woman trapped in a man's body) is anathema to most of the trans community.

This article is about a pop-sci book published by Bailey in 2003. After the book was published, several transwomen filed complaints against Bailey, claiming that he unfairly exploited them as research subjects (by writing about them, just like any journalist would do) and practiced psychology without a license by helping them obtain sex reassignment surgery. Several prominent transwomen, including Lynn Conway and Andrea James, helped orchestrate the complaints. Conway and James created extensive websites to promote their version of the scandal and to discredit Bailey (which was "easy", according to Conway's site). They contain a wide number of out-of-context quotations, partly blacked-out original documents from the complaints, unsupportable suppositions, carefully selected facts, and pages in rather poor taste.

Both of these websites are linked at the end of this article -- and have been, for a very long time, despite being, IMO, clear BLP violations, because removing anything that supports the pro-Conway-James-McCloskey POV has been remarkably difficult. (Right now, we're just trying to get one self-professed transwoman to stop calling a gay man a "girl" and a "daughter" in the article's text. I think I've reverted that particular error three times in the last few weeks.)

The links are:

• J. Michael Bailey investigation via Lynn Conway
• Clearinghouse on Bailey's book via Transsexual Road Map

Because of the climate at the article, I would appreciate it if several editors with a good grasp of BLP would look at these websites, and leave clear, direct, unambiguous responses here about whether the inclusion of these external links is appropriate.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, Wikipedia:External links#In biographies of living people says, basically, that standard BLP rules apply to external links as well. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Both links seem to run afoul of WP:ELNO point 11, which discourages "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority ..." The first link is from the personal website of someone with a Wikipedia article who is an activist on the subject, but it isn't clear to me that she is a "recognized authority" per the WP:SPS rules. The second link appears to be to a website on trans issues created by an individual -- basically what would be called a "fansite" for many subjects, although the nature of this subject doesn't lend itself to that term. It looks like it might be relatively good quality compared to some fansites, so if it were a neutral catalog of sources and the subject was not BLP-related, I might be inclined to say keep it. But the page linked is distinctly not neutral on the subject, so for a BLP-related article I would say the link has to go. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do any other editors have an opinion that they're willing to share? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the links. If anyone here is willing to watchlist the article for the next few days, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I see User:WhatamIdoing is still POV-pushing via noticeboards rather than on relevant talk pages. She failed to remove an external link to a hoax site that's been offline for some time because it supports her position. She only removed the links to people she dislikes/disagrees with, as part of her ongoing efforts to right great wrongs via Wikipedia. If we are to include Bailey's personal website as an external link, we should include those of others mentioned in the article. Since the article mentions me and Professor Lynn Conway specifically, our positions should be presented for neutrality. I recommend an external link to this paper which meets ELNO and BLP criteria: James, Andrea (2008). Fair Comment, Foul Play: Populist Responses to J. Michael Bailey’s Exploitative “Controversies” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Women's Studies Association, Cincinnati, OH (PDF). Here's another citation. It is in line with the other external links on that site. The article and links should present the full scope of the issue. Jokestress (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I freely admit to having not clicked any links in that section for months, and would cheerfully support removal of nearly all of them.

I also freely admit that I consider the talk page to be a hostile place where non-trans activists are routinely insulted. For example, just looking at the last few months, I've been called bigoted[15] and a holocaust denier [16] by an editor that claims to be your personal friend. I also note that these hopeless WP:NPA violations never receive even a single word in response from yourself or any other editor that supports your worldview. You could hardly expect any rational person to expect a fact-based or policy-based conversation on a talk page with that history. Noticeboards exist for the purpose of bringing intractable disputes to the attention of editors that don't have a long-standing connection to the article or its subject; if you wish, you may ask me to apologize for using noticeboards exactly as intended. I won't, however, apologize for the fact that wider exposure has very frequently resulted in your interpretation of Wikipedia policies being rejected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

Page is under attack from Truthers trying to turn him into a martyr for the cause using sites like Prison Planet. Need some help. Soxwon (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know please see this extensive the WP:RSN and Village Pump www.examiner.com is not considered a reliable source, as it is in truth a blog site masquerading as a media source. [17][18], and there was even talk of blacklisting the website, I believe. It is certainly not an adequate source for controversial material about a BLP. I note that the source isn't being used as more suitable sources such as the Daily Telegraph and LA Times have been found. --Slp1 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but does it really need to be as long as his entire film career section? It was that long when I first got there, and was starting to get to that size again. It's given a couple of lines in his personal life section but that's all I think it deserves. (I've also done some work rooting out the personal life section which seemed to be a hooker by hooker account of his sex life). Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to think about restoring the content, stop edit warring and let less PoV driven editors sort out the weight. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate point to discuss, but I don't see a BLP issue. Nothing was said that seems inaccurate or defamatory. Just a matter of determining what is "due weight", which is a good thing to discuss on the talk page, or in a GA review or similar process. -Pete (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-reversion complete Soxwon (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The section on his personal life is way too long and way too salacious. He is an actor of some repute, and this article is far too tabloid-y. That's a far more serious issue than the Sept. 11 content. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this article has multiple issues, and its current classification as a good article seems odd to me. This article should be reassessed, and may be re-nominated for good article status after significant work has been done (well, maybe a nomination for B-Class status would then be appropriate as a first step).  Cs32en  09:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - that's not my idea of a good BLP article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised it is a GA. This article is actually "bad" in significant ways. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The good article status, simply means that when it was checked it was a good article but articles get edited and can become worse over time, if you feel the article has issues please nominate it for reassesment using this page Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stetsonharry (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, well done dude. The objective will not be to delist it as a good article but to raise it back up to again be a good article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to help, Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Charlie_Sheen/1 here is the reassesment page. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's some disapproval on the talk about of a GAR at this particular point in time, but I have some real qualms about the length of that personal section. I'd certainly like to get more opinions on this and I'd have no problem withdrawing the GAR if it's truly premature and unwarranted. This is my first GAR, and I must confess I'm not familiar with the process. Stetsonharry (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue at Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

Two editors have insisted on adding contentious and poorly sourced text concerning a non-public figure BLP to this article. See [19]. The text they seek to add has only limited if any relevancy to DTCC, and instead seems to be a kind of WP:COATRACK effort to malign the BLP. One posted in the talk page that the BLP policy does not apply to non-biographical articles, which of course is incorrect. I've reverted but it will probably be re-added. The material that they're trying to insert is is from a recent article in The Register, reprinting stuff published in that publication in October. One of the editors raised the issue at that time and was rebuffed. See previous discussion [20]. There seems to be some off-wiki publicity on this, so the article may need to be protected.

See also [21]. When reminded of the policy on BLPs, one of the editors said I was a "small-minded policy pusher" and threatened to invoke his "seniority" and WP:IAR. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The source given doesn't mention DTCC, so mentioning Weiss in the article seems unjustified. And the issue isn't mentioned in Gary Weiss either. Rd232 ^talk 14:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is here and it does mention, in the last paragraph, the DTCC and the account that Gary Weiss allegedly used to manipulate views of naked short selling in Wikipedia. The Register, last time I checked, is used as a source for approximately 2,000 articles in Wikipedia, so it appears to be considered a reliable source. There probably should be something in the Weiss article concerning the allegations that he abused a Wikipedia account to manipulate public opinion on naked short selling and defame Patrick Byrne. Another Register article covers that in greater detail (I'm mentioned in that article as well). Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed by User:RegentsPark on the grounds of being speculative, unreliable and not relevant to the DTCC, which of course is absolutely correct. I had thought that put an end to the matter, but apprently not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and the Register is not a reliable source for inflammatory claims about BLPs. BLP requires special care, particularly for persons relatively unknown. That was the feeling when Cla68 raised this issue the last time.[22]. The Register has not suddenly morphed into a reliable source since then. The same goes for the central point of the Register story, which has arguable relevancy to Patrick M. Byrne or Overstock.com. The Register contends that a Byrne "minion" exploited a Yahoo security flaw against a critic, and has tread a "fine line between dogged internet investigation and online stalking." Although not disputed, I think that this would have to appear in multiple reliable sources in order for it to be usable in Wikipedia. The DTCC allegation is disputed by both Weiss and the DTCC. The Register is also not a reliable source for numerous inflammatory and controversial statements made concerning Byrne in an earlier article, "The Bizarre World of Patrick Byrne". The Register is an openly biased website/blog and makes no bones about that, and evidently its biases shift with the winds.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree about El Reg, it is reliabel about technical stuff but anything pertaining to Wikipedia tends towards axe-grinding. Somehow it always seems to be written by Cade Metz and recites verbatim the version supported by a very small group of editors who are just a little too quick to accept the assertions of one particular individual in the Overstock dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Heenan

Resolved

 – Category removed.

Please edit as Maurice Heenan is no longer living therefore doesn't belong in the "Biography of a Living Person" category.

Thank you

R Heenan

Los Alamitos High School

An IP editor from Portland State University continues to put the phrase "(physically assaulted a student in 2001)" and variations on that by the name of one of the former principals. This editor operates under 131.252.181.49 and 38.100.221.196, and the talk pages for both accounts have been given final warnings, yet the vandalism continues. This has been going on periodically since February 2009. See February 6, 2009,February 7, 2009, February 10, 2009, March 13, 2009, August 1, 2009, August 14, 2009, August 21, 2009 (9 times),August 22, 2009, August 23, 2009, August 31, 2009, and September 11, 2009. At this edit the editor indicates he will continue the BLP violation. Because of the length of time this has gone on and because it involves a living person, I am bringing this issues to this board. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It might not do much good, considering the persistence of the user, but I've semi-protected it for a month. I'll watch it too.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that there seems to be vandalism issues with school many school articles. I often see vandalism which appears to be from pupils (or ex pupils) either bigging themselves up, or adding BLP violations. In my last 500 edits (mostly huggle), I have 9 articles with the word "School" in them, which include allegations of rape[23]. I suspect that few people actively watch school articles, so this vandalism could stay for a long time. Martin451 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Joel Comm

Can I have a more experienced editor's advice on the next step on this bio? Very limited 3rd party sources. Questionable notability, may not pass WP:BLP1E. While several editors have made attempts to remedy it, the article still reads like an advert, questionable under WP:SOAP. Some limited discussion by editors on the article's History page re merits/flaws , no discussion on Talk page. At present I'm considering nominating for AfD. --Whoosit (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup, but writing several apparently notable books makes BLP1E inapplicable. Remember, BLP1E is intended to apply to "low-profile" individuals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be (I'm not certain the books are notable enough to merit the author a Wikipedia entry), but that aside it doesn't change the fact that the page is more or less blatant advertising. Can you point me to precedents for how such advertisers have been dealt with in past? Thanks. --Whoosit (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings

I can see nowhere in 7 July 2005 London bombings where the people listed as "the bombers" have been convicted of a crime. If not, the article must be changed to indicate that the charges are allegations. I noticed that an anon was changing the article on one of the bombers to included "alleged", and nowhere in that article was there mention of a conviction. These things need to be fixed. Since I'm not British and don't really know much about this case, I'll leave it up to British editors to fix this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The bombers (whoever they were) are all dead. So this isn't a BLP issue. Since they apparently blew themselves up in the bombings, there couldn't be any convictions. The principle you cite is generally sound, but breaks down when applied to criminals who die before the legal process is complete, whether their crimes are politically [24] or personally [25] motivated. As those articles (and many others) evidence, the consensus seems to be that a reliable official determination adequately sources the conclusion in such cases, absent any significant non-fringe opposing views. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

M. I wish I could remember the article I was looking at where the anon was adding "alleged". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no doubt whatever as to who perpetrated he bombings. IronDuke 06:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The anon was sanitizing Germaine Lindsay. That article had some sourcing problems, including one significant BLP issue, so I've done some cleanup. It could use more work, best from British users who've got a better idea than I do about what can be sourced and what can't; there's way too much press on this to sort through for a user not familiar enough with the investigation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks, HW. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Lewis

Could someone take a look at the recent round of editing? I don't currently have time to detail all the problems, but I agree that most of what editor FrederickCarltonLewis (talk · contribs) has removed is appropriate per WP:BLP despite any conflict of interest from him. --Ronz (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Carl_Lewis#BLP_concerns.

Discussion on one editor's repeatedly restoring disputed content at WP:ANI#BLP_problems_in_Carl_Lewis. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Brake

• Talk:Mark Brake (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Mark Brake|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are considerable liable issues at Talk:Mark Brake that I belive need addressing. The page has been used to bypass BLP policies and it has been stated that it is currently being used to harrass the article's name sake. I have placed a delete tag on the article's talk page; however, under these circumstances I believe quicker addressing is warrented. This has also been dicussed with the editor's involved. Thanks in advance ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 04:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sue Street

Resolved

Is it appropriate to have a quote from Private Eye in a biography? Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say not, but it seems to be quite common practice, it is usually used as a way to poke fun at a subject.is there any usefulness in adding so called satirical humour to a BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it is a stub and the satirical humour seems as undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also a stub like that small with a controversy section already seems a bit like pushy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. If nothing else, the controversy should appear in other sources as well...Cheers, I'^mperator 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have removed it and added a stub cat. Biscuittin (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Kiran Bedi

Kiran Bedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted a lot of unsourced claims and some claims based on a single opinion column piece ([26]) which was subsequently undone [27] by a new user Abhaverma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Not sure what's to be done in this situation. xedaf (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. ƒ(Δ)² 09:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed some BLP issues. The awards section needs to be sourced, and a general cleanup is required. ƒ(Δ)² 09:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For the time being marking as

Resolved

 – xedaf (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neil Clark (writer)

Hi all,

This article has been the centre of a real-life dispute which has also had an effect on the Wikipedia article. Mr Kamm, whose involvement in the real life issue(s) you can see from the article, contends that the article could possibly be deleted because it lacks third-party reliable sources and is mainly synthesis. I tend to agree with him on this point.

However, this whole editing dispute has dragged me into the real-life issues both through OTRS and private email correspondence, and I don't i) feel as if I'm the best person to be evaluating the issue of reliable sources on this particular article, and ii) feel comfortable nominating it for deletion therein.

If I could get more eyes and opinions on the issue of reliable, third party sourcing, it'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are not enough sources to write a proper bio, and as the article stands, it might be better titled: The opinions of Neil Clark. I have put it up at AfD for opinions as to the notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Clark (writer). Kevin (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief, is this still going on? Time it was stopped, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sally Boazman

I assume the previous article did not need discussion because it was trash. I have written a new article currently in my userspace, User:Miami33139/Sally Traffic with no use of the previous content (which I never saw). The new article is fully sourced (sixteen different reference cites) to several (about ten) independent sources. Sally is very much notable. If someone can take the article from my userspace and move it to Sally Boazman, that'd be great. Thanks! Miami33139 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:Black Kite is your first stop. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I had already asked Black Kite, and he already responded that I should bring the suggestion here. Miami33139 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Campeau

Robert Campeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Anonymous users (all of whom seem to be based in Austria) are continually inserting the same unsourced and potentially libelous material into this article. Comments? // Dhodges (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• My first comment, after removing the rest of the material that is grossly negative on its face, is that you hadn't caught all of it. ☺ The content linked to source #2, but there's no such information in that source that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• My second comment is that I've just looked at the IP addresses and figured this out. See the talk page for more. Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Otis Moss III

Otis Moss III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article on a pastor which was originally written during the 2008 U.S. presidential election in poor form. I rewrote it during the AFD and got it into much better form. I've been the primary editor of the article, perhaps too close to a gatekeeper, since.

Today, a new user Day1DotOrg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a (spam?) link to a profile at a Christian media ministry, Day1.org. All of this user's links relate to such profiles. Rev. Moss has indeed hosted some video productions for them. I searched[28] and find zero independent reliable sources discussing his work for this organization. I figure their site is reliable enough to source the claim that he has hosted these segments ... but I want other editors input on whether it merits mention since it doesn't seem to have been noticed by any independent sources. GRBerry 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly spam. Look at Day1's contribs. Additionally, he's been blocked for spamming links. ƒ(Δ)² 09:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tinsel Korey

• Tinsel Korey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Came across this article, and it looks like this article is in the middle of a huge edit war on BLP issues (with a couple anon editors and single-purpose editors). Issue seems mostly about the person's background (i.e. is she of Canadian aboriginal descent as claimed by her official website, or is she lying to get more roles as claimed by blogs and people on the internet who claim to know her. This has resulted in a war between three different versions: 1) Korey's official position, 2) the counter-position, and 3) just leaving it all out. Work may be needed in shutting down the edit war and making sure the article complies with WP:BLP // Singularity42 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Weronika Bloczynska

Weronika Bloczynska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unsourced, a horrible punctuation in the "Tennis Career at UTEP" section, the author has a track record of spamming the entry of another Polish tennis player. // 193.43.241.16 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Terry Norman

Found in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from November 2006. This is a biography that deals entirely with this person's relationship, or non-relationship, to one event: the Kent State shootings. The attention paid to sourcing on the talk page is on the level of "Terry Norman admitted it to me personally" and "talk to this person, he will tell you". Is there anything rescuable here? I'm tempted to just zap the thing and start again with a sourced stub. Should this, indeed, even be a biography at all, or just a redirect? Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not certain he merits a biographic article. WP:BLP1E could well apply. The Cleveland Free Times article doesn't have substantial biographic coverage The Tampa Bay Online page linked on the article page is now available from the internet acrhive[29]. It is marginal as a biographic source. I didn't find in Google Books the 1975 edition of the book listed in the article references, but I did find a 1995 edition of book online, with three relevant pages, but they also don't constitute biographic coverage.[30].

  Reading this article, it doesn't read like a biography - it reads like a discussion of his role in a single event. Everything other than the event is covered only in the last paragraph, which doesn't appear particularly balanced. Given the lack of substantial biographic coverage, I recommend following the guidance in WP:BLP1E.

  Norman is already discussed some near the end of Kent State shootings#Long-term effects. I see no significant discussion of the coverage of Norman on the Talk page of that article - and I note that I am far less impressed by the TBO article than Badagnani was. (I just can't call the author's imagination ("I imagined the Normans had ...") a reliable source. Portions of it look more reliable, but it also has a rambly style more like those of personal notes about what the reporter was doing while researching than the results of said research.) The author of the TBO piece praises the book source in question, and the book devotes about 1% of its content to Norman. This suggests that balanced coverage in Kent State shootings would be about 1% of that article - that isn't going to be a lot of space. GRBerry 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Would we lose anything by simply redirecting, then, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think we would lose anything. I think more sources can be found to substantiate Norman's involvement with the events of May 4, but that doesn't mean the subject passes BLP1E. In fact, I think the article at Kent State shootings could gain by merging this article into it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd say a smerge would be appropriate. I think the paragraph about Norman currently in Kent State shootings#Long-term effects is in the wrong place, so I'd delete it and put a 2-3 sentence paragraph based primarily on the book source I linked above up into Kent State shootings#Monday, May 4. I think that saying more than that would be putting undue weight on Norman. GRBerry 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon Trott

Lyndon Trott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the Chief Minister of Guernsey. Call from the local newspaper, the Guernsey Press, asking about "defamatory edits". The edits are just abusive rubbish and were removed by an IP today, but if people could just watchlist this one that would be good - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellis Lankster

• Ellis Lankster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)—Frequent additions of a link to an entry on failblog.org whose sole purpose is to embarrass Lankster; there is no coverage of the issue in question in mainstream media and I think it's pretty clearly in violation of WP:BLP. I am nearing 3RR and would request assistance and more eyes on this article. I semi-protected the article earlier, but probably full protection is overkill (in any case I certainly won't do it since I'm obviously an "involved admin"). Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism, or WP:BLP violations. When you revert an addition like this, you should warn the user not to re add that material. Martin451 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thank you for doing so. Chick Bowen 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

SouthFM

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

Resolved

 – Martin451 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the right-hand sidebar of this article, under the heading "Former Members", the name "Doug McGrath" should not link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_McGrath. The linked person is not the same Doug McGrath who was in the band SouthFM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishdeluxe (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Solomon and the non-profit Green Beanery organisation

Resolved

I am struggling against a number of editors at Lawrence Solomon's biography again who this time apparently wish to present Solomon's non-profit organisation "Green Beanery" here as Solomon's "business interest" or "retail business." There is no evidence presented by the group of editors (William M. Connolley, Vsmith et al.) that Solomon is making profit, but that the profit and the only evidence available suggests the profit is going to fund the NGO he founded, Energy Probe. I had presented a neutral subject heading simply stating "Green Beanery" and it is being edit-warred to change it to a version insinuating a profit business. Some assistance from uninvolved editors would be kindly appreciated. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring? I made the section title "retail business" as the website advertized retail prices. I didn't say anything about "profits" - if the business puts its profits into a non-profit org. that is fine, but needs WP:RS sources to back it. The "reference link" I removed was a commercial page selling their stuff. I have doubts about the notability of the "Green Beanery" especially w/out reliable independent sources. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "edit-warring" was a heat of the moment overstatement; the reality is that the heading has changed a number of times, but there wasn't edit-warring actually happening. I have reluctantly accepted Boris's compromise wording so I'll mark this issue resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

In the Influence section, Someone added a vague footnote, a musician claiming that Johnny Ramone got his strumming technique from playing "Communication Breakdown", which appears to be vague possible speculation... Considering he specifically stated he did not want to play like guitarists like Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page, though he considered Page an inspiration...

Furthermore theres a claim with a vague footnote/ poorly cited reference, claiming that Johnny HIMSELF actually claimed he directly got the technique from him, which was vaguely added after someone told me on my talk that he read about it on Amazon.com or something like that, yet he didn't fully fill out the reference or get back and clarify whether he directly stated that's where he got the technique from, or whether Ramone just considered Page inspiring... I have tried to make an ammendment to also state that Ramone on occasion denied he wanted to play like Page, and further remove the poorly cited footnote, but people keep removing the ammendment and adding the claim back in... Despite people already agreeing an ammendment could be added (on the discussion section)

I was wondering if I could get someone to help me with either the following:

A) Adding a legitmate ammendment to what appears to be vague speculation from someone that knew Johnny Ramone, noting he aspired to play like the Stooges/Mc5 (without it getting removed)

B) The removal or proper clarifcation of the actual source on what someone vaguely claimed what Ramone stated, despite using a vague footnote... (without it getting reinstated)

The claim seems very taboo, and a higher authority could be useful in sorting this out...

I am new to this Wikipedia editing and just trying to make the biography more accurate, etc... not overstating anything... --DavisHawkens (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue on the talk page over the video citation was that it was not formatted correctly. I have remedied this with the proper cite-video template. Reading through the discussion the main point of contention is that it is a simple statement about one musician's artistic influence over another musician. There are 2 or 3 brief sentences about this all with references taken fropm reliable sources. What the consensus of discussion is trying to avoid is stating a long list of contradictory possibilities because A) they don't really disprove the original statement and B) all the added content is fine details about someone other than the subject of the article, Jimmy Page. It has been pointed out on the talk page that this detailed content may be a good addition to the article about Johnny Ramone. But in the Jimmy Page article it is just non-subject overkill... which it certainly is. It is not a pressing BLP issue as the entire issue... only sentences in the article... deal with a non-controversial subject. Hope that helps.

No, I actually wanted the Ramone being influenced by Page in there, and that he was inspired I actually added it to a point, but the vagueness of the Ramones- The True story footnote was not clarified whether he directly stated it, and thats what i thought was questionable, because i asked whether he directly stated it or not, and whether thats were he got it... There are numerous quotes that state his playing style was due to The Stooges, Mc5, and that he didn't want to play like the likes of Page, Jeff Beck, and I think that should be added to the article... That his technique was inspired because he couldn't play like him and didn't wanted to... Like a Response of sorts..thats what i added... This article is claiming that the downward Punk strum technique came from Johnny trying to play like Page... You see theres contradictory information that states otherwise, And I wanted that clarified for sure before that was given the full go ahead,.. But this article states directly that it came from Page... but I wanted that clarified that Ramone stated that... Thats a taboo thing to put in, and i wanted full clarification... or an ammendment stating it was because he didn;t want and couldn't play like the likes of Page... Ths sources that I listed above also state his playing was a backlash of sorts to this playing as Johnny thought the late sixties was to into solos and technicality.... You see whats presented is only one side of the story... when theres clearly more than meets whats already listed... An ammendment of sorts is still in order and the reliability of some of the sources on Page's wiki are a little questionable...--DavisHawkens (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)--DavisHawkens (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland

An edit war erupted on this article, when a new editor, claiming to represent an individual cited in the article, wanted to have their name redacted. The quote is cited to a reliable source, Dagens Nyheter, who also names the individual. See also the discussion on Talk:Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland. Now, according to BLP: "Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals ... There is a presumption against using [such], even if the names have already appeared in the media". Since using the name itself adds little to the article, I am inclined to make a presumption in favor of privacy. This is of course, assuming that the editor verifies their identity. By now, I have little reason to doubt that they represent the individual in question. decltype (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave's Farm

There are problems with this article. It seems that there is considerable online discussion around the notion that one David Rock, who presents a YouTube channel called Dave's Farm, is a convicted child sex offender. There are uploaded court and other documents that seem to validate these claims. I have reverted changes to the article, but don't have time to do a proper investigation or figure out how the issue should be resolved. I suspect, however, that the best idea may simply be deleting it on the basis of lack of notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Flood (N.B.: WP:DOLT)

Not sure where to bring this, but when I went to WP:ANI it directed me here. I am bringing this to attention because I am not sure what the best way of approaching this is.

The Anon IP seeking to revert the consensus text Special:Contributions/203.39.47.146 claims to be the subject of the BLP, and I invited him to assist me in improving the article. I first became involved in editing the article as a neutral editor when there was deadlock over how one controversy should be best covered neutrally. Talk:Michael Flood#Blatant misrepresentation I resolved the edit by accurately reporting what was stated in WP:RS, and the dispute over the entry ceased.

User:Michael G. Flood deleted some of the material from the consesus edit of this BLP at end of July: [31] Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 restored it on 11th Sept: [32] User:IronAngelAlice reverted consensus version back to Flood's version on 12th Sept: [33] Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 restored it on 12th Sept: [34]

The Anon IP Special:Contributions/121.222.114.232 brought the situation to my attention on my talk page on 11th & 12th Sept., and I sought to discuss this on the article talk page. The individual seeks to have the section removed as being undue and because it makes him look stupid (it hinges on an error in a paper he published): Talk:Michael Flood#Partial and biased representation. Having invited him to help ensure the article is accurate and covers other aspects of his work, he has said he is happy to do so, but that he is seeking legal advice. I am seeing this as possibly breaching at least three policies: WP:AGF (against me personally), WP:NLT, and thereby WP:CIVIL. At the same time, I am concerned not to overlook WP:DOLT.

The page was edited in a way that it deflected attempts at turning into an attack page, and retained material in WP:RS that was notable about him. Problem is, from the other side of the world, in figuring out if he is notable enough to warrant a BLP. My preference would be for his biography to be deleted, as he doesn't seem that notable, but that could result in somebody re-creating it as an attack page again. The reason for detailing the events around the contested section was to ensure it was reported accurately, not to make him look stupid, because the text before gave a non-neutral slant that was not WP:NPOV. The view on this edit needs to balanced by his having a COI in an article about him, and some people simply not liking him because of his views. Mish (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Pending feedback on this matter, I have removed the contested material, as per BLP policy/guidelines. Mish (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As I don't seem to be getting any feedback here, and it needs to be attended to, I am taking this to WP:ANI for feedback. Mish (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on this on the talkpage; some other opinions re an undue weight issue would be welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

James Everett Seaton

Can someone help me with this error. I have edited the page a few times (sometimes drasticly different) to fix the below problems that wikipedia is describing. Please inform on what type of changes should be made so that that wiki doesn't have problems with the page. I have made bio pages like this before and have had no problems. Please Help.

This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2009) Ambox style.png

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbaldori (talk • contribs)

• I have moved it to your userspace as User:Sbaldori/James Everett Seaton. The problems are that it reads as an original essay and not as a biography. Our standards on biographies of living individuals are high and we required reliable, independent sources that are about the subject rather than just mentioning him. We also have a guideline on academic notability. Notability in this sense does not mean a person's individual worth, it's a measure of whether there are enough independent biographical sources to support an article within our policies. Wikipedia should not be the first place to have a biography of someone. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On a quick read it looks like the subject meets the guidelines in WP:PROF. The big problems are style, formatting and sources. I would be more than happy to assist the draft's creator with the first two, if thy can work on sources. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Sinz

• Ricky Sinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to have all sorts of problems with regard to the sourcing of information. The sources concerned are this, this and [35] this) (latter two are NSFW). I am unsure as to whether the information there is just fiction or originally sourced from the Wikipedia article and then used as a circular reference. The contentious claims that I am unable to independently verify are as follows:

• That he is a former US Special Forces soldier with 28 confirmed kills
• That he is a former Golden Gloves boxer
• That he is a MMA fighter with 87 wins, 6 draws and 0 losses
• That his website had "1 million customers per day logging onto his sites and 2 to 4 million guest per day" making a net profit of 27.9 million dollars in 2008

There are many more dubious claims also, but those are the major ones. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dire - I'd stub it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Eunice Sanborn

Borderline notable individual whose page referenced only by a blog called "The Old Coot" and another Wikipedia page. Isn't this BLP problem? 68.42.72.166 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone tried to go AfD on it, but messed it up. I re-listed it for deletion. I'm guessing it'll get denied, since being one of the oldest people alive could be argued as notable, but a reliable source needs to be found. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's destined for a speedy keep now that it has a reference. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernie Anastos

Ernie Anastos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Take a look at what's brewing here. Edit wars, trivia, etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected which will at least keep the IP editors at bay. – ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation)

I have concerns that this organization is using the names of influential persons without their knowledge to promote their organization. There are editors that are trying to insert those names into this article, e.g.this diff.

The first paragraph added in that diff relates to Rajendra Pachauri. According to the references, Pachauri supports reducing the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350ppm. This organization has spun that to mean that he supports this organization because they too support reducing CO2 concentrations to 350ppm. I removed this on BLP concerns here. Although it was re-added quickly, it only changed that Pachauri does not support the organization, but the organizations goals. I still have problems with that, as it appears that he still knows about the organization and has consciously decided to support the goals instead of supporting that number for any number of other more likely reasons.

The second paragraph contains a list of individuals who may or may not support this organization. The sources to support this range from a blog, a non-notable, non-reliable magazine, and from where it was plagiarized, which is based solely on an interview with the groups founder. These names come from their list of messengers, and it's uncertain that these people know they are on this list. For instance, the quote attributed to James Hansen is actually from a paper he wrote which in no way supports this organization.

I'd appreciate the thoughts of this board. -Atmoz (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again, wikipedia's denier-cabal hard at work trying to reverse progress. I hardly think Bill McKibben would dare have these peoples' faces and words on the 350.org website unless they had given support. This complaint by Atmoz is simply rubbish, as is his attempt to have the page downgrade-merged into McKibben's page. ► RATEL ◄ 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Trilateral Commission

I just found someone adding Hillary Clinton's name -- not only is her name already in the article as a member, it isn't sourced and I can't find a source saying she is a member (I did find one saying she isn't). It's my opinion that all the names in the article should be reliably sourced within the article (i.e it isn't good enough if the subject's article has a source for it). What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that any claims of membership should be sourced in the Trilateral Commission article itself, due to the negative connotation that the organization has among some people. Of course it would be reasonable to check the article of any person named to see if Commission membership might be mentioned there with an appropriate source, and if so port that source over to the Commission article. If membership is claimed in the person's WP article but with no reliable source, then the claim should probably be removed from both articles until/unless a reliable source can be found. --RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Joe Buckovich - BLP or hoax?

Resolved

 – Article speedily deleted as hoax.

• Johnny Joe Buckovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor claims this is a BLP but if so, article is completely unreferenced. I suspect a hoax, as the article's subject has zero google hits except self-references to the Wiki article. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• • "His main rivals were Rick Smeltzer and Borg Warner" gives a clue to the clueful (see BorgWarner). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A hoax and not funny. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc Nelson

The article on Marc Nelson is once again the target of vandalism. MStoke (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

hosting fair use supporting quotes on external web site?

The comedian Greg Fitzsimmons made some noteworthy remarks on the Howard Stern Show about a practice he engages in that lots of people support and a lot of people object to. His views stopped the comedy and turned the show into a quite serious discussion. I added that to the page, but an editor just deletes all my additions without discussion, saying I'm a sock puppet. So I set up an external web site to host five fair use audio clips totalling to less than two minutes of the 4-hour show. The clips provide reference for everything in quotation marks I added to the page. Another editor removed this out of copyright concerns, but I'm unclear as to why because I studied the fair use issue and my hosting short supporting excerpts doesn't violate copyright. And I'm not having wikipedia host the fair use material. Also, I saw wikimedia commons doesn't host fair use material, so that's why I went to a place that would. The second editor said something about "spam" but I don't get that because the external site is not being promoted in any way. It's just a convenient repository. ChildrenDeserveBetter (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I found a few issues with the links in question: 1) Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people urges extra caution with content being from WP:RS regarding biographical material, and Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people states that external links on such biographies must be of high quality and be judged by a higher standard than for other articles. An IP hosted website on a personal user account does not meet that test. 2) Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media suggests you should try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser, such as a sound file. It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML, on a WP:RS that contains embedded links to the rich media. 3) Wikipedia:YT#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites also suggests strong caution when dealing with copyrighted rich media links. Going forward I would suggest you raise these issues on the article's talk page and allow others to give their opinions on it as well and then when a consensus is reached about the inclusion or exclusion of the material the article can be edited as appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Barnes

This article has been taken over by a criticism section, cited primarily to partisan newspaper sources. As a rugby referee myself I don't consider myself neutral enough to revise it, but there is a major lack of balance. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved, know nothing about rugby, and have looked at this and agree with Stifle's concerns. I have removed the controversy section altogether. I feel the whole thing is blown way out of proportion and that it's failing WP:NOT#NEWS. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Skornsteen

Would somebody review Skornsteen with an eye towards musician notability? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and repaired the one link to myspace and removed the dodgy stuff and had a look on the internet, nothing there, so I stuck a prod on it for no notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley

Edits to this article routinely result in arguments, most recently between the subject of the article, a personal friend of the subject, and another editor.

Two years ago, I chastised the subject over PoV edits made via anonymous IP.[36] I have similarly chastised the subject's friend JoyDiamond for PoV edits, educating her on WP:COI and providing links to Wikipedia policies.[37]

The third editor, Kelly A. Siebecke (aka SkagitRiverQueen) seems often to engage in edit wars with the aforementioned JoyDiamond, and the two of them routinely lob accusations of harassment and bias against one another, to a degree where editing this article has become disruptive.

A few days ago, the subject again returned to edit content. Again, accusations are being tossed about, with arguments spilling over to the article's talk page[38], Joy's talk page[39], Kelly's talk page[40], and my talk page[41] (including bickering on my page between Joy and Kelly).

I am at my wit's end in dealing with this, and am seeking some solution to this problem. -FeralDruid (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This most recent spate of bickering and edit wars has escalated the point where I've requested temporary full protection of the page. The aforementioned editors Kelly and Joy continue reverting one another's edits, and continue lobbing threats and accusations of bias against one another. -FeralDruid (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A three-day lock has been applied to this page, but I would still like some intervention to deal with future edits to this article. I have grown so tired of the endless bickering, that I'm dropping it from my watch list. -FeralDruid (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, FeralDruid has not been looking objectively at what has actually been happening here. My hope is that whomever takes this on for dispute resolution will look at all sides of the issue. Most especially the fact that (after being caught and told to cease editing the page of which he is the subject) Karel has continued to make his own edits and/or has dictated edits through one of his fans and chat room moderators, JoyDiamond. In so doing, Karel has tried to sanitize the article from anything he sees as uncomplimentary - no matter if it is referenced fact. This is the crux of the matter for me. Additionally, I'm not exactly sure why FeralDruid has taken it upon himself to act as moderator or administrator of this article to begin with. Other being on the anti-vandalism crew, is FeralDruid in some sort of administrative position in Wikipedia that I am unaware of? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO FeralDruid has been consistently fair and objective even when chastising me. He has been an invaluable source of Wiki education and assistance. I sincerely regret he will not be watching and continuing his much welcomed aid. It is a great loss but I cannot blame him in any way. My apologies for his distress. I know that whomever facilitates this dispute resolution will be equally as objective and fair. Wiki Standards need to be maintained and I look forward to participating in this resolution. The block should probably extended indefinitely until resolution process is completed. Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson , Politician

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Prendergast

John Prendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs the attention of a senior editor, due to potential WP:COI. The subject is notable: the charismatic & controversial leader of the Save Darfur Coalition. However, the article suffers from serious issues with WP: LINKSPAM. The article is created and maintained by a single editor, raising concern over NPOV. I have twice placed {Cleanup-spam} and {subst:NoMoreLinks} tags and they have twice been reverted immediately. I can't take further action, since I have some philosophical differences with the subject and feel I would be in COI myself. Feel free to contact me for background info/opinions, though, if you feel it would be useful. --Whoosit (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the notice you posted on the external links noticeboard, I reviewed the (very excessive) external links and made a lot of cuts. However, the article is still severely lacking for reliable sources and inline citations. There is also no sign of any critical perspectives on the subject, which I would expect to exist for a notable political activist. --RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt & thorough response to my request. The article is much more readable now. Editors can focus on critical perspective, as you say. I'll continue to monitor the page but contribute only to the talk page in order to remain arm's length away. --Whoosit (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Matt Drudge

Two different editors have objected to an external link to media matters that is titled with some very provocative accusations. Another editor has restored it three times now. There is discussion on the talk page. Additional input would be helpful.

I also have a question about the "Gay Allegations" section. This seems borderline inappropriate and is chock full of innuendo and he said she said. I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of outing people, but I have no objection to mentioning the relevant incidents and that he's been accsued of being gay. My issue is that the extent of the section seems to verge on the absurd. For example, do these bits add anything significant to an encyclopedic article: "Seymour, who was in the closet at the time, says that Drudge told him "Of course you can" when Seymour said he couldn't imagine kissing another man."? Apart from being inappropriate for an encyclopedia, it seems to be trying to be make it seem like he and Drudge were the ones kissing, but that's not how I read the full quote which is from someone who was in the closet at the time: "For the most part, we didn't discuss a lot of personal stuff, but one time when we were talking about gay people, I told Matthew that I couldn't imagine kissing another guy. He looked me in the eyes and said, "Of course you can," recognizing something in me that I wasn't ready to acknowledge." ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is ideologically partisan and I find it hard to think of a situation where a link to it would belong in any BLP (except perhaps the BLP of someone who writes for it). The paragraph about Seymour also doesn't belong, because it says nothing significant about the subject. It's in a section called "Gay allegations", but it makes no such allegation. It seems more like Seymour name-dropping about his friendship with a famous person. --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between external links and sources. The media matters article is not suitable for an external link because it is neither the subject's official homepage, nor dry data, nor an archive of the subject's work. The same is true of some of the other external links, and I have been bold and removed all the ones that seem unsuitable. Media Matters' use as a source is another matter entirely. That it has an agenda is one thing. Whether or not it has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability is entirely another. The Economist is tremendously partisan at times, but is an RS source for factual information. As for its opinions, the issue is a case of how much weight should be given to media matters' analysis - which I suggest is not that much.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Declan Ganley

Different editors keep on changing this person's nationality back and forth between Irish and British. I'm not sure which is correct but if someone could take a look it would be useful. Smartse (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the nationality description to "British-born Irish" per the sources and self-identification of Gunley. However, this article has the look of one of those perennial nationality debates. Gabbe (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

This persons real name (Steven Haworth) has not been allowed in the article. The original issue started in 2006. webmistress of his website complained that he didn't want his real name in the article and filed a OTSR report to have the name removed, the results mess had dozens of edits on the page and talkpage removed and the article protected. The explanation was that his real name was not public knowledge and that Wikipedia was being uses to break his name as a newstory (the problem is that is name was public record, he used it when he trademarked his ringname with the USPTO). McGuinness has recently signed a contract with the biggest wrestling company in the world (World Wrestling Entertainment) and in making the announcement several reliable news sites printed his real name (like [43]). With his real name now being used by reliable independent site and him being employed by a large, publically traded company, can his real name now be used in the article? Contacting the original admin who did this is not an option since they have not edited since June 2008. TJ Spyke 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If his real name is being stated in reliable news sources, then in my opinion it is fair game for the article, and in fact ought to be placed in the article's lead per MOS:BIO. It's not even negative or controversial information. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my view too. – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

James Florence

Article does not meet requirements for notability. Recently has been updated with multiple details that are neither newsworthy nor able to be verified. Should be deleted?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Histbuff10 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 22 September 2009

WP:CSDed as a WP:Copyvio Martin451 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Sieradski

• Daniel Sieradski (AfD discussion)
• Mobius1ski (talk · contribs) — self-identified article subject

There's a conflict-of-interest/BLP problem brewing here. The dramatis personae are Mobius1ski and a whole load of single-purpose accounts (which Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Getitrightfolks has not found to be sockpuppets). In the mix so far are off-wiki requests by Siederadski to the world at large to "chime in" about the deletion of the article and claims that Adamhyman (talk · contribs) is bringing an external conflict with the subject to Wikipedia. Needless to say, the talk page discussion is not the best. Some of the SPAs in the the AFD discussion are, surprisingly, arguing the issue of sourcing, however. Attention from non-single-purpose, experienced, editors would be a good thing, though, nonetheless, if only to ensure that that focus is retained. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look, there is a real problem going on.

• We have Daniel Sieradski aka Mobius1ski (talk · contribs) apparently canvassing off-wiki to help him keep his article (a) undeleted and (b) free of negative information
• Getitrightfolks (talk · contribs) and Wrongtired18 (talk · contribs) at first blush appear to be genuinely attempting to keep the page in line with policy (not always in the most civil of ways). Yet they are both SPAs, and clearly in opposition to Siederaski.
• Adamhyman (talk · contribs) has only made one contribution - a vote to delete in the AfD. Mobius1sk/Siederaski says this is part of an off-wiki dispute.

The article itself does not have the best of sourcing (both in sources and faulty links), and the subject appears marginally notable. I agree that experienced editors need to come to the page and sort it out. An admin also really needs to have a word with Mobius1ski about COI.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

John Bortolotti

I initially tagged this for references and promotional content; the original author reverted the templates and was blocked for conflict of interest. A (brand new) contributor took over almost immediately and made changes, but I think a lot of the recently added sources are not acceptable (Youtube, blogs, Myspace, primary sources), and whole passages are still peacock-like and unencyclopedic. The templates are gone again, and rather than edit war, I'd appreciate new parties taking a look. Thanks in advance. JNW (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this in the next 24 hours, if no one else does. I'm on my way out right now. ƒ(Δ)² 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

In the bio article about Richard Stallman there is content put by some editor that does not respect NPOV and WP:BLP policies. In the section about the relationship between Stallman and the GNU project there is a paragraph that attacks Stallman's character. Stating that he is a difficult person to work with the authors of this edit add a link to a developer named Drepper who posted a very nasty and unprofessional E-mail over 8 years ago!! Drepper just vented his personal differences with Stallman that says a lot more about Drepper's character than anything else. The fact that someone like Stallman may have had professional differences with a handful of people at work during his career does not justify putting this kind of content that clearly violates NPOV policies. I deleted the corresponding non-compliant paragraph but user:Skomorokh is repeatedly restoring it. Could an administrator take measures to correct this situation please? --Grandscribe (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input from experienced uninvolved editors. This sort of editing is absolutely out of bounds.  Skomorokh  08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's utterly out of bounds. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen.Thank you for your attention. I read your message. Then you see that the section paragraph about Stallman "being difficult to work with" has a problem. So please help to make it comply with NPOV policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just trimmed that paragraph down further, following Gwen Gale's good edit. I dropped the Drepper ref because IMO it's not relevant enough; I dropped the ref to the Raymond article because it's not about Stallman himself, only about free-software vs open-source-software.

As someone who has seen all-too-many controversies about Stallman over more years than I care to think about and is not one of his biggest fans, I think that mentioning the Emacs fork and quoting Salon.com on "uncompromising stubbornness" is exactly the right amount of coverage of the difficult-to-work-with claims. CWC 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks for doing the corrections and improving the page's compliance and overall quality.--Grandscribe (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain

Robert Stacy McCain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Re-insertion of content I removed on BLP/NPOV grounds. Could someone please check my edits and talk-page comments for mistakes, then join in the discussion(s) on the talk page. // CWC 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

André Bauer

Some issues at André Bauer over inclusion of this para on claims that Bauer is gay. Input please. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. ƒ(Δ)² 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

john Drewe biography

The John Drewe bio page is filled with errors and should be removed. There's a good book about his fraud that's not referenced. "Provenance" by Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo

Brain Boitano

Somebody put an unsourced statement that he came out as being gay, I think it's iffy at best

Already removed. decltype (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in the future, do not hesitate to remove unsourced contentious information about living persons yourself. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

The person is being described in the lead as a "website operator", while other terms, such as "author", have been deleted.  Cs32en  18:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Heydon Prowse

Subject of long-term edit warring, possible vandalism. JNW (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)