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.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Marietta, Georgia

Marietta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

Audley Harrison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Slick move. Wait half an hour after an editor is blocked and then close the book. There is no concensus not to use the common nicknames - plural, yes plural, in the article. If its sourced in goes in.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Over at WP:FOOTY we don't use nicknames in the infobox; our argument was that if they are properly referenced, they should go in the article prose. GiantSnowman 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There isnt really the same culture of nickname in football as there is in boxing though is there?--Vintagekits (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not being a boxing fan, I wouldn't know. But as far as WP:FOOTY is concerned, the straw that broke the camel's back was Peter Schmiechel, his infobox had God-knows-how-many nicknames! GiantSnowman 02:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well being a sports fan I am sure you have heard of boxers being referred to by their nicknames. Its central to their marketing - much like with football clubs, which I notice do have multiple nicknames in their infoboxes e.g. Celtic F.C..--Vintagekits (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames for football clubs are restricted to official ones, or those in wide media use. Unofficial fan ones have no place on Wikipedia, and I would say the same goes for boxers! Surely if a nickname is properly referenced from a decent source, then it should remain...GiantSnowman 14:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesnt appear to be the case with Celtic F.C. or Leicester City, Fulham, West Ham, Manchester City or Leeds - and they are just the first few I checked.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Celtic's nicknames are "The Bhoys , The Hoops, The Celts"; the first is official, the second two are used in media reports by reputable news sources. I don't see an issue to be honest. Anyway, this has nothing to do with Mr Harrison! :) GiantSnowman 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We should eliminate 'nicknames' from the infoboxes of Boxer bios. However (of course) allow their usage in the content. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a shame - nicknames are one of the most recognisable things about a boxer and its would be a shame to lose it because of Audley Harrisons managers wish to only portray him in glowing terms - despite what the rest of the world thinks.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it stinks. But, it's the best we can do. Atleast his boxing record can't be hidden. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what - I'll start removing secondary nicknames now from boxers bios and let see what happens. It will be chaos--Vintagekits (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Recommend proposing that at WP:BOXING first, though. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I opened a discussion their last week and still yet to have a bite.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, if ya do go forward with this & your changes get reverted, immediately go back to WP:BOXING 'or' the respective Boxing bios talkpages, OK? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Garth Paltridge

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since you are the only editor dissenting with my compromise edit, it's resolved in my favor. ► RATEL ◄ 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Garlasco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His work during the Georgia/South Ossetian conflict was picked up by NPR, The Guardian, NEWS.com.au, The Chicago Tribune, etc. And I completely agree that "we should try to replace it with better sources". I'd invited you to work on the article some. But in this specific case, an inappropriate source is an inappropriate source.--69.208.137.88 (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The ottowa citizen seems to be the only source for some of its claims (which smack somewhat of opinion). So if we cannot find other sources for its claims what shouod we do?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Garth Paltridge take 3

Resolved

Ratel has returned to the Paltridge page apparently still pushing for the same BLP violations that were resolved earlier. It seems to me that there was support from at least five other editors from the previous BLP/N incidents raised that a figure of speech used once in passing by Paltridge ("with a bit of luck the consensus on climate change will be shown to be wrong" or something to that effect) cannot be used to imply that Paltridge's view of climate changte is that "humanity should trust in luck" or that Paltridge is some kind believer in "luck." Ratel is now adding this material to the lead, despite an agreement on talk that a one sentence oversimplification of Paltridge's view of climate change is not required in the lead. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ALex Harvey needs his knuckles rapped for bringing content disputes to the BLP noticeboard without attempting to find consensus and without RfCing the issue. His new modus operandi is to come here at the drop of a hat on any issue at all, such as the current one, in which I inserted the lede summary sentence "Paltridge believes that while athropogenic global warming is real, with luck the warming will probably be too small to be a threat" based on the content of this article written by the subject summarising his views. Amongst his views are that he believes, and I quote, "In 50 or a 100 years the forecasts of doom will have been tested and, with any luck, proved wrong." Clearly, Paltridge thinks luck is a factor and further reading of that article shows that he prefers us to trust in luck than take any action. The sentence I inserted is therefore accurate and cannot be construed as a BLP violation by the wildest stretch of the imagination. I hope some admin will indicate to Harvey that running here like a tattle-tale every time an edit is made with which he disagrees is not how WP works. ► RATEL ◄ 11:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong but it appears that this issue was resolved here, just a few days ago. The admin Arthur Rubin agreed that these were all BLP violations. A number of other editors looked at them too and there was no contrary opinions expressed. You then threatened Arthur Rubin with an RFAR and now you're back reinserting essentially the same material into the article but this time into the lead -- and of course without making any attempt at building any support for your position. I have no doubt that you genuinely believe that the material belongs there, but how am I to work with you if you have no regard for consensus? At my talk page you've told me you don't have time for it. In the Paltridge talk page you've threatened me with "total opposition" to everything I do unless I just give in. I hope others can help to resolve both these behavioural issues and the BLP issues. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're getting confused again. This is not a BLP issue and it was not discussed. I have never said I have "no time for consensus", so that's an out-and-out lie. I said I would totally oppose what you're trying to do when you showed absolute disregard for consensus by asking a question about the content in a false show of consensus-seeking before deleting the said content without waiting for a response a few hours later. It's that sort of thing I totally oppose. So I think you need to look at behavioural issues and stop abusing this noticeboard with non-BLP issues to suit your POV. ► RATEL ◄ 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The problematic text has now been removed; marking this issue as resolved. Thanks to the editors who stepped in to help. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Watts (blogger)

Resolved

We have a group of editors (User:William M. Connolley et al.) over at Anthony Watts' biography inserting insinuations into the text that are not supported by the sources that are linked. I have tried to remove them but my edits are reverted, as usual, contrary to the policy. In this case we have a fairly unambiguous and gratuitous violation of the policy. See here and here.

The text that is being inserted is (with my emphasis added):

The purpose of SurfaceStations.org is to document and photgraph, not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature [1].

Now it is pretty clear that the source doesn't say anything at all about the purpose of SurfaceStations.org being not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature (aside, most people would know that Watts does intend to publish). These editors seem to have committed the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, that is they are forgetting the possibility that Watts does in fact intend to publish, but just hasn't mentioned it in this page. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AH is once again trying to settle editing disputes by usnig BLP as a hammer against people he perceives as his "opponents". AH also needs to stop flinging improper accusations of vandalism [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, on vandalism, I have lost my temper this evening; sorry. I am not trying to use BLP as a "hammer"; as it happens my interest is in defending the biographies of living people because I feel that someone has to do it.

Meanwhile I can't see you actually disagreeing that the material you text you have included is unverifiable and thus a BLP violation. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a BLP issue. Verbal chat 11:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you have presented yourself here as though you are an uninvolved editor -- are you? Also are you saying that this page here supports the proposition that "the purpose of surfacestations.org is not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature"? But of course, if the purpose was not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature it would follow that the purpose must be something else, e.g. just to cause trouble. Therefore, the text is factually wrong, it is unverifiable, and it is pejorative. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this issue, I don't see why a factual description is pejorative, and yes it is supported by the reference. Verbal chat 11:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so show me where abouts on this page it says that Watts doesn't intend to publish. Quote it for me please, because I believe that it simply doesn't say that. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't include that in the list of goals or purposes. Also, the suggestion that "the purpose must be something else, e.g. just to cause trouble" is a poor straw man. The article doesn't say that and no one has proposed that. Verbal chat 12:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that you think not asserting a proposition P is the same as asserting not-P? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you're saying? Please stop trying to reinterpret other peoples words, you've shown you're not very good at it. Two straw men, in such a short thread. Verbal chat 12:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this remark, but I believe the point is made pretty clearly above. The source clearly doesn't support the text, unless you accept a logical fallacy. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, except these are all obviously BLP issues. I understand you have a Ph.D in first order logic. So you would be an expert here. Is not asserting P the same as asserting not-P ? Is not saying that you intend to publish the same as saying that you do not intend to publish, as Verbal has just said? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, that's shockingly close to the subject of my PhD. It was actually higher order logic that I mentioned in my thesis. Well done. "Wolf!", funny :). Verbal chat 13:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It would be appreciated if a genuinely uninvolved editor were to look at this issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you would include me as such, but how is the disputed statement a BLP issue? It purports to be about the website, not Watts, right? And to really go out on a limb, that particular claim per se is not even controversial—many sites are like that.

To be clear, I am not endorsing (neither rejecting) the inclusion of that phrase, but want to point out that is a question of editorial discretion. WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS are likely more relevant issues, but BLP is not (and I see myself as a BLP stickler). I suspect a lot of the pushback you are seeing here is that while there may be reasonable debate on the matter, the fact that it is claimed as a BLP issue is striking editors as not credible. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the source does not support the text it wouls appear to be WP:OR and not allowed in a BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

@Baccyak4H, it appears that you haven't understood the issue. This is certainly a BLP issue. It doesn't belong on any other noticeboard. Pejorative material is being added to a living person's biography. Claiming that Watts does not intend to publish his work in the peer reviewed literature is, once again, a complete falsehood. He almost certainly does intend to publish his work in a peer reviewed journal. If you look at the source, you'll see that it doesn't say anything at all about not intending to publish. It is, therefore, unsupported text; end of story. Why it is pejorative may be harder to see if you're not familiar with the issues, but it is. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Watts as an individual intends to publish a scientific article someday (or maybe not), but that has to be distinguished from the surfacestations.org project as such. As for "He almost certainly does intend to publish his work in a peer reviewed journal." -- if you have a reference for that, it would be useful in concluding this discussion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Boris, would you mind explaining why I should need to find sources to support text that I am not including in the article? Watts is the surfacestations project and you know that. So you admit here that Watts "maybe" intends to publish. That's a big step forward. So can you tell me why the article currently asserts confidently that he does not intend to publish? Alex Harvey (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you genuinely not see the difference between something Watts may do as an individual, and the goals of a specific project? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this BLP assert falsely that the goal of Watts' SurfaceStations project is not to publish in the peer reviewed literature when that statement is both untrue and unsupported by the reference given? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wonder why these threads don't attract any uninvolved responses? I would bet it has to do with the extraordinary amount of bickering between the parties, and then when someone uninvolved does offer an opinion, they're told they don't understand the issue. 2¢. -Atmoz (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have any thoughts on how I could stop involved editors from overwhelming all of the discussions at noticeboards then do let me know. At present, it seems that the practice is not even discouraged. Meanwhile it appears that some uninvolved editors who have understood the issue have stepped to enforce the BLP policy at the A. Watts article. Once the issue is resolved I'll come back and mark it as such. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have any thoughts on how I could stop involved editors from overwhelming all of the discussions at noticeboards then do let me know. Well, you yourself are an involved editor, and you've made far and away the largest number of comments in this thread. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since no one else has stepped in I will even if I'm not going to be seen as an uninvolved editor. It seems to me that the source doesn't say anywhere their purpose is not to publish. Since they don't say one of their goals is to publish, it may be the obvious conclusion, but it's still a form of WP:Syn particularly problematic since we're relying on a primary source here. So unless I missed something in (skimming I admit) thorough the FAQ, we should remove the "not to publish bit". The other bit can probably stay. I do however agree that there's a difference between what Watts may or may not intend to do and the site. However that's largely irrelevant since we are not going to say they do intend to publish either. If there's a clear cut quote on what Watts intends to do with the data we can probably mention that as what Watts intends to do. I wonder if raising it at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard may be better since I'm of the opinion it's a clear cut violation regardless of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nil, the other bit could stay except that it simply repeats what was already in the article; for that reason it would have to go too, although admittedly that's not a BLP consideration. On your other point I have raised the following discussion on the BLP talk page here. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this BLP assert falsely that the goal of Watts' SurfaceStations project is not to publish in the peer reviewed literature - it doesn't say that, and shoutnig won't make it any more true. It says that it is not one of the goals to publish. Do you understand the difference now I've pointed it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 03:59, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

I can say that I'm uninvolved with this dispute, and while I agree it does not appear to be a BLP issue, I do see a WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH issue when people are extrapolating what something supposedly is not based on non-existent statements. My particular experience is that it's a favorite tactic of tendentious editors. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those editors who have been willing to get involved and help here; those unfamiliar with the climate change debate would not see that stating Watts intends not to publish in the peer reviewed literature is diminishing to Watts' credibility. Contact me privately if you'd like further information on the background here. That said, I'll take this good advice and reserve BLP/N for more serious instances of defamatory material being added to living person's biographies and prefer in future more discussion on the talk pages before going to NPOV/N or NOR/N if that is more appropriate. I'll mark the issue as resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau

On this article, an editor is reverting the removal of an unsourced quote by Brittny Gastineau as "vandalism". The quote is from the movie Bruno and talks about how the subject thought that another famous living person (Jamie Lynn Spears) should have had an aborotion. My question is, is it apporpitate to add unsourced quotes to a biography of a living person? I also think this content is trivial and shouldn't be in the article. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.229 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not unsourced to state what her role was in the movie. Removing these facts is vandalism. Spidey104 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...you're involved and not exactly a neutral party. i would like some input from someone not involved and someone who understands what vandalism actually is. Also the unsourced quote has been removed with just a mention of her apperance in teh film which should be enough. Rewording content is NOT VANDALISM. who wrote this?

I never claimed rewording content was vandalism. Removing the content IS vandalism and that is what I was constantly fixing. The rewording of the content was done AFTER I re-added the information to revert the vandalism that was removing the content. You are portraying events contrary to facts. Now that the content is reworded ,with the necessary information still included, I am happy with how it stands. Spidey104 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment and I AM NOT portraying events contrary to fact. you have reverted rewritten content even if that means repeating the same info twice and called vandalism. That can be seen in this link [3] It was the next to last edit you made to the article when you finally stopped edit warring which I appreciate. Now 128.104.213.238 has taken up your cause of including an unsourced inflammatory comment about another living person. I'll assume good faith for now but i find that coincidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.240 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that 70.243.34.240 is accusing me of continuing an edit war on an article that he himself has edited under at least one other address (70.241.18.229). I have continued to make edits to other articles since I stopped touching the Brittny article, so what evidence do you have to prove that it is me? I only just now noticed that this edit war was continuing because I was about to remove this page from my watchlist. Spidey104 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. 128.104.213.238 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not ironic to have a rotating ip address. My isp gives me a new ip everytime I log on. You can also mark all the talk pages of the ip's I use but it is not sockpupperty to use different ips to edit. I haven't been acting like I'm different people or used the different ips to create fake support for my edits or anything so you can find it ironic all you want but youre sadly mistaken and you know it. If I were you Id find the fact that the 128.104.213.238 ip hasn't edited once since June 2009 and only appeared to help you re-add the text youve been readding to the article since July 2009 [4] more ironic than my valid ip change. There's also the fact that they edited three times in the last three days about thirty minutes after you. [5] [6] [7] I guess you can't be the same person though because you warned them on their talk page and then they told you (twenty-six minutes later) that they will probably keep on edit warring [8]. Plus they even vandalized your page which no sockpuppet would ever do [9]. Unless you want to battle wits some more about sockpuppetry this issue is resolved because the BLP violating text has been removed for the tiem being. I wont be surprised if 128.104.213.238 shows back up to start the game again though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.210 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Mafia Family

Should people who are testifying against the mafia family be listed by name in the article? Are court documents sufficient reliable sources to support doing so? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his name and all the others have been mentioned at the following places:

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/page?oid=175160 - The first major publication about the case. Goes in-depth about the informants and everything else.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/bmf/theplayers/ - Identifies their names and what they did.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/la112807.html - DEA and Justice Department press release on it

There are numerous others. My main argument is that all the people who would do him harm (the people he testified against and their friends) are ALL in prison already. Part of going to court is the discovery process, and you receive the names of witnesses against you. The provided source is his OWN testimony which he gave in FRONT of the people he was testifying against. They are already fully aware of his testimony and everyone else's listed on this page. These are all PUBLIC documents. They are not sealed documents, sealed testimony, or anything of the sort. Anyone with a PACER account (the federal docket system, available to any member of the public willing to pay for the documents to access them, which I did) can view these. Also, I was never edit-warring. I was deleting his vandalism. If what I was doing IS considered "edit-warring", I apologize. Also, if you contact Mara Shalhoup, who wrote the Creative Loafing article, Daniel Corral's name and everyone else listed on the Wikipedia page is included in her book about the case, due out in March 2010. It is available for pre-order on Amazon, the link to it is included under "Hip-hop presence".jlcoving (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If court documents that are not sealed (meaning legally they are part of the PUBLIC RECORD) are presented and they are the persons OWN WORDS, how could that not be an acceptable reliable source? As for the notion harm could come to him, as I said above, the people who he testified against are fully aware he testified and what his name is. His testimony is not under seal or protected. It is public record and when these people went to court, they were provide a witness list of those testifying against them and they watched him testify in front of their own eyes. Now, if the testimony was sealed, or it was grand jury testimony (which is always sealed), I could understand it being on shaky ground for being a reliable source or even a LEGAL source. But since this was all public record, I totally support it being considered a reliable source and their names to be included. The names have been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people via the Creative Loafing article already.

Further, all of these cases were decided SOLELY on witness testimony. There was not a single gram of drugs seized from any of the defendants (well, with a few exceptions -- the only amounts seized were personal use amounts and not included in the charges). So, without the witnesses there is no case; if you read the transcripts the government prosecutors say this multiple times to the jury -- "You should judge the witnesses as individuals and judge their credibility" is said many, many, many times in the transcripts.jlcoving (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the naming of people involved unless it is significant should be avoided. If the names are widely reported then there would be an argument for including them. Verbal chat 08:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Verbal. Court records are WP:RS but they're also primary sources, and nothing to indicate that naming these people serves any value to the reader. Given their only notability is to this case, I'd err on the side of keeping them out of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason then that almost every single article for people at Guantanamo includes what they said and the names of people they gave information about? I'd say terrorists are more likely to threaten people than incarcerated drug dealers who won't be released until their 60 (literally). Aside from that, it is important to the reader because as I stated in the article, without their testimony the government had absolutely no case and the government prosecutors said that many times in trial. So without their names included, there is no way to explain in the article how everyone was convicted besides "people testified against them". Also, the names ARE widely reported. Hundreds of thousands of people have read the article on Creative Loafing and every single informants name is listed there except for one of them; however his name is listed on the Justice Department website, DEA website, and in numerous court documents that are PUBLIC record and unsealed.

Furthermore, their importance is not just to a single case. The main case was in Detroit, where 150 people were indicted AND convicted (this was the largest # of defendant's case and largest drug conspiracy case ever tried in the Detroit district according to the prosecutor and judge). There was a related trial (still considered a BMF trial by the government) in Orlando where 8 people were indicted AND convicted. There is a BMF-Atlanta case where 22 people were indicted AND convicted. There was a BMF-Los Angeles trial where 20 defendants were indicted AND convicted. The testimony these witnesses gave affects ALL of these cases because the government flew them around to testify in each individual trial since they were related trials. So that is over 200 people affected and CONVICTED based on their testimony and their testimony alone (in none of the federal trials were drugs found), and in 4 different jurisdictions that all considered the cases before them some of the most significant to ever come before them. There is many more jurisdictions where some of these people testified; as evidenced by this link: http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/bmf/documents/BMF_BM_substantial_assistance_1-2.pdf -- that is their star witness, William "Doc" Marshall. He testified in all the cases I mentioned above and the ones mentioned in that so called "5k letter of substantial assistance" listed in the link. I think it's important to note that out of 200 defendants charged, not a single one has been tried or convicted for any violence at all. Meaning no murders involved in the drug organization as charged.jlcoving (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

José María Cano

Could you consider whether it's worth semi protecting José María Cano for some time to prevent IP edits. Libelous information has been added [10] as well as text that is not sourced to a reliable secondary source and appears to take sides [11] [12]. This is the result of a blog article that is doing the rounds on digg, reddit, etc. [13]. Thanks. As instructed (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Crews

There is a returning vandal with a stated desire to bring opprobrium down upon Frederick Crews. This user has been blocked several times, but continues to create accounts to attack Mr. Crews, and states forthrightly that they hate Crews and will continue to vandalize his article. Extra pairs of eyes on the article would be useful, I think. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problem, but I guess the article will have to be watched. The article is also way too long and detailed. People who don't know him will want just basic info. As it is there is way too much discussion of small details of his work. In general there does not seem to be an easy way to solve this kind of problem on WP, since the person's fans will be the ones interested in the article and they will not see the problem. It's hard to remove well-cited information even if it is harmful to the article's interest to the general reader. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus Taught Me

A disagreement over the adding of external links. Needs previously uninvolved users to comment. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt

I'm having a current dispute with User:Sharkentile about the current situation of the Linda Ronstadt article. While it's not a terrible article at all (very detailed in fact), it seems there are things included on that page that really do not belong there or just need to be moved elsewhere on the page. For example, the first section of the article is called "career overview." I don't think this is necessary, as the overview is provided at the top of the page. Second of all, I think the personal life section should be moved to its own section, because it doesn't belong up at the top. Also the article can sometimes be opinionated, which is against encyclopedia rules. What do you think about this paragraph from the article?

"Ronstadt also developed a knack for picking good songs, finding obscure songs, and shining a light on up and coming songwriters. In many instances, her own interpretations were more successful than the original recordings and many times new songwriters were discovered by a larger audience as a result of Ronstadt interpreting and recording their songs. Interestingly, Ronstadt had major success interpreting songs from a diverse spectrum of artists. This skill would eventually serve her later in her career, as a noted master song interpreter."

I edited the article up to format (without making changes to the opinionated style of the article), but my edits were reverted by user:Sharkentile. The user said to discuss my ideas before making such edits, so I did. I installed an NPOV dispute tag on the article because I made a discussion on the talk page about the article's neutrality. I believe that is what you're suppose to do when one user thinks the article might be opinionated. However, it was removed by user:Sharkentile, who then left me a string of nasty comments on the talk page. Perhaps I was being rude when I discussed the writing style talk page, but you may make your decisions on that subject. Can I please get this resolved, because with just me it's not working out. Thanks. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina Central University

I would like opinions of whether the paragraph in this article dealing with the accuser in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case represent unbalanced coverage and violation of do no harm, in the context of this particular article. ( I also removed some separate unsourced BLP accusation about another student. I am not sure that even if sourced it would be appropriate there.) I'm presenting these for discussion because I happened to notice them in checking various university articles more generally. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears biased, poorly written and sourced at the very least. Further, none of the three footnotes appear to be good; two are to broken links, one to another Wikipedia article. Not worth keeping in current form, but can be rewritten in a more objective tone, with a link to main article about the case. JNW (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

John Wilson Cowart

Recently created article about an author, with numerous links to his books added as references in other articles. Questions about subject's notability, and by extension, whether the subsequent additions to other articles are legitimate or spamming. Thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article looks like spam to be, but not a BLP issue. WP:AfD is the answer, unless secondary sources can be found. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

jeff frederick

No source for the assertion that Jeff Frederick received a DEGREE from Oxford. Perhaps he simply studied abroad there, while attending Emory? In that case, Emory would be his actual degree-granting institution. Did he actually receive a formal degree from Oxford? Or just a certificate of some kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRIANJURVICK2006 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Frederick's official bio only lists Emory. I edited the article accordingly.--agr (talk)

Vince DeMentri

• Vince DeMentri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - "Controversies" section may violate WP:UNDUE. One of the sources is a blog, though apparently from a local TV personality. I have removed everything but the arrest twice, but it has been readded. Evil saltine (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversies seem to be part of his notability. The discussion of his WP "vandalism" is not notable, and in fact shows the extreme self-importance of some WP editors. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Louis Freeh

Under the Books and Editorials section of the Louis Freeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, mention and direct quotation is made of a review reportedly appearing in The New York Times about Freeh's book entitled My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror. However, after reading the review cited, I cannot find the supposed direct quotation anywhere in it. Moreover, the direct quotation cited is diametrically opposed to the tone taken by the reviewer and appears have been inserted with an aim towards creating a positive impression of both Freeh and his book when the reviewer at best appeared to be neutral and expressed disappointment in the book. The cited work was retrieved today from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06burrough.html?ex=1288933200&en=4ca3dd8254c92f06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss and can be referenced there. Deecee322 (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, the quote in the article does not appear in the cited Times review. I replaced it with a quote that is there. --agr (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

Skywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Pinkville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an admin) have been continually re-adding a YouTube video (diff here) of questionable copyright status to the external links section on Howard Zinn. They have thus far refused to remove it (and have reverted edits by myself and another user, Vector by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) until we can clear up any copyvio issues. My problem is this: the rest of the interviews in the external links section are hosted by their copyright holder(s) on official websites. This video, however, was uploaded by a user with no clear ties to the organization. It absolutely could be legitimate, but it could also have been uploaded by a fan. The uploader's username has leetspeak in it, which is initially what made me suspicious. (When I see a video uploaded by someone named "M3T4LL1CA", my gut instinct says it's not official.) At this point, I really think we should avoid any semblance of impropriety until we can determine this video's copyright status, especially since this is a BLP page, yet I find myself hindered by an admin. Ideas of what to do at this point? Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear how a routine amateur recording of a genuine talk by the article subject could pose any BLP risks. (Due to the lack of production values, it's unlikely to be ripped off from a commercial source). The footage was taken from right at the front of the room, so the subject must have known he was being recorded. The uploader's Youtube name, ISOgambl3r, suggests he could be a member of the International Socialist Organization which sponsored the talk. If the concern is really copyright rather than BLP, there is another noticeboard for that. I could see a concern that there may be too many videos in the article, but that's a matter for editor consensus on the Talk page, and it's not a BLP worry. See also Talk:Howard Zinn#Recent revert for a lengthy discussion about including the video on the article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

This article was protected for six months because of edit wars over an editors’ constant use of cherry picked, out of context Atzmon quotes despite: a) Atzmon’s complaint (as revealed in talk page category) about the article being defamatory; b) editors’ consensus to stick to secondary sources and avoid cherry picked primary ones; c) the editor in questions’ repeated comments that he had to “prove” how bad Atzmon is, for which he was warned in the past.

The article is now unprotected and the editor is back at it putting in two cherry picked quotes presented out of context to negative affect. He’s reverted attempts to give them context. See this talk section for more details. Neutral editors and admins concerned with BLP policy please see and comment on this talk page section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In what way are quotes discussed in the Guardian and The Times, for their antisemitism, "cherry picked" or out of context? What is amazing and unsurprising is that the editor above, without fail, considers every single one of the subject's antisemitic statements to be "out of context." Even when the titles of the articles are "Who is a Jew?" "Organ Donation and Theft in Contemporary Jewish Folklore" and "Time to Talk about the Rise of Jewish Crime?"

It comes across as disingenuous.

In addition, the article was locked because the editor above was constantly removing relevant quotes from the article. It was of course, locked with the relevant quotes still featured; though the above editor quickly removed them again once the article was reopened. Drsmoo (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor from this page removed the material I described above. Now there is a new bunch of Drsmoo material. Most of this material was removed after Atzmon complained the article was being used to defame him. An administrator explained here why he was removing the material. (Earlier he mentions the OTRS and the article was in a category noting the subject had complained.) Then he asked for another admin to lock the article. I have just put up a new blow by blow on the BLP problems with Drsmoo's new material here. As you can see from Drsmoo's contribution list most of his edits since March 2009 have been of Atzmon's article. He's made various explicit comments in the past about how he had to prove how evil Atzmon is, for which he was warned in the past. I do not want to spend an hour a day every day dealing with this nonsense, like I did last spring. HELP!!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that's blatantly untrue, anyone can search through my edit history to see that I made no such claims. The article was locked to prevent Carol Moore from continuing to make it into an advertisement. Once it was reopened, she resumed right where she left off. Her claims are factually wrong, and I invite anyone to actually look at the edit histories and see what's going on. Drsmoo (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited this page in the past, and it is a very difficult one to keep in balance. It urgently needs more BLP and NPOV experienced people watching it. If I am right, then there are two separate quotes that are being repeatedly added and that Carol wants to keep off. One is from a certain Roland Rance on a website called LabourNet. Carol may well be right that this is too minor a mention and not notable. The other, though, is from The Times (of London) and is by David Aaronovitch. Carol says that Aaronovitch is "obviously biased", but I think we must disregard that. He is one of the UK's most prominent political columnists and commentators, generally of the centre-left, here writing in a centre-right publication. I am concerned that as the article stands it could read as an apologetic for some of the subject's views. That's not desirable. Even though I appreciate that the main concern of this board is to avoid libel, we must also be sure not to allow BLPs to become coatracks for views that could be considered extremist. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the admin after the OTRS deleted Aaronovitch. He writes here: "What is the significance of this? All the sources seem to be activists using Atzmon as a pawn in long-standing battles with each other."

Second, it probably is possible to put in what Aaronovitch says in a properly sourced, NPOV way, as it was in several iterations for several months.I have done so at this diff, moving text towards end where makes sense. (Nick Cohen's writing is just polemical smears and doesn't belong in wikipedia.) Let's see if Drsmoo guts the NPOV versions of the issues of accusations of antisemitism which I put up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree Itsmejudith, unfortunately, the above editor has managed to turn an article about a little known bigot into a several page defense of his anti-semitism. Your sentiment seems to be the consensus, however few outside of his hard core supporters seem to really care. Drsmoo (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A search of the history will show many editors have worked on the article. What has caused most of the problems is that Drsmoo and a couple former editors have insisted on using a) primary sourced quotes to prove points (WP:OR); b) quotes from polemical attack writers like Nick Cohen which happen to be published on otherwise WP:RS sites; and especially c) out of context quotes to make him look bad. It is because they insist on using his quotes that the article has gotten so long - because the quote then has to be presented in proper context.

Atzmon's critics loudly trumpet their own biases against him on the talk page. Obviously his views are controversial, but when you present this former Israeli soldier's views in proper context they usually make some sense, even if one doesn't agree with them. Providing such an NPOV context in a BLP has been my goal and that of several editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cohen is a notable commentator, who comments in entirely notable avenues. The argument that anyone who notes Atzmon's extreme anti-semitism can not be included because they are "biased against him" is circular logic and ridiculous. What's also humorous, as an anecdote, is that Atzmon used Nick Cohen's criticism to defame all Jews "In the UK, bigotry and racism are becoming a Jews-only territory. " -Gilad Atzmon

Ironically, Nick Cohen is not Jewish. Drsmoo (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is the appropriate way to defend your constant abuse of BLP, not here. The Atzmon article is one of many I try to keep NPOV. The Atzmon article is about the only one you've worked on in the last 6 months, always using poorly sourced and/or out of context quotes to push you POV against him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How many editors and admins have to tell you that the quotes and responses belong in the article before you agree to edit constructively? Or are you going to run around from noticeboard to noticeboard, editor to editor to admin, until you find one who out of the blue happens to agree with you, so that you can justify going against what everyone else has said? Because that seems to be what you're doing/attempting now. Drsmoo (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As you'll notice, I wrote an NPOV version using Aaronvitch after Itsmejudith commented. No one else has commented on your edit here using this vitriolic opinion piece by Nick Cohen - just compares Atzmon to a Nazi. Just the kind of thing WP:BLPN is supposed to deal with. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the section in question, which now looks like this. I agree that the previous version [14] bordered on being a BLP issue, even though most of the sources were okay, because the length and repetition over-egged the pudding. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned at talk, The politics section has 110 words describing his views and 192 criticizing them. The original section cut by SlimVirgin had 6 WP:RS sources describing at length (including through interviews) his politics in an NPOV way. Only 2 of those remain. Yet all 5 of the negative criticism remain. To be truly NPOV and representative of the sources - per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise - it should be the other way around. So I think there's still work to be done to make it truly representative of sources and NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Which sentences exactly would you like to see removed, Carol? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> Details should be discussed on the talk page, though I do think any use of Cohen, especially without mentioning Atzmon's replies to him, is WP:undue from a dubious polemical source. More importantly, as I noted there, I completely forgot that in the spring several people worked on this draft of the politics section set up by an Admin after protection. It has a good balance of politics and criticism and includes some important stuff, like about Atzmon's notability when mentioned by Egyptian president Erdogan. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Fairbairn

There has been a spate of very libelous additions to a BLP article I wrote recently. Could these revisions be hid (though not oversighted) - they're very offensive - [15], [16], [17], [18] and so on. If this continues I may need to request semi-protection. Greidy4Punishment (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:ANI since it's a good way to get admin attention. I have also warned the editor who added the edits. At the current time, I don't know if semiprotection would be necessary, all the edits come from one IP and they could be blocked if the problem continues. In any case the IP self reverted eventually so hopefully they won't do such a thing again Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken care of deleting the inappropriate edits.--Slp1 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alan Grayson Edit warring

• Alan Grayson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request for edit warring notice or watch. Several users involved, no use in singling any one of them out.

Numerous reversions by established users, violations of 3 revert rule. Nearly impossible to add anything to this article. Well sourced information arbitrarily deleted, often without explanation or with inapplicable explanations given. Disingenous-sounding discussion on talk page re. "avoiding" an edit war by users who then begin to war. Impossible to even place a NPOV tag on article.

Grayson is a controversial subject, and some leeway should be given -- however the number of edits, the contrived-sounding disputes over trivia and the deletion of acceptable material have gone way beyond all bounds. 50 edits in 24 hours, article is less balanced, and less informative than ever. W E Hill (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Something I want discussed is keeping the end of the lead you revised here, which has been removed by user:Trilemma multiple times, as "sounds like a PR statment" [19] [20] [21] [[22]]

I feel that many of user:Trilemma's edits are disingenuous, [23] and this user like to dismiss things as propaganda and PR. [24] [25] [26]. user:Trilemma should describe what is being done in the edit summary.

these sort of unsupported off-hand claims do not improve the article. also, taking a single point so you can raise controversy by comparing Grayson with Joe Wilson.

I think we have converged that the Orlando "poll" was on the internet and unscientific, and that user:Trilemma will not keep re adding it. [27], etc Scientus (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, there has been alot of inaccurate information on this article, (such as misrepresentation of the unscientific poll) some introduced by user:Trilemma. Grayson did not make a analogy.Scientus (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed to that article many times. I don't think I was in any 3RR violations ... I, too have noticed some users adding BLP violations. An IP added his congressional picture but someone else changed it back to a 'John Travolta' like picture, I undid that edit... A8UDI talk 14:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, (if it is involved in this discussion) ... I honestly thought he referred to the Republican health care bill by saying [it is] : "don't get sick . . . etc". I was trying to make it look legitimate, knowing that every congressman has a 2 min time limit to speak on the floor. I thought "announced" made it sound like he said it to everyone (I saw the video and it looked like it the whole House wasn't present), but I could be wrong. On a side note, I didn't realize that was 'bad English;' it made sense to me. A8UDI talk 14:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alan Grayson didn't announce as in project, he announced, as in he said what it is. He is the subject of the sentence so we use his verb. Your edit was not bad English, but it did use the wrong verb. To Grayson, it doesn't exist, you cant comment on something that doesn't exist, that is his whole pointScientus (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus incorrectly claims information to be incorrect. He needlessly removed correctly cited material on a number of occasions, including recently removing a link to a factcheck article that was in a one sentence addition by an IP editor because it was checked minor. When I added some references of media criticism of Grayson, Scientus promptly created a POVfork for the article, which will likely soon be deleted. Even in this POVfork, he removed the reactions from several high profile critics of Grayson, including Juan Williams and Roger Simon. He just today inexplicably removed my reference to Grayson's third quarter fundraising numbers, which came from a politico article.

These incidents illustrate what attempting to restore a concise, effective format in the Grayson article has been like the past few days. Scientus has remained dogged in his opposition to allow anything critical of Grayson, save for two GOP responses (thus fitting his earlier, misleading edit that criticism only came from the GOP), from appearing on the page. You'll note that in the edit history my edits have been balanced: I have no interest in steering this article one way or the other in terms of political POV. I hope that Scientus agrees with me, but several of his inexplicable edits seem to suggest otherwise. Trilemma (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to instigate a COI investigation go to WP:COI/N, and present evidence. How can I agree with you if all you are doing is attacking me, and not specifying what you have issue with? See User_talk:Trilemma#AbrasiveScientus (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, I have identified several specific issues that I have with you in terms of editing. I am not attacking you personally, only your behavior in the Grayson article, because I feel that it has been out of line and most non-productive. Trilemma (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

“I have identified several specific issues that I have with you in terms of editing.” Without examples, this is a personal attack.

I am more than happy to discuss any of the specific issues, as I am doing with one such issue on the discussion page of the article and as I have done with the Michelle Bachmann article. But I do feel the need to bring up the issues I have had with your editing, such as the POVfork article on 'media response to Grayson's comments'. Trilemma (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not a POV fork, go read it. And read the talk pageScientus (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

“the reactions from several high profile critics of Grayson, including Juan Williams and Roger Simon. ″ Wikipedia:NOT#JOURNALISM. Why is this punditry notable or relevant? What does it add? Juan williams, a fox pundit, said “ went overboard with the holocaust analogy.”, despite it not being an analogy: “this halocaust”. Why are such false and illogical statements relevant?Scientus (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very interested in this article being the most informative and encyclopedic it can be. This involves referencing relevant information, such as fundraising figures and media and popular responses to Grayson's comments, both of which Scientus has persisted in deleting, and not in linking to propaganda put out by political PR groups and writing articles that contain pro-Grayson talking points ('where the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money went'...), which Scientus has insisted on maintaining.

I asked for additional voices to contribute to the article when the dispute first arose, and I welcome additional voices, but I feel that my edits have been correcting bad edits and adding pertinent new information (along with correcting some grammar and format issues). Trilemma (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again with the attacking. User_talk:Trilemma#Abrasive This is not the forum for a COI investigation.Scientus (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As further evidence of Scientus' recent conduct, I would refer you to the Mass media coverage of Alan Grayson's comments on the Republican's health care plan, which Scientus created, ostensibly as a branch off of the Grayson article but leaving out several higih profile media reactions, as I summarized above. He appears to have created this page knowing that it was not encyclopedic and would be deleted, apparently in some sort of scheme to disprove the credibility of including media responses to Grayson's comments, as this edit reveals. This is blatantly offensive behavior and a misuse of wikidia. Scientus created an article that he appears to have wanted to be deleted, as evidenced by his vote to delete it. Trilemma (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate attacks, read my comments on the talk pageScientus (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am the originator of this post. The comments above do not speak for me in any way shape or form. I did not want to call out anyone in particular, but I want to leave it to the administrators to decide. What you see in these comments is an attempt to create a faux impression of reasonableness or ability to come to an agreement.

I would like to restate: with the type of editing that is going on and the violations of the 3 revert, other BLP rules, it is impossible to add sourced information to the article. The article is highly slanted. All one has to do is look at the number of reversions, the number of edits, and the lack of growth of the article over the past few weeks.W E Hill (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: W E Hill. This is the problem. I am trying to talk about individual issues I have with the article and Trilemma is just attacking me as an editor. I am not trying to say you agree with everything I say, but i was saying that the lead should include some mention of things other than his health care speech: for he certainly has gotten attention. Not many congressmen have had 2 high profile editorials and and involved in large scale fraud prosecution.Scientus (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of allowing others to contribute to this section in a manner that is fairly easy to follow, I am going to temporarily refrain from further responding to Scientus' posts. Trilemma (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have included this dispute at Wikiquette_alerts.Scientus (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we work this out on the Alan Gray talk page? I'm neutral enough to help work this out. A8UDI talk 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfonso Sastre

The Wikipedia biography of Alfonso Sastre, a living person, states that he is a supporter of ETA and of terrorism. This is incorrect and also defamatory. Were it true, he would be arrested under Spain's anti-terror laws and Sastre has not been arrested under that or any other penal code. That is enough proof that the content referred to is incorrect and also defamatory, besides which no proof has been referred to by the detractor .

Alfonso Sastre is on record as supporting the Basque pro-Independence Left movement and has stood as a candidate of theirs on recent electoral platform. He pronounces the right of self-determination for the Basque Country, as do many other organisations in the Basque Country, among which is included the armed group ETA, but that does not logically make him a supporter of theirs (a general point remarked on recently by Martin Schein, UN Rapporteur on Civil Rights etc.).

These passages should be removed and furthermore the biography should be expanded significantly (as is the Spanish version, which also contains the calumnies referred to above)to give a fuller account of the contribution of Spain's foremost living playwright, who is also a writer and composer and a political campaigner against injustice and for civil rights with a career extending back to opposition to the Franco regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Louise (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have removed the (unsourced) information and watchlisted the page. Another time, please feel free to remove such unsourced negative text yourself, if you wish. --Slp1 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And I agree that it should be expanded, since no mention is made of Sastre's political activities. Once again, you could do this yourself, using reliable sources as a basis for your edits. I suspect Spanish language skills would be a help, so possibly other editors with those skills would like to join you.--Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Libel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Greenspan

Found on the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Greenspan

- begin quote -

(quote removed, it can be found in the history of the article)

- end quote -

No, I am not Brad Greenspan; I just recognize libel -- and garbage that undermines Wikipedia's credibility -- when I see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.149.77 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous version of the article, that section was inappropriate. There are still parts of the article with "citation needed" – I don't know if these should also be removed (I've removed this addition as the only Google results were copies of the Wikipedia article). snigbrook (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Night of the Pencils

The only source cited in Night of the Pencils is in Spanish, so I can't tell how reliable it is, but as there is at least one person mentioned in the article still alive, and since the article makes claims about an entire military unit, surely whose members are still alive, this article violates WP:BLP in the criminal allegations being made. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the page occasionally includes a list of "victims", which violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I've removed the list twice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Colorado balloon incident

I've been thinking this would be a problem for a while, but never came across the article until now. As those aware of the incident may guess, this is likely to be a big BLP problem for a while and there are already a number of discussions which raise BLP issues so the eyes of BLP aware editors would be helpful Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, that this is a possible hornet's nest of BLP concerns,and needs to be watched carefully.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I have concerns about User:Viriditas understanding and acceptance of WP:BLP given his repeated claims at Talk:Colorado balloon incident#Hoax not "Confirmed" that I'm "trying to hide poor research and editing behind policy enforcement" when I explain why it was likely inappropriate to discuss the incident as a hoax when all we had were two not great sources [28] [29]. (For clarity, I only found the article today and Viriditas seemingly likewise so this is an abstract issue.) While he/she hasn't done anything I noticed that I would call a major problem, this sort of lack of acceptance of BLP strikes me as problematic for an experienced editor. I'm clearly not helping the situation and probably made it worse by engaging in somewhat OT debate so would appreciate it if someone with a good knowledge of BLP and good ability to explain it to editors could discuss it with him probably directly on his talk page Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly that whole discussion is rather daft, upon looking at the edit history I found out the hoax speculation was added 4 hours after the boy was found which was 2:22 hours after the article was created so the whole complaint is about 6 hours at most. However regardless I'm still concerned about Viriditas understanding & acceptance of BLP Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the main hinge of the argument is whether or not it is premature to add a hoax category. –xeno^talk 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. If it's a hoax, they're guilty of numerous criminal charges. We're not judge, juries and executioners. If there is an "alleged hoax" category we could put it there. But criminal charges are pending, the parents are not admitting it's a hoax, and that's that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion has actually be about either no longer relevant or just completely OT stuff and that's partly my fault. The category issue appears to be the only significant outstanding issue that I noticed Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories with "alleged" (or "accused") in the name are universally deleted at CFD, because there's no meaningful threshold for inclusion. How many people are alleging, or who is making the allegations? It just turns into a weasel word category implying guilt, and once you've been alleged of something you've always been alleged of something, even if acquitted, so it would never be removed either. Categories simply can't handle that kind of imprecision or hedging, because the category tag will appear at the bottom of the article without qualification, direct sourcing, explanation, etc. I don't think anyone should lose sleep if we have to wait until a reliable determination that this was a hoax to categorize it as a hoax. I simply don't understand the urgency here. Postdlf (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Template:The Holocaust

Issue raised in relation of Charles Zentai, who has been charged with Holocaust-related war crime, and may or may not be extradited for trial, depending result of his appeal. While WP:BLP doesn't specifically mention templates, I suspect that large Holocaust template in article about person who has not been properly convicted does not really fit with WP living person related policies. user:Harryzilber disagrees with me believing that template is appropriate in this case. So I thought that most appropriate solution is asking some input here.--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further info can be found at: Talk:Charles_Zentai –NPOV. The Charles Zentai article is also related to a Categorization deletion review here. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed at Edwin Bramall, Baron Bramall

This morning the membership list of the British National Party was leaked, amidst some publicity of the fact that a life peer and member of the House of Lords was on it. This turns out to be a mistake as the 'Lord Bramhall' that is on the list is not Edwin Bramall, Baron Bramall. Some editors have not seen the correction and are adding the supposed BNP membership to his biography. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd

• Mark Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A statement was added that may violate WP:UNDUE, though it appears to be referenced (though to a blog that itself cites the original source). [30] // Evil saltine (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I made some quick adjustments, as the section header and wording were not NPOV. There appears to be some controversy over the one statement, but it does seem that it possibly puts undue weight on that one issue. Some of the behavior on that article suggests one or more single purpose accounts and/or sockpuppets may be active there, too. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• OK, it seems Lloyd is one of the targets of a conservative campaign, apparently spearheaded by Glenn Beck, against several members of Obama's administration. There's a single-purpose account currently trying to add every little thing they can find to the article. I attempted a rewrite that explains where this is coming from and cut a little bit of the excessive stuff. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Larry Johnson (author)

Larry Johnson (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page has been vandalized by individuals who have the sole agenda of discreditLarry Johnson. The sources published by Alcor about Alcor or its employees or members cannot be considered reliable in verifying controversial information. The information posted could be considered libelous.

Starting to look into this. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.25.56 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need opinions on which photos are better

I took a bunch of photos over the weekend at the Big Apple Con of the various celebrities and artists, and in placing the pics in the appropriate articles, I've come across a few in which I'm not sure which is the better photo. In three of the cases I'm not sure if the one already in the article is better, and in the fourth, I'm not sure which of the two I took should be used. I could use some opinions on this. I usually just switch the photo when the one in the article is of lesser quality (and there are quite a few of those), but since this is more ambiguous, I'd rather get some objective opinions, rather than create the appearance of just favoring my pics.

1. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix The one currently in the article is cropped off at the top, chopping off her head. The one I took doesn't have that problem, but I'm not sure if the lighting is too bright (which sometimes happens when I use the flash).
2. Michael Hogan The one in the article looks good, though the lighting is a bit dark. The lighting in the one I took is better, I think, but I wanted to be sure.
3. Lou Ferrigno Ferrigno's face is partially in shadow in the photo currently in the article. This isn't a problem in the one I took, but he isn't facing the camera, which I usually prefer.
4. Joanne Kelly I sometimes take a pic of the celebrity I meet with the flash and one without, and usually, the one with is the better one, but in this case, I'm not sure. The one with is the one I put into the article, but I think she looks really good even in the one without, and wanted some feedback.

What do you guys think? Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I'm a fairly harsh critic on pictures. #1 the article pic is better for me as your has a distracting background; #2your is better, but needs to be cropped to portrait format; #3 article pic is better, if too dark; #4 the natural light pic is better, but you need to clone out the dude in the BG.

2 is a great portrait, I'd be very happy if I'd taken it. Kevin (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: Pic #1 - I'm torn. I think your picture is better in general but that annoying piece of paper in the background brings it to a tie. Pic #2 - Yours is better if cropped a bit. Pic #3 - The article one is definitely better. Pic #4 - I like the natural lighting one. I didn't actually notice the tiny guy in the background at first, but as noted by Kevin you need to remove or obscure his image somehow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the respondents, however, make sure you add {{Commonscat}} to each article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to ditto the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nightscream, I too agree with Kevin and ThaddeusB. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. yours would need cropping, the background could be reasonably fixed if annotated on the file page.
2. agree re cropping, shame people don;t use more diffuse lighting for "baldies"
3. stick with the existing - better for the infobox.
4. natural light.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks for asking my opinion/s which are as follows:

1. Daphne - yours if you are able to crop image background to remove most if not all of the background - perhaps some photoshop work?
2. Michael - yours
3. Lou - stick with current image
4. Joanne - I like the second image better accept for the curtains parting to reflect person X - so I suggest you keep your alternative - the current one.

--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions for what they're worth:

1. Daphne - I think the original is better; the new one has lighting problems, and problems with distractions in the background (e.g. a pair of jeans, a poster on the wall behind her head).
2. Michael - I think the new photo is better; I don't like the lanyon he's wearing around his neck in the original. However, I would photoshop the new one to fix up his hair in a few places, and also remove a distracting intrusion of grey in the background in the bottom left corner.
3. Lou - I think the new photo is probably a better photo but is taken in profile, which probably means the original is more appropriate for the infobox. It also has another face intruding in the background.
4. Joanne - I can't decide in this case. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions, and thank you for asking. (I am using a *bright* contrasty LCD monitor in a dark room) Loosely, I agree with a good number of the above comments. (Is there any rule against using both photos?) But the real question is which you can effectively retouch.

1. Daphne - Existing photo has acceptable contrast, yours (until modified) does not (esp the washed out areas, on my monitor, at least). On the other hand, yours shows more personality, and also, er, attributes for which she is partly known.
2. Michael - Existing photo makes him look more like "the star", I find him harder to identify as Colonel Tigh in yours (for what that's worth!) Both photos need retouching to correct lighting on forehead.
3. Lou - Prefer yours. The shadow on one eye in the existing one might be difficult to correct convincingly.
4. Joanne - Yours is better in several respects.

On aggressive retouching. If you have very good skills, do it. As webmaster I was often asked to reshoot equipment pictures...the cohort in the next cube had been a magazine photo editor, and his standards were outrageously high. I had no alternative to avoid professional criticism from him, except to do color balancing, "unsharp edge", mask backgrounds, and sometimes adjust perspective. (And that's photographing using studio lighting.) I rather like the chance smiling guy in the background of your Joanne. I'd barely modify it at all (the very, very faint white blemish on left halfway between them, even with top of glasses bugs me for some reason), unless it was to standards for some magazine (or Wiki "standards" as mentioned in above comments?) All the others, I'd retouch. The existing one on Lou I might delete, even without your substitute. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much to add to the above; substantial retouching as suggested might change things, but at the moment I prefer the current article photo for #1 and the natural light version for #4. Rd232 ^talk 08:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking.

1. Daphne: yours iff you make the contrast/saturation much more subdued
2. Michael: yours
3. Lou: stick with current one
4. Joanne:slightly leaning towards yours.

Hope it helps. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia's views. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no photography expert at all, but I would say #1 yours with cropping, #2 yours, #3 status quo and #4 I'm really ambivalent but I guess the second one. - Draeco (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Draeco (as to both the choices and the disclaimer of expert status). As to Joanne Kelly, both are good, maybe I'd lean a tiny bit toward the natural light photo provided you can eliminate the mystery head behind the curtain (would be a cute detail in a random photo, but IMHO not the most appropriate detail for the top-of-the-page infobox photo). Hope you had a good time at Big Apple Con. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another two cents: Daphne: replace with yours. Michael: replace with yours. Lou: do not replace, yours is worse. The much more engaged facial expression and sharper focus of the existing photo trumps the better lighting of yours. Joanne: replace with the unflashed one; the lighting and facial expression are both better. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could only come to a clear conclusion for 1, 2 and 4. 1 although the improvements are good (I was confused by the above comments first until I realised the image had been changed) I still feel the existing image is better. The cut off hair is annoying but since this isn't Marge Simpson the highlight problem (not sure if that's the right word) in your image IMHO means it's worse. 2 yours is better although obviously needs cropping. As for 4 I agree with many above natural light is better. One thing it may be better to crop each image as appropriate then put a page, e.g. sandbox where you show each image the right thumbnail pixel size. That way it's easier to compare between versions. Comparing images of different size may not always give the right idea. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. But I need some clarification on something:

• Zscout370, Kim D. Petersen and Turelio, all three of you stated that you agreed with Kevin and ThaddeusB. But Kevin and Thaddeus did not agree themselves on Daphne's pic. Which pic of Daphnee did you prefer?
• Piano non troppo, Cyclopia and JackLee, you said that you prefer "my" Joanne Kelly pic. But both of them are mine. Which one were you referring to?
• Most of you said that you preferred my Daphnee pic, but only if it was modified to crop it, and/or fix the contrast/saturation. I can crop it in PhotoShop, but I don't know how to fix saturation/contrast. Are any of you able to do that? Could you then upload it to the Commons (with a "2" placed at the end of an identical file name)? Do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg was the one I would consider printing and putting on my wall. Also, if you are not able to fix contrast now, I'd suggest you get a shareware program (there might even be a free "lite" Photoshop). www.tucows.com can be a good source, otherwise. Photo retouching can be extraordinarily complicated, but moving a single slider and seeing how you like the change is dead easy (and fun). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW on 21 October I uploaded a version of the Daphnée pic with the background clutter removed. Unfortunately parts of her forehead, nose and cleavage are irrecoverably overexposed (you can avoid this in future by setting your EX-Z750's exposure compensation to under-expose by 2/3 of a stop). Anyway, I have now uploaded another version (timestamp xx:57) with her chemise a little less saturated and reduced brightness/contrast of flesh tones, and a further version (timestamp yy:49) that uses blurring to restore colour/texture to the over-exposed areas. The differences are quite subtle and may not be enough to rescue the image. Anyway, I hope this helps. The decision about cropping is up to you! Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the Menu in my camera, I see that there are "Contrast" and "Saturation" functions, so I should be able to fiddle with those the next time I cover an event, but where is exposure compensation or the stop manipulation?

Where did you upload these new version of the Daphne pic? I don't see them at the Big Apple Con page. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the new versions are on commons at 10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg. I checked on the Casio website and the tech spec for the EX-Z750 says it offers exposure compensation up to ±2 EV in ⅓-stop increments, but I'm afraid I don't know where to find that setting on the camera's menu. All I can say is that it is worth looking for, because over-exposure is impossible (or very difficult) to fix whereas slight under-exposure is easy to correct. - Pointillist (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

James W. Lewis

Scurrilous, Incendiary and Defamatory references to James W. Lewis appear in text at multiple locations in Wikipedia. These statements incite fear and hatred toward Lewis without either a legal or factual basis, and thus may be actionable. Please correct offensive text immediately.

The name James W. Lewis appears in Wikipedia under at least two main topics:

1. 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders
2. James W. Lewis

In all known instances, Wikipedia pages clearly infer, both implicitly and explicitly, that James W. Lewis is criminally responsible for the 1982 cyanide laced Tylenol murders in the Chicago area. In fact, James W. Lewis has never been indicted for any of the murders, and has never been convicted of committing any of the murders. James W. Lewis has never been convicted of murder nor rape. This false accusation about James W. Lewis has been circulated for nearly thirty years, smearing his reputation and making his an object of fear and hatred, without a factual nor legal basis.

In both cases, Wikipedia pages fail to:

1. notify readers that James Wm. Lewis was in New York and not in Chicago at the time of the Tylenol murders in Chicago, and that it was therefore impossible for Lewis to be the Tylenol murder.
2. cite the website URL: [31], which contains detailed information and documentation about the Tylenol murders.

Please remove all defamatory references to James W. Lewis

Please include references to the website [32] whenever the name James W. Lewis is cited anywhere in reference to Tylenol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.107.17 (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, both the links above state clearly that Lewis was in New York at the time, and both are cited to reliable sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the latter part of 98.216.107.17's request boils down to "Please link to the WWW page advertising one particular forthcoming book whenever the name James W. Lewis is cited anywhere in reference to Tylenol.". Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) As Sarek said, it appears that both articles mention that Lewis was in New York and not Chicago. I don't see where it says he committed any murders, either implicitly or explicitly. Note: 24.147.221.165 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) was blocked for this legal threat (WP:NLT). Evil saltine (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • … which was perhaps not the best action you could have taken, first because of Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats (which anyone participating at this noticeboard should always bear in mind), and second because all that 24.147.221.165 did was change a section heading whereas it was 98.216.107.17 (talk · contribs) who actually wrote the above. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that it was not a good idea to block him. However, I don't see any problem with the article in its current form.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• The mention in 1982 Chicago Tylenol murders is appropriate — he was convicted of extortion related to the incident (whether or not he actually committed the poisonings themselves), and this was discussed in reliable sources. However, I see no reason why James W. Lewis should have a separate article. Isn't this a fairly straightforward case of WP:BLP1E? I know there were a few other charges mentioned, but from what was written, he was never convicted on any of them and I see no evidence of widespread publicity or notability for anything but the Tylenol incident. *** Crotalus *** 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hak Ja Han

Could someone help with an ongoing dispute at this article? The question is if it is alright to include inaccurate information on someone if that information is found in a "Pulitzer Prize-award winning reliable source", but still known to be inaccurate.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editing by a user who is involved in the subject matter of the article itself as a member of the Linux Community using Wikipedia as a vehicle to disparage and libel the subject of the biography.

MediaMangler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has a history of on line harassment of the subject of this bio, and review of the editors editing patterns indicates he is a single purpose account here for promotion of Linux Community views and propoganda and personal attacks on various subjects involved in the politics of Linux. His targets include Groklaw, Darl McBride, The SCO Group, and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. This editor should be topic banned from the biography in question as his comments and statements do not reflect those of an unbiased third party providing balanced content, but those of an advocate using Wikipedia to promote the goals of a particular group. In the present case, the editor continues to insert libel, remove cited balanced content from the article, and skew the articles content for the purposes of disparaging the subject of the biography. The editor states on their user page they are involved in business interests which compete directly against the subject of this bio's business activities as well. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP address 166.70.238.46 is from a banned user. Jeffrey Merkey who is editing once again his biography. [[33]] who just returned as [[34]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.221.6 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate indicates the IP address 24.37.221.6 resolves to Groklaw -- Linux Community advocates who are not disinterested parties. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

$ nslookup 24.37.221.6

Name: modemcable006.221-37-24.mc.videotron.ca

Address: 24.37.221.6

Admins, please note that the IP address 166.70.238.46 belongs to the permanently banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, and should be blocked just like the other addresses he uses in that same sub net. Ban extension under the existing arb com case should also be noted. 198.11.26.164 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel it necessary to respond to the wild accusations made by Mr. Merkey, but I do find his charge that I'm involved in business interests which compete with his to be very odd. I am currently employed by the US Department of Defense and have been so employed for over thirty years. Unless Merkey is claiming to be either a terrorist or an agent of a hostile foreign government, I don't see how the DoD or I can be competing with his business interests. --MediaMangler (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anita Dunn

Anita_Dunn#White_House_Communications_Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a biography article about Anita Dunn who is the White House Communications Director. On October 15, political commentator Glenn Beck spent the better part of his show attacking her for an earlier speech she made. As often happens, this set off a firestorm of POV-pushing and BLP violations by editors, both IP and registered, that had never touched the article before. Generally, these things are easily defended with the backing of Wikipedia policy and partial protection, however this article is not well-known and has not even crossed the threshold of 30 people who watchlist it. As a result, two or three editors have managed to edit-war the page into its current non-NPOV state, filling it with lengthy quotations,[35] using it as a soapbox to repeat Beck's attacks[36] and, most tendentiously, repeatedly reverting any attempt to add her comments in response to Beck, saying it "insults" him [37] [38]. Considering that the article is about her, it would seem that her response would be one of the few relevant aspects of this.

Underneath all this, the real issue is that the entire thing is non-notable to the WP:BLP article. Commentators like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann attack someone every night, but we don't rush to add it to their biographies. It has to be notable to an encyclopedic understanding of the person. This incident generated a couple of editorials on the political right but was not picked up by the news media and disappeared within a news cycle. The only non-editorial reliable source for it was a CNN article reporting on her response (the same one that keeps getting removed). I feel that any mention of the incident is undue WP:WEIGHT in a biography, but if it needs to be mentioned, this can be done in couple of balanced sentences.

But now we have the situation where almost half of the entire biography is made up of this one attack by a political partisan. Anyone that attempts to correct this (myself and one or two other editors) finds that there are editors more than willing to edit-war (one editor violated 3RR within the course of a single hour yesterday). I try very hard to avoid edit-wars so I don't keep up, but at the same time I hate to see a biography article hijacked by those on the attack. The article is currently under full protection (due to the edit-warring) but there is no hope that the situation will be any different when protection expires. So I am hoping the larger community can sort this out and I will agree with whatever consensus is established here.

That said, the two questions are: Does this incident belong in the biography article at all? And if so, how should it be worded? Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding a comment here in support of Loonymonkey's notice here. I actually don't agree with all of Loony's edits on the article, but unlike some of the editors there, his points are considered and reasonable and don't amount to edit-warring. The article could sure use additional eyes. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

James H. Trainor

OK, this gentleman is not living, but everything is unsourced. It oringinally had images of the person's government identification -- which I have deleted. Should all of it be deleted? HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, some of this is probably referenced in the embedded links -- but not sure how much of it. HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Troy King Alabama Attorney General

We have a dispute between editors at Troy_King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - One poster continues to add the name of an office employee to the BLP about the Attorney General. There have been many rumors about this person through out the internet, none of which have been allowed to be placed on WP. I feel that the inclusion of the employees names is to harm said individual. Outside of my personal thoughts on the matter I see no added value by posting the name. The name is quoted and cited properly but I previously wrote the section of the article and chose not to include the name and has been accepted this way for six months. I believe that in BLP we should err on the side of privacy. An employee is certainly due a greater degree of privacy than the elected official. We need help on this because as this is a politican there is a continued effort to post biased and sensational information which is not appropriate under BLP policies. Please advise resolution on the discussion page of said article and suggest a block of unsigned ip editors to this page until after the election period so we can have a reasonable discussion about what to post from something more than random IP addresses.Gray10k (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be reviewed. I very strongly believe that the inclusion of a private individuals name in this article violates Biography of Living Persons Policy. Including the individuals name adds no value except to expose a young state employee who accepted a nice paying job. The article is about the Attorney General and there are specific rules about including other person's names in these and I VERY strongly do not believe that this covers such. I would ask that a peer review of this matter take place by this group to enforce the policies of Biography of Living Persons Policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellxer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that inclusion of the name and allegations would be a BLP violation in this case. The individual's name is irrelevant in this context. I have also filed a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyung Lah

Kyung Lah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned over the weight given to what a Wikipedian is reffering to as a "sex scandal" - and the reliability of sources. It could probably be mentioned that she was forced to quit her job because she was unfaithful if there are reliable sources that state this is what happened, but I'm sure it shouldn't be an entire paragraph screaming "sex scandal". 81.170.235.35 (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I had removed the section yesterday, I see it was reverted. I removed it again and left a talk page comment here. Other eyes and comments appreciated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Family

• The Family (Christian political organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JeffSharlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who may be a journalist and the author of a book The Family) has accused
• EricLeFevre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of committing libel in his comments on the talk page of The Family. [39] — goethean ॐ 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For future editors it appears The Family (Christian political organization) (The Family (Christian political organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) is the contentious article not The Family which links to a disambig page Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my post above. thx. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

A number of scientists listed here are not documented by reliable sources as actually "believing" the beliefs that are ascribed to them in the text. In many cases, nuances of their positions are lost, and, in at least one case, the scientist in question (who I know personally) has an opinion attributed to them that they do not hold. I have tagged the article as a BLP-violation (as indeed it is). I think people need to go through and start removing people when the sources are not reliable and have not actually documented a complete and unambiguous rejection of a "mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". In fact, you may actually need to find that phrase or an extremely close synonym in order for ANY living person to be listed here at all.

I've cross-posted this to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On my way out, if no one else gets to this in 24 hours, I will. Astronominov 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker

Sal the Stockbroker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like someone to look at this before it becomes an edit war, Sal the Stockbroker is a know person and everything on his page has a source. But another user keeps redirecting it to The Howard Stern Show staff (this person should have his own page). Can someone please look at this. thank you // 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

• Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spdiffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in theory a new user, edit-wars in order to add the contents of an misspelled email to a biographical article. He believes that that email is absolutely appropriate and necessary in order to describe Doniger's 40 year academic career. I would rather that criticism of her be sourced from scholarly reviews.

Sergei Chuyev

Sergei Chuyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – unreliable data based on unreliable source –Russian Liberation Army web-page.

material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

So page should be deleted. Thanks 94.179.228.87 (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

Hi, there has been an edit war on this article for the last couple of days, even after someone being blocked and the article being semi-protected, the same content is being removed. I don't have a great deal of experience with BLPs but the editors removing content keep on citing BLP policies. This was posted on WP:COIN, here but I think that having some input from other editors would help. Thanks in advance. Smartse (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

• Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of Verified article content and military decorations in violation of BLP and contrary to the same guidelines used for other articles on Wikipedia. All other military veterans who have been awarded the Army Commendation Medal and Army Achievement Medal have their awards and ribbons listed on their bio.
• ArglebargleIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has a vendetta against United States Military Veterans and the subject of this bio and skews content to disparage the subject of the bio by removing verified content and awards which exists in the other BIOS of other military veterans. The following other recipients of the Army Commendation medal all have their awards listed on the article, ribbons, and service assignments. The editor then stated they would attempt to remove all of them from every article just to be able to disparage the bio of the subject of that article. The editor should be topic banned from the article in question. All of these articles have their awards and ribbons posted, as well as unit associations:

  * Colin Powell
  * Gary Gordon
  * Paul Tibbets
  * John Abizaid
  * John Vines
  * David Hackworth
  * Martin Dempsey
  * Alfred Valenzuela
  * Hugh Shelton
  * John Shalikashvili
  * Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
  * Claudia Kennedy
  * Robert L. Stewart
  * Soldier's Medal
  * Paul X. Kelley
  * Antonio Taguba
  * Sherman T. Potter
  * Burwell B. Bell III
  * Mark Kimmitt
  * Antonio Rodríguez Balinas
  * Nathan Farragut Twining
  * John William Vessey, Jr.
  * George Joulwan
  * Gordon R. Sullivan
  * John T. Walton
  * Reserve Good Conduct Medal
  * William O. Wooldridge
  * Gene C. McKinney
  * Lance L. Smith
  * Robert C. Richardson III
  * George W. Casey, Jr.
  * Kenneth Preston
  * Sidney Shachnow
  * Homer Litzenberg
  * User:Taivo
  * William A. Navas, Jr.
  * Template:USArmyAwards
  * Shoshana Johnson
  * Josiah Bunting III
  * Salvador E. Felices
  * George Scratchley Brown
  * Galen B. Jackman
  * Sławomir Petelicki
  * Awards and decorations of the United States Army
  * Paul W. Airey
  * Edward Soriano
  * Presidential Unit Citation (United States)
  * Chuck DeVore
  * Lloyd Austin
  * Keith B. Alexander
  * Gordon Ray Roberts
  * Joe N. Ballard
  * Russel L. Honoré
  * Albert Bryant, Jr.
  * H. Steven Blum
  * David Petraeus
  * John K. Singlaub
  * Richard R. Taylor
  * Wilbur L. Creech
  * Paul K. Van Riper
  * William J. Lennox, Jr.
  * Joe Hooper (soldier)
  * Tammy Duckworth
  * Carl Stiner
  * David D. McKiernan
  * Richard J. Meadows
  * Arthur J. Jackson
  * Billy Waugh
  * Thomas W. Steed
  * Hobart R. Gay
  * George B. Simler
  * Robert E. Hall
  * Leon L. Van Autreve
  * George W. Dunaway
  * Silas L. Copeland
  * William G. Bainbridge
  * William A. Connelly
  * Glen E. Morrell
  * Franklin L. Hagenbeck
  * Robert T. Clark
  * Richard A. Cody
  * Norton A. Schwartz
  * William E. Ward
  * Benjamin S. Griffin
  * Bantz J. Craddock
  * William F. Kernan 

166.70.238.46 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. My only comments on this can be found at [40] and [41].
  First, I have no vendetta or animus towards Merkey or military veterans, and nowhere have I said or indicated any such thing. (The complainant is making things up.) Second, I don't think the raft of award images belong on any article -- only important awards, such as the Silver Star etc. My belief as to this is universal, and is not targeted towards Merkey in particular. I did NOT say anything even remotely like "they would attempt to remove all of them from every article just to be able to disparage the bio of the subject of that article." (Again, the complainant is making things up.) I mentioned that I want to raise the issue on the Military WikiProject discussion page, and that's it. Not touching the Merkey article again until the issue is settled. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)