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.

Prem Rawat

Recently this content was added with out discussion to the Prem Rawat article."Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[2][3]and in anti-cult writings[4][5]" I added contextual content, and an other view from a RS to add balance.[1] The balancing view was removed describing it as peacock and gush worthy praise. In fact the source uses these words, "an extraordinary man whose one pointed dedication to spreading the message of peace remains unadulterated and full of promise" so the addition I made, "as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace" is a more neutral version of the source itself. This content is representative of the positive aspects of Rawat which adds balance in a BLP to the pejorative, creating NPOV content. I refuse to edit war with these editors, so outside eyes will be appreciated.

the sentence before the addition:

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,and in anti-cult writings

and with the addition:

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,and in anti-cult writingsas well as a man with a desire for spreading peace.

the source: Cagan, Andrea. Peace is Possible. Mighty River Press, 2007.(author forward)

The author:

Cagan has written, edited, and collaborated on a variety of biographies. She has brought seven books to the best seller lists including to NY Times and LA Times best seller lists. Per Cagan's own comments and description of the research process, its unlikely she was paid to write this book since there is no sense that Rawat assisted her to make the process easy as would happen in a paid for biography.

(olive (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Uninvolved editor comments

Andrea Cagan isnt 'popular press'. Or any sort of 'press'. She is a celebrity biographer. Your addition is sourced to a biography on Prem Rawat for which she was undoubtedly paid, she describes them as her 'clients' after all. This doesnt mean info cant be sourced to it, but as written you are using a paid-for-biography to say that there is a 'balancing view' that he isnt a cult leader, and in fact he is a pretty nice guy. Well of course his own biography would say that... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never edited the Prem Rawat article but I have participated in a few of its noticeboard discussions and RfC's. So just for kicks I did search just now for Prem Rawat to see what popped up. Here is how he was described in the first seven sources that came up in my High Beam search:

“He founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, which promotes his message of peace and spearheads significant humanitarian initiatives around the world.” --Prem Rawat Tours North America With a Message of Peace., China Weekly News, October 13, 2009

He was the keynote speaker at and international conference: “Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat spoke from the heart and without notes”…..”The Foundation promotes Prem Rawat's message of peace and his vision of addressing fundamental human needs so that people everywhere can live with dignity, peace and prosperity.”-- European Parliament Welcomes Back Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat., Journal of India, December 13, 2011

“Prem Rawat was invited to be the keynote speaker at an event called "Notes on Peace," held at Moscow's nationally Library of Foreign Literature “….”Rawat spoke in simple terms, making the point that people look to world leaders to bring peace, but in reality it already exists within each person”---Prem Rawat Keynotes at Synergy University in Moscow, Manufacturing Close-Up, July 25, 2012

“Prem Rawat received the award at a forum called "7 Billion Reasons for Peace" held in conjunction with a United Nations International Day of Peace 2012 observance in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. He became only the fifth individual to be given the award, which recognizes individuals for their work to positively impact the lives of people around the globe. Previous recipients are former South Africa President Nelson Mandela; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981-2003; and Heinz Fischer, President of Austria.” -- Prem Rawat Accepts Lifetime Achievement Award for Peace Efforts, China Weekly News, October 16, 2012

“Prem Rawat's focus is on helping individuals find peace and fulfillment within.”-- Pursuing peace means knowing where to begin--Virgin Islands Daily News, February 5, 2003 | George Miller

“The Prem Rawat Foundation executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way and outperforms most other charities in America." -- The Prem Rawat Foundation Has Been Awarded the Highest Rating by America's Premier Charity Evaluator., Science Letter, August 11, 2009

None of the sources above characterize him as a cult leader (though I'm sure some sources do) and surprisingly none of these positive characterizations from these news sources (above) from all over the world are represented in the lead. Instead, as of this writing, [2] we have this lead:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]

It would seem that some editor(s) are in a rush to include off topic info about him (DLM) and to paint him with a dirty brush. Its clear that Prem Rawat is widely known as an ambassador of peace and so the removal of sourced content to that effect gives the appearance of POV pushing. I'm sure that was not DeCausa's intention when he/she removed the content but he/she could certainly rectify that error now, by re-adding the content they deleted, restructuring the sentence, and including all the sourced information.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Random "nice things" about him that have nothing to do with the sentence they are attached are fairly obviously not relevant IMHO. I haven't substantively added anything: I moved Little Olive Oil's new paragraph from the end of the lead into the opening paragraph but deleted the bit about "he wants world peace", or whatever it was. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

Thanks. This is my first exposure to Cagan and I have until recently been uninvolved in this article.The issue is in fact not the source as the reverting editors have stated. There are multiple sources that describe Rawat in a positive light probably equal to those that don't. The issue is that the both must be added. The wording from this source is so neutral as to be almost non existent yet it is being deleted. This article is under arbitration and I am starting to see why. I can easily find and have seen other sources that are positive to balance that cult allegation, but I have no hopes they will not be deleted as well. I'll let others comment . I have no interest one way or the other in this article but I hate to see a BLP treated this way. (olive (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

I'd add that if sources are part of the issue we need to look more closely at some of the the sources describing Rawat as a cult leader. There may be better ones than what we have.(olive (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

I deleted the phrase you are concerned about because it was simply a random bit of praise that was unconnected with what went before. The relevant paragraph in full is:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]"

Saying (in terms) "he wants world peace" after talking about whether he's a cult leader or whether DLM is a charismatic religious sect, new religious movement etc is just a non-sequitur. You'd have a point if your addition (reliably sourced) was something like "while others see him as a charismatic leader and insightful thinker" or something like that. As it is you've just thrown down a random "nice thing" about him. That's a misunderstanding of balance. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"You've thrown down a random [sourced] nice thing about him".. hmmm.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

i have watched the development of the article over the years and all i can say is that the former neutral editors involved in he article were much more informed and engaged than making just a few google hits. Prem Rawat has a huge public relations machine going on to present him as a leader for peace, this has been discussed before and is buried in the archives that no one wants to dig in anymore so it seems. The most ridicoulos part was him renting a hall at th UN building and promote him as speaking in front of the UN. But i have to admit that one day his efforts(money) will reach the goal and gullible people will fall for that. Surdas (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that 'a random "nice thing"' sums it up nicely. I'm sure that positive things have been said about Rawat, even by people not paid to write biographies about him, but this one appears to have nothing to do with the start of the sentence. If you think that the reference to the term 'cult leader' is badly sourced, say so. If you think the article lacks neutrality say so - but don't try to fix it by tacking on irrelevances to the end of the negative bits. I'm not sure that 'a desire for spreading peace' is a particularly useful thing to say about him anyway. You'd be hard put to find anyone who wouldn't at least play lip-service to the 'desire'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Our job isn't to go around trying to find positive (or negative, for that fact) things to "balance" reliably sourced, relevant, and proportionate material. If he's been called a "cult leader" repeatedly in reputable and reliable sources, and if that description is significant to his biography, then we don't need to seek out and cherry pick a "positive" fact or quote from a dubious source to try to make the "cult leader" description sound nicer. (For the record, I don't know anything personally about the guy, so I'm just going by the sources listed above and at his article.) jæs (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Per weight and the extensive sources which view Rawat in a positive light both must be included. Cult leader is only part of the story on how the sources portray him. Content was added in the article body with the opening sentence that states both cult and any other comment that describe the man are examples. The lead simply summarized that. This was brought to this NB because as is, the lead is not balanced per the sources and is a NPOV violation in a BLP. Nothing was cherry picked nor was there an effort to add positive to the pejorative. There was an effort to represent the considerable sources that represent Rawat as more than a cult leader which is how the lead reads now. If the community thinks this is appropriate per the sources and the standards of a BLP, that's fine. I think its not only mistaken per Wikipedia but morally wrong to allow pejorative content to stand unopposed without the content and context that would represent a major part of the mainstream sources, in so doing slant the BlP and harming another human being. We must be fair and neutral and that means representing the scope of the mainstream. (olive (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Then find appropriate material, discuss (here or on the article talk page) whether it actually merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, and propose a new sentence for the lede to include it. 'Neutrality' applies to articles, not sentences... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Neutrality refers to articles nor did I say anything else. While I agree that the sentence removed could have been better, I used it to summarize multiple sources that describe Rawat in this way. I reduced it to the most neutral language rendering it almost meaningless to avoid contention, but still the content was removed because it was described as "peacock" and "glowing". This is a mess, pure and simple and I can't see that anything else I add which will have to be, of necessity, to represent the mainstream sources, even more "glowing", have any different outcome. Although I have concerns about this article, I'll leave it to others do deal with. I don't have the stomach for this. Thanks to all who took the trouble to comment.(olive (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

(edit conflict)"There was an effort to represent the considerable sources that represent Rawat as more than a cult leader which is how the lead reads now." That's a gross misrepresentation. The references to "cult" are in two sentences in the lead. But the lead then goes on with three paragraphs about him with plenty (argaubly more than plenty) of "positive" stuff: "In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts. His message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents." "The core of Prem Rawat's teaching is that the individual’s need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning within to contact a constant source of peace and joy. Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches." etc etc etc DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A major problem with the Rawat series of articles has been that the pro-Rawat editors (devotees, a/k/a premies, adherents, or followers) have spent the last eight years attempting to erase the history of Prem Rawat's life, making this biography essentially a hagiography or puff piece. Former followers (sometimes called ex-premies) have tried to keep this article balanced. The incivility in the past and some in the present has stemmed from the attempt by adherents to take the article over, hence, claiming ownership and making the other side as it were, persona non grata. They've ignored us and made edits without concensus and they've done this with impunity.

Another very major problem is that Prem Rawat is virtually an unknown person since the 1970s when he first came to the western countries from India at age 13 and received tons of negative press and the production of studies, papers, and books by scholars. The actual fact of the matter is that Prem Rawat is not notable by today's standards of notable people, nor by Wiki standards, imo. There aren't many recent or current reliable sources from scholars and the press except those that have been contrived and invented outside of Wikipedia by adherents, including the Cagan vanity book Peace is Possible, and paid-for articles or "interviews" with self-promoting, paid-for magazines articles like "Leaders." But, there are so many issues with the construction of this article, that unless one has been involved in editing the article since 2004, it's nearly impossible to catch up unless one spends all of one's time on this article alone. The contentiousness between editors (adherents, former followers, and uninvolved editors alike) has been so constant throughout the life of the article. During the past several months I came to throw my arms up in the air when the now-banned devotees started to gut this very well-sourced article in order to return it to a puff piece. New editors like OliveOil have come in cold, not having the full context of all the previous discussions (and still not nearly up to speed), intimate knowledge of article content, and the already established reliable sources, which took years to resolve and reach concensus about. Another fact is that Rawat adherents have learned how to game the system here very well (those editors are now banned) by being excessively polite to newcomer editors, when in fact, those new editors have been snowballed. Oliveoil is one such editor who has bought into contrived civility when the only goal of those editors was to whitewash. It's a travesty that those adherent editors have been allowed to go on for so many years on Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't see how any uninvolved editor can possibly make a decision or comment on this article without having an in depth knowledge of this subject, and the general subject of NRMs/cults.

The background of the terms "cult" versus "NRM" in the academic world of religous studies, is that certain religious scholars have quite successfully attempted to erase "cult" from the English lexicon as a viable word to use to describe certain "NRMs," and their leaders. Their attempts caused an enormous rift between those certain scholars in academia (some considered "cult apologists") and so-called "anti-cult" scholars ("anti-cult" is a complete misnomer). Those scholars against the term "cult" also made up the term "anti-cult" to label their rival experts/scholars, in order to discredit them and their academic work. As such, editors of all the NRMs/cults here have used that rift to their advantage in order to reinvent their leaders and the groups to which they belong and to purge the word "cult" from Wikipedia. This is a true story and fact. I know how "cult" became termed "perjorative" on Wikipedia. It is a perjorative, btw, and for good reason. I understand the issues about biographies of living persons here, however, people must also consider that if something is true, factual, and reliably sourced, it's not libel, nor negative. It's simply a fact that needs no balance. Neutrality does not mean "positive." True is true, and false is false, after all. If the truth is negative, it's negative. I've dismayed at what's going on now by watching the edits being made in the past months and weeks and days. I know this subject inside and out. What's gone on in the past months with Momento, et al, purging the article, gaming the system, Wiki-lawyering, incivility, personal attacks, and much more, has been going on for years unchecked. This article sat untouched for two years until banned editors came back to take it over once again, ignoring other editors by using pretzel logic and refusal to have cogent discussions, in order to wear us down. Look at the talk page archives -- all of them. This particular "cult" issue, along with countless other issues, have been long-ago resolved through consensus, use of reliable sources that have already been reviewed by noticeboards like this, and the discussions have felt like Sisyphean tasks most of the time because of the behavior of adherent editors. Please don't destroy years of work because Wikipedia allows for it. Not unless editors learn the subject well. I think this article should be reverted to the version before Momento, et al, edited started gutting it earlier this year. It also ought to be locked until uninvolved editors get educated and up to speed. After all, one wouldn't edit an article on say, science or math, unless one had some expertise or education and knowledge of the subjects. It's no different for biographies like this one. I don't have the time nor stomach to revisit this article again but I do keep track of what's going on. This notice board subject is ridiculous. This has been resolved over and over again. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

By its placement and unopposed by contextual material, placing the cult leader content into the lead with out discussion labels Rawat as nothing but a cult leader. This is inappropriate in a BLP and per NPOV in any article. When I brought this issue to this NB, the reasons for deletion of content that acted to summarize other views (however poor that content might seem) were that it was peacocky and too glowing. The source was not then, but now has now become the talking point. I am reminded that consensus changes, and that the cult leader content as is, did not have consensus in the past and that it was added with out consensus now, that incivility and abusive language is not acceptable, that dealing with editors in a civil way does not mean I have been duped by the so-called "devious" Rawat editors, or am too naive or too stupid to see or understand what goes on on such an article. Further, I do not condone abuse for myself or for any other editors for any reason, and there has been lots of that too.(olive (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

I don't like your uncivil tone. Please don't put words in my mouth Littleoliveoil -- that's not fair. I did not use the words "devious," "duped," nor did I say that you were naive or stupid. I also didn't say incivility or abuse are acceptable. Where did you get that from my post? It's not a rhetorical question. What I meant and should have said is that those editors have been trying to manipulate the situation here for years and have been successful, and you've been favoring them over the less patient of the other side because of your perception of their tone of voice. One has to remember that when posting online not to read too much into tone (matter of perception and one's own projection) and take what someone writes at face value because one doesn't have benefit of eye contact and tone of voice. PatW, for instance is an English gentleman and his recent posts were surprising because of that, yet I know his frustration well. But, I have to say I don't like the changes you've been attempting to make, which are evidence of your lack of knowledge of this subject matter, especially concerning the terms "cult" and "NRM." There's nothing wrong with the use of the word "cult" if it's properly sourced. It's just a word. And it's a legal fact in the U.S. (where this website originates) that something isn't libel if it's true. That's a flaw of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to biographies and I attempted to explain the origin of "NRM" over "cult" which is true if you read the literature about such scholars. I don't know why you're editing this article, frankly. You're not helping at all and making errors as a result of your lack of knowledge, which btw, does not mean stupidity. It means you're not educated about certain things and that takes time. All the best and have a good weekend. Sheesh... Sylviecyn (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

My tone is not uncivil, its strong. And my points were not directed at you they were general points to this whole messy situation. Still you are saying things that are not true and while I could walk away, miscarachterizing me has been an unfortunate by product of all of this. Cult is not only seen generally as a pejorative term it is also per scholars like Chryssides a general term that fails to have specific meaning. But this isn't the whole issue. The issue is that the term is unopposed. If what had been added was that Rawat was god's gift to man I would oppose that too and ask for context. I won't discuss Pat's behaviour here but to say I'm sorry he had a bad time. I haven't been favouring anyone I've been favouring discussion about edits and not editors, and I favour civility over personal attacks. Not condemning a group of editors outright is what should happen on an article. But what has been made clear to me is that if I treat editors outside a certain group with respect, I am naive as to their intentions. Civility is a way of treating human beings, and is not dependent on whether I like or agree with them. I made one change, not "changes", an attempted change which was reverted. Content was in place with out consensus. I realized that adding content for context with a word like cult would not fly with some editors but for the sake of neutrality I did it anyway. Can you not see how this article is controlled so that the whole thing explodes when one outside editor dares to place a contentious term in context of other terms. I have no grudge against anyone. But coming into this article I have been attacked because I dared to question the status quo of a group of editors. That's ownership and its not a good thing. Best wishes to you. (olive (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

And if you felt my tone was uncivil I do apologize, it wasn't meant to be that way... but it was meant to be strong.(olive (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

I'm the only editor on the Rawat article who has declared a conflict of interest and as such have limited my editing to the talk page only for years now, so accusing me of ownership is very unfair. Once again, the word "cult" means something. If that meaning is negative, it's not proper to attempt to balance that term with something positive. Neutrality and weight don't mean creating a contrivance such as that. It's not the fault of Wikipedia that Prem Rawat has virtually stayed away from any public scrutiny since the 1970s, thereby greatly limiting current information from reliable sources. The Cagan book was contracted by close followers and paid for by The Prem Rawat Foundation. She interviewed people from Prem Rawat's closest inner circle and she was given material by them to review. I agree that it's strange that Cagan admits she never once spoke to her subject and that fact lessens the reliablity of the book as a source. I strongly object to using her book as a source for anything contentious. It's okay, I suppose, to use it for dates (some of the dates in the book are incorrect, btw), people's names, places, etc. but it should never be used for contentious material. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Once again my comments are clearly general and refer to the the treatment I received on the talk page and on a user talk page.They do not specifically refer to any one editor.
• PatW has apparently declared a COI and only posts on the talk page
• As I said what cult means is general per Chryssides, for example, rather than specific, I didn't say it didn't mean anything. Further, cult, because of its tendency to mean different things to different people cannot be used in a context free manner. The word has emotional "meaning". I made two edits (sorry I did say one above.)
• The first edit added context to the way DLM has been characterized that included cult. Then defining Rawat as a cult leader is somewhat redundant, and adds weight to that characterization. If left in the article, and I did not suggest removing it, the characterization cult leader needs content that characterizes Rawat in other ways as well.
• Cagan's book describes the process she took to write about Rawat. There is no sense that she was paid in fact the opposite is true. However, she may well have been. No one has confirmed that with a source. Still I have no problem, as I've said several times with using other sources as suggested here by uninvolved editors and per a past consensus should I decide to go back to the page. Or perhaps another editor would like to add the context. (olive (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

• I used to edit this article but have gotten fed up with all the pushing and shoving. The citations for the cult leader label in the lead are atrocious: a fringe writer and an Evening Standard article, if I recall correctly. Embarrassing. The cult reference should be there, but cited to something scholarly. And in my view there should also be something more neutral or up to date in the lead, as the major cult controversies were quite a few decades ago. At least something about how he presents himself today. But I have no interest in arguing about it any more; Wikipedia is what it is. Andreas JN466 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Kent Whealy

Someone is once again trying to harm Kent Whealy via Wikipedia. They are insisting that the dollar amount of his donation to the yes on 37 campaign be posted here. Donations should be public information and this is recorded in the appropriate places. As I have said repeatedly, a posting here amplifies the public awareness of this gift exponentially,and exponentially increases his and his families exposure to the opportunists who frequent these pages. This was a one time gift, a news item whose time has passed. Mr Whealy's enduring contribution to our world is his work with Seed Savers Exchange, not his political contributions. Mr Whealy's family views this as a thoroughly unnecessary intrusion into their privacy and safety. Can you help?Treastor (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first step is to open a discussion at the article talk page - which you haven't yet done. The information, as far as I can see, is public domain, published in a reliable source and you don't appear to challenge its accuracy, so I'm not sure if there is a ground on which it should be removed. But you should take it up on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've offered this new user assistance, if they need it, by leaving them a note on their talk page. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news agency. We record all important impact that is verifiable in reliable third party sources about the subject. And as an encyclopedic and historical overview of Whealy, his participation as the largest contributor to an important political campaign is and will be continually important for readers in understanding who Whealy is and what impacts he has had and made - and is not stale news that should be whitewashed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go a bit easier on this user. They clearly don't know much about how WP works and what it's all about. The user got a barrage on his/her Talk page, but not even a {{welcomeg}} (which I've now done). DeCausa (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Does receiving a MacArthur Fellowship award automatically derive notability? Because, if not, I'm tempted to AFD this article for lack of sufficient notability. Ditch ∝ 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Treastor continues to remove the amount of the donation, saying that he is acting at the family's request. Xhe says this is for privacy and safety reasons and says I am aiding and abetting unethical people attacking the family. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone except Treastor seems to understand that political donations of this sort aren't private information, especially when reliably reported in news. Treastor's characterization of the entire issue is hyperbolic, and there are no privacy or safety issues at hand; at least none have actually been spelled out. Perhaps superpacs would be a better choice for donors wishing to remain anonymous. At any rate, it's a clear conflict of interest and Treastor's editing there, outside the talk page, should cease. As to notability, I think Ditch's concerns are quite valid. This individual appears to have no separate basis for notability. Even his donation is apparently significant because of his company (note each donation in that news report is paired with a corporation). JFHJr (㊟) 13:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

as winner of the MacArthur genius, he satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1 quite handily. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• A revised draft profile which addresses many of the concerns raised is posted for comment on the Kent Whealy talk page, if you are interested please view and comment so this topic can be closed. Thank you.CinagroErunam (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Profile"? Wikipedia doesn't have profiles, it has articles...--ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Apologies, "article" CinagroErunam (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

carrot top

• Carrot Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of ridiculous edits from the beginning such as:

s mother Wendy Wu found out about that shiz & raised hell with Jacklyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.254 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Next time, please revert vandalism yourself. It would have taken you the same number of edits — one — as writing on this noticeboard, but taken less typing (as you'd only had to have written an edit summary) and saved time and effort all around. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Uncle G. Thank you for fixing this problem. However, please don't talk to our BLPN newcomers like that, as they are only complaining about what they see, and in fact we usually advise them not to edit articles on which they might have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't be daft, and go and read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Be bold if you really believe that for this situation and aren't just being silly on a noticeboard for kicks. Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll take that to indicate that you've read my comment, regardless of whether you understood it or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, the above responses to both the OP and Demiurge are out of line. Show don't tell. Ditch ∝ 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You don't be daft, too. Demiurge1000 is not a newcomer by any stretch of the definition. Like Demiurge1000, you too haven't looked at what's in front of you before leaping in saying something silly. And make no mistake, what Demiurge1000 said above is downright silly, and is not what we say to people about reverting ordinary vandalism. I pointed Demiurge1000 to what we actually do say, although xe clearly (as you can see above) wants to keep on being silly on a noticeboard rather than familiarize xyrself with what we tell people to do with vandalism when they see it. You should go and read it too. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Your original comment wasn't to Demiurge1000, though, and there's no reason to be offensive. So, let's take our own advice. 72.128.201.4 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

• Amiram Goldblum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the original page for this person was deleted mostly because of lack of information, and barely being notable. i asked the deleting editor if i can try again, and he said sure. so i did. i posted it a few days ago, and it has been ransacked from A to Z, mostly by an editor who appears to be the subject himself. (if you look at the previous edits of this editor - Rastiniak - you will see he admits that this is he, but now he doesn't. in any case, please look at the article history to see my original article - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amiram_Goldblum&oldid=525509548. and then look at the talk page and the main article history page to understand his style of editing and "discussion". in an ideal world, he should learn the rules of wiki, and follow them. but since i don't think that this is likely, based on his track record, i think he needs to be sanctioned if it continues. help, please..... Soosim (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum has been engaging in disurptive editing in the ikipedia article about himself. Using the editing pen name Rastiniak, he just violate dthe 3RR rule, once again. He has also repeatedly posted slanderous statements on Wikipedia about other people. He has violated every rule in the editing book and must be blocked from further editing. The 132.64.165.121 IL, which is his own personal IP at the Hebrew University and has also been used for dirsruptive editing, should also be blocked indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.193.217 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on -- are you the one who has been inserting unsourced crap in the article? It's not Rastiniak who needs to be blocked, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP editor, almost certainly a sock of the Runtshit vandal, is edit-warring to introduce clearly defamatory material into the article. It was because of Runtshit's behaviour that an earlier article on Goldblum was deleted. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the Steinberg source is rather definitively inappropriate as a source for the material you are attempting to add -- it is quite clearly an opinion piece. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article has now been put on "pending changes" (thanks Mifter). Soosim, I suggest being quite careful about accepting any changes that would have even a whiff of inappropriateness about them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good source from academic print house that could be used [3]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A good source for what, Shrike? Soosim's agenda has to do with an episode that took place a couple of months ago; the book you are citing was published in 2010. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A good source for the article of course.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

a) unsourced crap is indeed unsourced crap. let's remove it, tag it, or something. b) while my agenda might be obvious, let me state it: here is a well known professor, holding a named chair at a major university, highly involved in the public eye in israeli politics, is involved in some nice things, and is involved in some controversial things (which is not a surprise since israeli politics is full of controversy). the orginal article i wrote and posted a few days ago showed 90% postive or neutral things, and 10% controversial. i accept the issue that the steinberg remarks might not be appropriate here. i have re-edited the page without them. please review the current version, and let's move on to a positive and constructive edit. (and as to the rastiniak/goldblum comments below, i have no clue what he is talking about. i have no rivalry with the professor, not politically not legally - well, i do seem to be having a wiki editing rivalry, yes? - in any case, this editor needs to be watched as he is violating many wiki rules. he is not a new editor, but is clearly a single-subject editor - his page only. that's fine, but the rules, while bendable, shouldn't be carelessly broken.) thanks, Soosim (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Soosim's role

The Soosim claim is not true: there was no problem of information, but the information was not considered to be important, except for the right wing rivals of Goldblum who started that page in order to smear his name. The deleting editor of the article in August 2012 is requested to study in depth the current page and to analyze the reasons for re-starting this article. At the time, it was deleted because it was clearly introduced for political and legal smearing, a fact that was validated subsequently by the submission to the court of the smearing (and already obsolete) wikipedia page by Steven Plaut who was charged for libel by Goldblum, together with others. All are extreme right wing sites or organizations, and it is suspected that the current initiator of this article is associated with that group. It is also quite revealing that except for mentioning the murderer of Emil Grunzweig the Goldblum article does not attempt to smear anyone. It was also concluded then that there is no reason to keep the Goldblum article for greatness in Chemistry or in Political activity - Goldblum is not an Israeli politician, but a political activist who resurges once in a few years with an article or a speech (probably not more than once a year on the average since he left Peace Now in 2000....). Goldblum is not even mentioned on the Hebrew Wikipedia....Therefore the Soosim claim for the importance of this page is probably due to his political or legal rivalry with Goldblum. Rastiniak (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Ole Nydahl

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

There has been a long-running attempt (since around February 2010) to include defamatory material in this article by an IP editor, based on a opinion piece in the LaCrosse Tribune. The piece being used as a source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article, refers to a defamatory claim without reporting on who made the claim or giving any indication whatsover as to where the claim could be substantiated or verified, asks a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type question, and then tries to make something of the subject's non-denial response. The unsubstantiated defamatory claim has been placed and replaced in the article multiple times by the IP, worded as if true (e.g. [4]).

After thoroughly analysing the situation, I have entirely removed the section based on this material per WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd like it if someone could review this action and let me know if it was an appropriate response, and if it was indeed appropriate, to assist in convincing the IP editor that they are in error in their opinion that the material should be included. If the IP editor cannot be convinced that they are in error, I think that either the article will need protection or the IPs used by the editor should be blocked.

Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree: this is way too gossipy. If this continues, protection is the next best thing; please report to WP:RFP with a link to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(copied from article talk page) Hi Yworo, why should it matter where the claim originally came from? In his phone-conversation with the Lacrosse columnist, Nydahl not only didn't deny having sexual relations with his students, but also provided a clear rationale - “There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that,” he said by phone. “They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.” The article is still around, unlike many defamatory pieces that unfairly decry Nydahl. This implies that the phone conversation indeed took place that way. I would be glad to discuss that on WP:BLP, but I am not very active. How do I do so? Also, your analysis was very one-sided (you didn't provide a link to Orso's text), and exactly one other poster agreed. I don't think that this is sufficient for taking out the entire piece. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It matters because we cannot propagate unfounded gossip in a gossip loop. This is specifically prohibited in WP:BLP. In particular, the claim is not sourced, it is anonymous gossip being repeated. Second, the source is not a news source, it's a biased opinion piece in which Orso makes clear his negative personal feelings about this unsourced gossip. Such sources, in and of themselves, are not considered reliable sources when it comes to BLPs. Third, Nydahl does not affirm or admit the gossip. Diamond Way, like many other Buddhist organizations, has multiple centers and local teachers. It may very well be that even if he, as he suggests might have happened, had a relationship with a member of Diamond Way, he may not have been the student's direct teacher. It also leaves open the possibility that the relationship occurred before the individual became a Diamond Way Buddhist and simply continued after she decided to join. The "answer" is ambiguous and does not give us enough information to reliably report it. It's not an admission of anything in particular: there is no accuser, there are no actual news reports based on any accusations or lawsuits. Given the fact that we have no reliable information about the gossip, we cannot be the source for further repetition of unfounded gossip. Now, if sources can be provided detailing an accusation or accusations by someone who considers herself to have been victimized in any way, then we'd have a basis for including it in the article. However, even if we found more reports of the gossip, we could not include it, specifically because it is gossip. This is, essentially, an accusation, for which we require the name of an accuser, whether it be a victim, a prosecutor, or the original source of the gossip (unlikely). For all we know, the "source" from which Orso got this gossip was a phone call from the IP who keeps trying to insert the material into the article. We simply have to know more that that. Hope this answers your question. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl has had a relationship with at least one very prominent female student of his: In this article Cathy Hartung describes how she came to be his lover. Interestingly, unlike him, she doesn't distinguish between herself as a lover and herself as a student as strongly as Nydahl does, she just states that she sometimes tries to distinguish those two roles so it doesn't become difficult. The article is in German, unfortunately, but even a translation with Google Translate is sufficient to understand the meaning and the main content - that Cathy Hartung first became a student and then, later, a lover of Ole Nydahl. In this article by Scherer, she is also mentioned as his girlfriend, as she is mentioned in this one. I think in this context, the quotes from Orso's opinion piece make sense and can be used. Nydahl has never denied that she hasn't been his only partner among his students. If I remember correctly, he even names other women that were both partners and students in his biography. In this interview, Ole himself says that he had many women on his travels who learned meditating (from the context it is clear that he taught them). Sceptic Watcher (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So, no actual complaints have been raised by anyone. How is a subject's uncontroversial sex life of any interest to our readers? That clearly falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP: "even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject?" Our IP wants to make an "issue" of it. But unless it's been reported as an "issue" or "controversy" in the mainstream press, it's of no interest to our readers and we have a general obligation to maintain the privacy of the living people involved, which includes people other than the subject who are not public figures and whose privacy we should not further violate, even if their involvement with the subject has been reported elsewhere. If and when there is an actual "controversy" that makes the papers rather than just Buddhist-oriented materials, then we can reconsider. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The repeating of information here- on a page much more highly visible than the article in question- is not helping the BLP concerns. I've had a look, and agree that the source in question is an opinion piece, and that the info is probably not warranted to be included in the article. If anyone agrees, I'd support removing the info from the article, and hatting the above discussion. Ditch ∝ 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why you think the information isn't important. Nydahl was critizised for this behavior by the German Buddhist Union, and in general, it is noteworthy if a teacher of any kind has sexual relationships with students. For example, in the UK, school teachers are often prohibited by their schools to have relationships with their students even if the students have reached age of consent. It is a piece of information that helps the reader to understand Nydahl's approach to teaching and life better. To compare with another person of interest, the article on Gene Simmons includes information about his sexual relationships. The controversies are similar in nature, if not in scale. In general, it is information that is freely available in primary sources. A compromise might be to quote those sources and ditch the piece by Orso - Hartung basically gives the same rationale in her interview. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not a whole lot experienced with Wikipedia but I would also add that if you add up the journalistic sources, there is more than enough to show a controversy (and might I say, more is coming). There is also a piece in Morgenbladet.no, which has been originally referenced in the article on Nydahl but since removed, where _another_ journalist is critical of a possible compromization of the teacher-student relationship as Nydahl sleeps with his students to a wide degree. Likewise, Danish academic Jørn Borup says that Nydahl is "certainly fond of women", just like there has been internal controversy with the Danish AND German AND Norwegian Buddhist communities over just this. (Google 'Nydahl' and 'Tiltogaard')

Furthermore I not would like to ask readers in general why regulars like Yworo can use threats and attitudes towards me like "now get lost" and "you will be blocked", even though I am merely arguing my point of view, and not even editing any articles? I not do claim that I have acted perfectly, but I offered some real arguments, which were edited away without response. I also inserted quotes which were dismissed because they were non-English, even thought he article containing the quotes was already featured in the article. When I pointed this out, I then get a different explanation. In fact, what consistently seems to happen is that people get brushed off with no arguments or faulty arguments and when they then point out the lacklustre nature of those arguments, they get some better arguments and some aggressiveness / dismissiveness like "get lost." Should Wikipedia function the way that people should restrain their aggressiveness / dismissiveness until they have actually offered good arguments? In any case, it seems there are some regulars who can take all kinds of liberties in editing and insulting that others apparently can't. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "aggressiveness / dismissiveness", I believe it was you who first adopted that tone in your very first post as this IP on Talk:Ole Nydahl. To quote, you said, "Wikipedia is about arguments, not a show of hands. If you can't offer up arguments, you should go away." Perhaps this is why other editors feel that you've given them permission to treat you similarly. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally ignore virtually all rudeness; but if you feel this is an issue there are other venues for this, not BLPN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to note that we specifically are not allowed to "add up the journalistic sources" on Wikipedia. That's synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". Yworo (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So just including a reference to the primary literature stating Nydahl has taken students as girlfriends and leaving out Orso's article would be ok? Sceptic Watcher (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because 1) it's primary literature. We need secondary sources for BLPs. 2) None of the sources you present say anything about any controversy regarding it. In fact, they all present it in a matter-of-fact manner, and don't report anyone being upset or concerned about the relationship. We can't make up a controversy or even a concern where none has been reliably reported in secondary sources. Yworo (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're flat-out wrong there. The relevant part from your own link:

Using the subject as a self-published source

Further information: WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.

None of the reasons not to use it apply. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It clearly involves claims about third parties, his wife and his girlfriend. Any claims involving third-parties must be cited to secondary sources. Quotations from interviews are primary source material, even if technically not self-published. How hard is that to understand? And again, none of the sources you have presented use the word "controversy" or even frame the situation as controversial. You are calling it a "controversy" out of thin air. Yworo (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What "claim" does it involve? He doesn't claim anything besides the fact that they are/were his wife and his girlfriend. This information is freely available from a multitude of sources, for example the academic article by Scherer. Anyway, all the material is also in his biography. As I said, I'll have access to it this weekend. We can then use quotes from an autobiography published by a reliable third-party publishing house. And by the way, you continue to conflate my opinion with IP-guys opinion. I don't neccessarily think this is a controversy. I just think the information that he likes non-monogamous relationships is worthy of being included in the article. We have information on his political views, why exclude information on his views about family-related issues? And yes, I do think the fact that he doesn't just say non-monogamy is fine, but practices non-monogamy verifies his position on these issues and should therefore be included.Sceptic Watcher (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It involves the claim that other people (wife, girlfriend) were involved in a non-monogamous relationship. We can only use statements by the subject that involve the subject only (this exception was only intended to source non-controversial facts such as birthdate, birthplace, dates of moving, length of residence, places travelled, and other simple facts exclusively about the subject). And this restriction also applies to his autobiography, regardless of who published it, because it is still a primary source. In order to include this information, we require multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources which report on it, and you simply don't have adequate sourcing for this. Only a third-party reliable report makes the detail notable and overcomes concerns about undue weight. Further, you show no indication of having read WP:NPF, which gives guidelines about what we can say about "People who are relatively unknown": we are instructed to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources". This would apply to Ms. Hartung. As she is not notable, we really cannot mention anything involving her at all. Further, the late Mrs. Nydahl was notable as a Buddhist teacher, but she was not notable as a polyamorist, so we cannot mention the latter about her either. What is said in the article does not only reflect on the subject - it reflects on the people who the subject was close to, and that is territory we cannot enter without multiple independent secondary reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When reading "These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.", how do you infer And this restriction also applies to his autobiography, regardless of who published it, because it is still a primary source.? Those two statements directly contradict each other, one of them is from the BLP page. Your statement seems to imply that this statement is wrong. Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Concerning the privacy of Ms. Hartung, firstly, it isn't neccessary to name her as his former girlfriend, is it? Just stating that he had been living non-monogamously without naming her would be sufficient. Secondly, and more importantly, the section you linked to refers to articles about the person in question. I do not plan on writing a whole article about Ms. Hartung. About your concern that we might give undue weight: There are multiple primary sources in which Nydahl talks about the subject, it is clearly important to him, and I don't intend to include any views in the article, only the fact that he likes non-monogamous relationships and practiced them in the past. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Because I actually went to WP:SELFPUB, where that statement is not included. I wasn't born yesterday, you added that here, but it's not actually in the policy. The word "autobiography" does not even appear on the page. Shame on you. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And WP:NPF clearly states that it applies "even if they are notable enough for their own article". Please stop misrepresenting and intentionally misreading our policies. To make it short, unless you get support from other editors here on this noticeboard, the material will not be added to the article. I see zero support for you here from the regular editor familiar in-depth not only with the policy but for the reasons the policy is written as it is. I for one am done arguing with you, since you "cheat". Have fun getting support from the other editors, who don't even seem to be willing to discuss it any further with you. Bottom line, if you add anything to the article, it will be removed. Yworo (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, we have a difference between the rules given in WP:SELFPUB and the rules under WP:BLP about self-pub. As I said above, I went to the site you linked to. Above, you linked to WP:BLP, not to WP:SELFPUB. This is where the quoted sentence on autobiographies comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source I don't cheat, and I find that accusation unfair.

Also, I have no idea what you mean with your reference to WP:NPF. Caty Hartung is not notable enough for her own article. I never debated that. That's why I think her name should be left out. I would really appreciate if you answered, since there's obviously a misunderstanding. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. The sourcing is completely unacceptable for negative content on a BLP. End of story. This content must remain out of the article until there is significant coverage by reliable sources, which does not include editorials, opinion pieces, and blogs. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Has puppy taken the time to read the four other sources that corrobate the fact that Nydahl does take students as girlfriends? Those are neiter editorials, opinion pieces or blogs, but primary sources directly from the organization founded by the person the article is about or by his students. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read through them all, and they don't say that. In particular, they don't actually mention any details of any sexual relationships. They essentially say that he at one time had a consensual group marriage composed of himself, his wife, and one other woman. There are no complaints in the article from any of the parties or even from the writers or interviewers. His wife is now deceased, and we don't know anything else. This is none of our business or our readers business. Yworo (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, Nydahl explicitly says he stopped having multiple relationships at the same time because of AIDS and the bad example of another buddhist teacher. If his relationships had been non-sexual, this would make no sense. And that the parties involved are ok with it doesn't mean it isn't the readers business. As I said above, the standards applied to teachers are usually rather high, and there was criticism by the German Buddhist Union. Simply put, the people most likely to read this article (outside of editors, of course) are potential students. I think especially for female potential students, the information that Nydahl has had sexual relationships with female students in the past while they were his students is relevant. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply, that's not Wikipedia's job. Let the GBU and other Buddhist organizations police their own, if they believe it necessary. In any case, you seem to be reading a lot into what the articles actually say. Why do we care about what the subject did prior to 1983, before the Sharmapa had even named him a "master"? He was in his 30s then and he is in his 70s now. And even at the time of the interview, the topic was the consensual group relationship including his wife and only one other woman. You can't get a plurality of student partners from that! Give it up, it's in no way appropriate for a Wikipedia article. You seem to be trying to tar and feather the subject for something that might have occurred (and apparently never caused any controversy either at the time or even later) over 30 years ago! Yworo (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, why should we care about any of his other biographical details? It is an interesting fact that allows the reader to better understand Nydahl and his approach to life. Concerning multiple partnerships, I'm referring to the following passage from the interview with him that I cited above: "Relationships are a topic everybody probably has to deal with all of their lives. Surprisingly, I have now heard that you officialy have to women. How do you and the women feel? Earlier, I had a lot of women because of the constant traveling. That was part of the time and was ok. We were good friends, they learned meditating and we shared many good things. But then, AIDS came, and I had to make an example as teacher. There was a well-known buddhist group, Dharmadhatu, whose bisexual teacher knew since 1983 that he was HIV-positive. Despite that, he didn't tell his students till 1988 and didn't protect them. Some of them became ill and died, he also died. It was a terrible scandal. When it became known, I knew that this wasn't allowed to happen to the Diamondway. That's why I became more bourgeois. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

First, a person's sex life is private and generally of no interest to us. Second, it involves other people who have a presumption of privacy because they are not public figures (see WP:NPF). Third, we are not allowed to make any inferences from what Nydahl has said. Sure, he says he "had a lot of women while travelling" - so what? Where does he explicitly say that the women were his students? That's right, he doesn't, you are reading that into it, and we cannot do that on Wikipedia. Where is the source that explicitly states that there was 1) any controversy and 2) that any of the women other than the one involved in the consensual group marriage were students? None of the sources you present say these things explicitly. You can read between the lines all you want. Wikipedia cannot. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The sex life of a multitude of public people is discussed on Wikipedia. Polyamorism isn't the norm, and people who are polyamorists are listed for that attribute on Wikipedia [[5]]. Concerning the quote: Unfortunately, I'm on the road. I have his biography at home, IIRC, he makes statements that conform to the standard you require. I could provide a better fitting quote this weekend. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Per Yworo; Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs or warn or inform people about how awful someone is. You must have extensive reliable sourcing which support your desired content in order to include negative information about living persons, and you simply don't have that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What is negative about multiple partners? I never claimed it is. It is just information potential students should be privy to. As I said above, Polyamorism isn't the norm and noteworthy. It can be stated neutrally without any judgement, can't it? Sceptic Watcher (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did polyamory enter into this? I haven't seen a source that uses that word, have you? Yworo (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the topic is not brought up in the German Wikipedia article either, although several of the sources you present were in German, and you claim there was a controversy about it in Germany. Clearly German Wikipedia has similar rules about privacy and not unnecessarily detailing personal relationships. Yworo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You said yourself that one of the sources I provided describes a consensual group marriage. A consensual group marriage is a form of polyarmory. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we've had this issue on the List of polyamorists article. Unless a source says it's polyamory, it's not. The only thing really said about the nature of the relationship by Nydahl is "we don't find monogamy necessary" (London Times, 1999). We don't accept that as automatically meaning "polyamory" here. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that by common sense the standard should depend on context. Something can be insufficiently related to polyamory to count when we're making a list, yet sufficiently related to count when we're worried about negative effects of calling them that, since the former requires near certainty while the latter does not. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Polyamory is one of those things that a living person has to self-identify as practicing. If they don't call themselves polyamorous, we can't call them that. Non-monogamy is a broader category than polyamory, which has additional requirements. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to judge whether or not these additional requirements were present or not. That would be original research. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that when we decide whether to call someone a polyamorist, we need self-identification, but when we're saying "we might want to exclude that, since including it amounts to an accusation of polyamory" we don't need self-identification. Deciding to exclude an accusation because the accusation basically calls someone a polyamorist is neither original research nor requires any self-identification whatsoever. (What would self-identification even mean there?) Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I agree, we should not include it. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, huh? Seems like speculation to me. The article is shorter overall, perhaps not detailing it was an oversight? Above, you accuse me of interpreting and reading into an article, now you are interpreting and reading into the absence of information. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I support Yworo. Merigar (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Hoffman

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

BLP has only one 'source': musician's own website. looks non-notable band-spam. lately seeing anon IPs trying to spread it to other articles ('notable' people section of the charlottesville virginia article for example).Cramyourspam (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Article is now at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Hoffman) as are the two albums mentioned therein.--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hideki Matsui

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

In the article it states Matsui told a story on an edition of Yes Network's CenterStage about being a right handed hitter as a child. To the best of my knowledge and all research, Matsui has never appeared on CenterStage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.68.19 (talk • contribs)

Lenore Skenazy

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

Violation of WP:NPF This relatively unknown person's entry is merely self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.61.118 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article seems somewhat promotional in tone, but she is certainly WP:Notable after a quick glance. She is a nationally syndicated columnist. Her bio has plenty of references to independent major media coverage. Probably needs some more in-line citations. Is there anything in the article that you consider to be false or defamatory? Sperril (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten this so it doesn't sound so self-promotional. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Flavio Briatore

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

New user Shadow003 (talk · contribs) requested semi-protection at RFPP saying:

"The previous text has been modified because it contained false and slanderous information, and it has been formally contested by Mr Briatore’s lawyer with a letter of formal notice to the Wikimedia foundation. We kindly ask protection of this new text, which is a precise translation of the text which appears now on Wikipedia Italy, as a result of the letter of formal notice sent by Mr Briatore’s lawyers to Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Italy, contesting the previous version for its false and slanderous content."

I have declined semi-protection, which would not solve anything. Shadow003's changes to the article have twice been reverted as removing sourced information. I will also post at WP:ANI bcause of the reference to lawyers and the Foundation. JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone taking an interest in this article should check User talk:Shadow003 for input, as the user has been blocked for legal threats but invited to contribute there. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby

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

A person whom I know repeatedly adds material to my biography page to advertise his own work. He does this repeatedly, with wholly malicious intent. He will soon be reported to his Dean if he continues to do this under the cloak of anonymity. His username is nomoskedasticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.22.56.48 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know you and am therefore probably not the person you have in mind. My concern has to do with deletion of passages based on published work that raises questions about your own. In that regard my intent is not at all malicious; rather it is rooted in WP:NPOV. In any event, let's see what other contributors here have to say. By the way, please use either your logged-in account (Choxby (talk · contribs)) or the IP address, but not both (per WP:SOCK). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that this is not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, so your warning about sockpuppetry is misplaced at best. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet the request to use one account was appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the additions are valid. Another scholar challenged your work and you responded publicly. The brouhaha was noticed by the Wall Street Journal among others, making it very visible. This is a valid matter to be brought to the biography article, a notable incident in your career, albeit one that questions your scholarship. In the Wikipedia guideline on neutral point of view, notable and legitimate negative information is not to be struck from an article simply because it is negative.

The additions are not so much about the other scholar as they are about criticism of your widely cited paper. This is not a case of the other scholar trying to push his work at your expense, it is a case of telling the reader about a widely reported scholarly debate. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that the content, as presented, was heading into synthesis territory. "This paper says this, this other paper says that, and that paper over there said this, so..." I think the previously cited Wall Street Journal article and the Crimson are fine, but the content as written doesn't appear to actually rely on them except to seemingly say "see, I promise, this is sourced." The Reardon critique is not mentioned in either of those sources, which makes it just another paper and unsuitable for a wp:blp without a reliable source indicating its relevance. If any of the "controversy" is going to stay, it needs to be rewritten more to the reliable sources and boiled down to its core facts. (For example, "serious criticism" was a Wikipedia editor's original research, as neither of the reliable sources cited defined the other papers as "serious" nor "criticism.") jæs (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconding this, and adding that I've changed the wording of a few places in the article, as a lot of it sounded very promotional in nature. You can see the differential here (sorry for the IP editing--I thought I was logged in at the time. RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "Hoxby's research has received much recognition..." was definitely promotional, especially as it preceded a list of internationally recognized awards. Good work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot your <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags.  :) jæs (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Was wondering if that was intended to be sarcastic. Anyway, it's redundant to say the research has received much recognition and then list the awards--it's overkill. RunnerOnIce (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the portion of this that seemed to be one person's criticism, sourced solely to the paper which contained that criticism. The other dispute did get some press, but without looking into it in more depth it is hard to judge if this ultimately amounted to anything worth noting in a short biography such as this. I've left it in for now, but it might be worth a closer look if the subject still objects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The other source was not simply "one person's criticism" but a scholar's review of another scholar's work. In any event, the passage was removed for lack of "secondary" coverage (a misuse of that notion, but never mind), and so I have now restored it with a third-party source, a published book by yet another scholar who discusses Reardon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A scholar only counts as "one person". I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems like an attempt to include negative material in the BLP no matter how trivial. If Reardon's criticism is noteworthy, we should include it, If it is not, we should leave it out. Are there other sources discussing it? If it is only mentioned in the one book, it really is undue weight including it. All scholars, especially prominent ones, are the subject of criticism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A scholar might be one person, but the source is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia prefers, and so it's better than just one "person" or even one journalist. As for other coverage of Reardon's critique, the answer is: yes indeed -- do a google books search using the words reardon charter and hoxby. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow sociology at all, but I had actually heard about this controversy before it came here, so it apparently has some traction. Are there still any lingering concerns about including something along these lines now that it has a secondary source? a13ean (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, let's not refer to her as a sociologist -- then she'll really get annoyed. There's little worse one could say about an economist...  :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And just to follow up, I warned the IP about WP:NPA re the threats of off-wiki action bit. a13ean (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I've removed the Reardon material. A single source does not alone establish that Reardon's view is even notable, nor that it rises to the level of being biographically-relevant to Hoxby. (If Reardon has an article here, you might consider making a case that it's relevant to his biography.) The other paper has significant mainstream press coverage; the Reardon view has none immediately apparent. At least three editors with no connection to the article have removed or advised removing the material, and the reasons for that were not satisfied by the Thomas text. I would strongly suggest that a consensus be clear and present agreeing that the material is reliably sourced, significantly biographical, and not undue before its reinclusion (either here or at the article's talk page). jæs (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jaes, you appear to have missed the discussion just above in which it became clear that there was not just a "single source". I suggest you reconsider by virtue of reading the entire discussion here. By saying that Reardon's view is "not notable", you are misusing/misapplying WP:N and failing to consider WP:RS -- the sources provided for the text discussing Reardon's critique unquestionably satisfy the standards for sources here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the discussion here closely since shortly after it was first posted. The text I just removed from the article had a single secondary source (as the primary source from Reardon himself was not included in the text at the article when you reinserted it, and would not qualify as a reliable source in any event). I can assure you I am not misapplying wp:npov; while notability is required for an article to simply exist, wp:npov also requires viewpoints included be notable. Likewise, you can be certain I have not, in any way, failed to consider wp:rs; you speak of "sources" and yet you have presented only one, single, solitary secondary source for the Reardon article thus far. That one source by absolutely no means "unquestionably satisfies" our standards for sourcing, let alone wp:blp, your wikilawyering notwithstanding. jæs (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you were unwilling to check, even with my assistance above? Okay, here's a list for you:

• John Merrow, The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, p. 204
• Another one by Thomas: Ignoring Poverty in the U.S.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Education, 2012, p. 162 (quoting several sentences from Reardon's piece)
• Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2011, edited by Erik A. Hanushek, Stephen J. Machin, Ludger Woessmann, p. 553 (in chapter by Eric Bettinger)

Now, on top of that, perhaps you can tell me how the book by Thomas fails WP:RS -- particularly in view of the fact that it did first strike you as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Unwilling to check" what, exactly? Had you provided any of those sources here or at the article, prior to just now? Two apparently mention Reardon briefly in passing; I'm working to find the third to see if it asserts that the Reardon paper is anything more than a footnote in the "controversy." The impact, at this point, is the same: none have established the Reardon viewpoint as biographically relevant to Hoxby. Again, if you want to make a case for including the Reardon paper at an article on school vouchers, you might be able to wedge it in there. But we've covered the core of the debate over her paper, reliably, in the paragraph that is currently in the article. Dedicating another paragraph — or even a sentence — to the Reardon paper or other papers without significant reliable sources indicating that they are relevant to Hoxby's life is undue. jæs (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave you everything you needed above: a google books search on the terms reardon charter and hoxby. As for "briefly in passing" -- again, the second one listed above quotes several sentences from Reardon's critique. I also note you have declined the invitation to say how the Thomas book does not meet WP:RS. If the list above isn't enough for you, perhaps an article in the NYTimes would do it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Paper by the Economic Policy Institute, hosted at the Education Research Information Center, perhaps? I trust we won't have "passing mention" on that one -- Reardon is right there in the abstract. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Coverage in Education Week, perhaps? Again, right in the abstract. And hell, I'm not even on campus right now and so am not using the wider access I have to subscription-only stuff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken about how Wikipedia works; the burden is on you, as the party that wishes so strongly for material to be included, to provide reliable sources that make a clear case that the content is both relevant and necessary to present a neutral and due biography. You provided, prior to your edit a few minutes ago, a single secondary source. I've not questioned nor endorsed the reliability of the initial Thomas source, but your using it as a strawman is noted.

One more time, and then I'll leave it to the other editors to either debate or acquiesce to your relentless insistence that Reardon be included in Hoxby's biography: the debate between Hoxby and Rothstein received significant, widespread, and notable coverage. The Reardon viewpoint — even with the brief mention on a New York Times blog — is but a footnote in that debate. None of the sources even come close to indicating that his viewpoint is biographically relevant to Hoxby. If the Hoxby-Rothstein debate had its own article, or perhaps at school voucher or school choice, you might have an argument. But here it is a merely an attempt, intentionally or otherwise to coatrack her biography into one of those things, and that is absolutely undue.

(Best of luck with your campaign, though. You undoubtedly are skilled at debating and have a nearly indefatigable desire to get that Reardon paper in there. Keep it up, and you'll eventually plough through uninvolved editors like me with your sheer persistence.) jæs (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? NY Times + Education Week + EPI paper + four books by other scholars -- not sufficient for you? Charleston Gazette, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A blog, a blurb, another primary source, and some quotes about the debate that mention Reardon in passing, all in the context of the larger Hoxby-Rothstein controversy. None mentioning Reardon further than as a footnote in the larger debate. But you're missing the point. You'll find it at wp:undue, although you clearly have no interest in even trying to justify why Reardon's viewpoint is biographically relevant to Hoxby. Again, though, I'll leave it to other editors at this point to either put up a fight for wp:blp or give in to your "campus access" list of exhausting exhaustive Reardon passing mention citations. jæs (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Soliciting other input

A bilateral dialogue above ends with a plea for input from others, and I concur on that score. An edit removed a passage about critique of Hoxby's work by another scholar (one of her department colleagues, in fact), on the basis of insufficient sourcing. I would be grateful to know whether the following sources are to be considered sufficient for this passage:

• Paul Lee Thomas, 2009, Parental Choice?: A Critical Reconsideration of Choice and the Debate About Choice, IAP, p. 166
• John Merrow, The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, p. 204
• Paul Lee Thomas: Ignoring Poverty in the U.S.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Education, 2012, p. 162 (quoting several sentences from Reardon's piece)
• Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2011, edited by Erik A. Hanushek, Stephen J. Machin, Ludger Woessmann, p. 553 (in chapter by Eric Bettinger)
• Coverage in Education Week
• Charleston Gazette
• Paper by the Economic Policy Institute, hosted at the Education Research Information Center
• article in the NYTimes

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the "personal life" section in this biography encyclopedic or appropriate? PatGallacher (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it as a copyvio. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is great. PG, thanks for listing this. I was about to. Would everyone who comments please review the postions PG and I have taken on the article's talk page? David in DC (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, there are four sources and only one is in question as a copyright violation. I think the re-deletion is a bit peremptory. It's also not justified as it relates to the other three sources. Would you please consider returning the section and simply rephrasing the the part you think runs too close to the language of the Vogue UK article you've cited? David in DC (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the whole section which has been lifted from the article. If you text search for one of the names mentioned, you'll see what I mean. I thought it would be a shortcut to a solution to delete it on those grounds. Obviously not, but it's still a copvio, so I'm not going to restore it. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Guided by your good advice, and after I saw that another editor had blanket restored the prose, I have reread all four sources, attributed multiple sources to facts that can be multiply sourced, and re-paraphrased everything. I think I've solved the CopyrightVio issues and also the CIRCULAR issues PG has raised on the talk page.

Now we're down to whether the section is encyclopedic enough. Right now the arguments are evenly balanced, numerically. But, since WP:VOTINGISEVIL, and the two positions seem well-stated, it's my hope that fresh voices will address the matter on the talk page of the article. I'm well aware that I have no corner on the wisdom market. (Hell, I'm often moved to wonder if I even have a stall there.) Would other editors please come to the article, review the history and the talk page discussion, and share with us the benefit of your counsel? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Todd Hollenshead

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

The "Controversy" section in the biography is defamatory, created by a vandal, improperly sourced to writings of his own creation, and has been removed multiple times, and reported to Wikipedia as defamatory. The poster of this information has vandalized the biography repeatedly and the page should be locked from further changes on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.40.99 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. Please be aware of the WP:NLT policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources for that section are dubious at best, so I have removed it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

...and reverted. Protection requested.--ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK so it's been "pending changes" protected, but that isn't much good if the changes are not being reviewed properly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

... which they weren't, but you've now fixed that with the reviewer, so all looks good again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup all good. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis E. Ward

Dennis E. Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The neutrality of this article is in dispute. However, given the minor position of the elected official the page does not meet the necessary criterion of being a 'person of note' and should therefore be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.189.109 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bzdelik

• Jeff Bzdelik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to have received a massive coatrack of negative content (albeit sourced) which appears to violate WP:UNDUE as well. In light of the extremely rapid-fire revert war, I fully protected the page and removed the content. I'd like some input on my actions and the content. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the removal because it was a large section blanking with no reason cited in the edit summary, and there were clearly a lot of references. Unrelated to my reasoning, but the username Dash Deac seems to imply a COI. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) RE and I sort of tripped over each other; I was looking at this, and when I finally figured out what was going on, the page had already been protected. I agree with your (Reaper's) assessment. This looks like a long running thing; I suspect we'll have to reprotect for longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a new user and attempted to expand this article. My last submission was this which was taken down by the user Dash Deac without explanation. I would appreciate some guidance on the issue of what constitutes a proper submission. All the information I included was factual, sourced to reputable news outlets or blogs, and non-libelous. I am unsure how the term "coatrack" applies to this submission; Bzdelik is a basketball coach and facts regarding his basketball record seem appropriate and relevant. Further, I would appreciate some guidance on how such information is "undue weight". Since this page had experienced some vandalism in the past, I was hoping that addition of factual, sourced content would curtail future vandalism. I appreciate your feedback and attention to the situation. (107.7.113.202 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Stop Bbb23 From Vindictive Editing Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky Page

• Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stop Bbb23 from vindictive editing. You cannot win a edit war with us from many sites worldwide. We will see how long you can go on edit warring with us before deleting this page.82.73.35.159 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We want to see how long Bbb23 and his Wikipedia goons can go on edit warring with us from multiple sites around the world. Let's see who wins. We will continue to revert posts and we will continue to create new accounts and revert edits by Bbb23 from many locations around the world. Let's see who wins before a decision is taken to delete the page itself.82.73.35.159 (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protection requested -- and now done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the IP here needs to find out how Wikipedia works, and engage with us in a proper manner, rather than engaging in a futile edit war that cannot possibly succeed - we win such edit wars all the time, by simple expedient of protecting the article from edits. An article on a leading Bangladeshi politician isn't going to be deleted because of edit-warring - and engaging in such activities merely attracts more attention to the article. If the claims regarding the individual being expelled from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party are incorrect, or improperly sourced, they can of course be rectified in the appropriate manner - by providing the necessary evidence. I suggest that the IP finds the necessary evidence, and then returns here with it so it can be looked into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra eyes are still needed on the article - a registered contributor is now involved in edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else it's nice that the IP effectively reported themselves here though. a13ean (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

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

Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly

• Problem: First sentence of article states a seriously contested assertion (fraud) as fact

• Issues: Libel and NPOV

• Definition of Fraud: would a lay reader interpret the first sentence as relating to scientific or criminal fraud ?

If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then can we use the ORI definition (http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Grateful for help and advice Nernst (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For context, Andrew Wakefield is the British doctor (now living in Texas) who was stripped of his medical license after it came to light that he had engaged in a wide variety of unethical conduct to produce a now-withdrawn and entirely discredited scientific paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Libel actions by Wakefield against Brian Deer – the journalist who first drew major public attention to Wakefield's misconduct – have been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, here on Wikipedia Nernst is forum-shopping because he just won't take 'no' for an answer. He was blocked for engaging in a vigorous edit war over the identical issue at MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (most of his reverts were while logged out as 2.98.182.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) about six weeks ago. He's now fighting the same WP:IDHT fight against consensus and making the same arguments at Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), slapping a gratuitous {npov} tag on the article, and engaging in ask-the-other-parent crossposting here and at WP:NPOV/N. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Over half a dozen requests for help and guidance from editors on article ALL ignored. No other responses other than "we achieved consensus before and do not wish to discuss this". Not reasonable to critizise imperfect editing when consistently refusing to point me in the right direction.Nernst (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The only issue should be: are the sources provided in the article reliable and authoritative enough to support the claims? The sentence in the lead is "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." Sources cited for the claims: British Medical Journal article "Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article "Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications", Time Magazine article "Great Science Frauds". Zad68 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see anyone supporting Nernst in this like of argument, looks like it could reasonably be described as IDHT. a13ean (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazing ! Start an edit war, you get banned for a week but things get changed. Try to do things "properly" and you get ignored, vilified and feel like banging your head against a wall. I had thought the argument regarding sources had finished - BMJ/TIME/PNAS = opinion = worthless. If it scientific misconduct it should be cited PROPERLY as such. If criminal it should be removed under presumption of innoncence. I have consistenly listened and answered politely and asked for help where appropriate but it seems this is pointless when faced with a deaf, angry mob.Nernst (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are scores of the highest quality sources (journals), compliant with WP:MEDRS, supporting the "fraudulent". Many of them are cited in the article already; there are many more. This discussion has been had multiple times on article talk. There is no BLP vio; Wikipedia is reporting what the highest quality medical journal sources say on the matter, and "fraudulent" was repeated by scores of the highest quality media sources. There's nothing to see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nernst, you may have a misapprehension of some of wikipedia's core policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. As SG said, there are multiple high-quality sources that converge on this point - Wakefield's research was fraudlent. We do not engage in original research to split hairs over our definition of fraud compared to a source - the source always wins. You may personally disagree with the source's use of fraud, but that is essentially irrelevant. Finally, you may think "neutral" means "uncritical", "fair" or "providing the benefit of the doubt". This is not the case. Neutral means as represented in reliable sources. There are many sources that are highly critical of Wakefield, and the ones that support him are of very low quality - blogs, self-published books, non-peer-reviewed journals and the like. You may certainly include dissenting opinions published in reliable sources, but wikipedia takes a very mainstream-focussed approach and the mainstream consensus is that Wakefield's research was, put mildly, extremely problematic. We do not presume innocence until proven guilty, we follow the sources. And the best sources do not treat Wakefield's work as a seriously contested fact - they treat it as fraudulent. It is quite possible the only outcome you will get from any message board is that you must accept these facts, even if you do not like them. Without a policy-based reasoning (that agrees with the true sense of the policy, not what you think it means) or some excellent sources (that I don't think exist) you are unlikely to see the lead change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nernst's view is perfectly reasonable. He or she has every right to attempt to persuade others to it; and having failed to persuade the regulars at the article, taking the issue here for more eyes is fine. It is not forum-shopping. It is the next step. This is how this place works. It is an unusual case - Wikipedia describing as fraudulent the behaviour of a living person who has not been convicted of fraud in a court of law. It deserves scrutiny, and lots of eyes. Personally, I'm convinced we have a duty to do just as we are doing, but I have no problem at all with that being interrogated thoroughly by the community. All I ask is that nobody opines here until they've at least read the article and the current discussion on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps things were different when Nernst started his campaign, but the current version says "fraudulent research paper", thus research fraud -- and that is indisputably verified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We're fairly careful. We say:

• his fraudulent 1998 research paper
• an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud"
• the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, identified Wakefield's 1998 paper as the most cited retracted scientific paper, with 758 citations, and gave the "reason for retraction" as "fraud".
• In January 2012 Wakefield filed a defamation lawsuit in Texas state court against Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ for false accusations of fraud
• Physicians, medical journals, and editors have made statements tying Wakefield's fraudulent actions to various epidemics and deaths.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The only potential difficulty I see in that list is the BMJ editorial. Fortunately it is properly attributed in text to Deer, so in the end, fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just when I had lost all faith in collaborative editing and critical thinking I am humbled and grateful for excellent preceding 2 posts from Anthonyncole and WLU. I have limited experience with Wikipedias rules and processes but will try to explain my view in those terms.

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIMINAL suggests editors avoid inserting material related to a crime when a conviction has not been secured. WP:NPOV states that we should avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

Wakefield has not been convicted of fraud in a court of law and has contested charges of fraud in 3 failed libel actions. So if a person reading the lead sentence could reasonably conclude he has been found criminally guilty of fraud then the term should be removed.

There is an alternative reading i.e. that he is guilty of scientific fraud. In which case the term 'scientific' should be inserted in to the lead and the primary source quoted: the GMC finding of fact and the Lancet retraction. Ideally, to assist readers this would be accompanied by a link to the office of scientific integrity which provides a definition of scientific fraud.

While the BMJ is a very high quality source, the reference to it's editorial should be removed as per WP:NEWSORG as we are not attributing the statements to the editor but using them as statements of fact. The TIME article refers to the BMJ and so fails the circular argument test within the same guidance.

I am not unreasonable and if the consensus is that the article should remain the same, then so be it. It may just desserts that Wakefield is being viewed and treated in this way but none of us would want an accusation of fraud leveled lightly against us and if nothing else he has taught us to treat with caution even the most prestigious of sources Nernst (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The BMJ article is not subject to NEWSORG as the BMJ is not a news organisation. The fact the the Time article refers to it is reason to include it, not to exclude it. No reasonable person could read the lead sentence as an accusation of criminal fraud. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've altered the lead to make it clear it is scientific misconduct (i.e. scientific fraud), not criminal. As Nomo stated, it is very obvious that the issue is one of research, not criminal fraud, and we would not cite primary sources, particularly when such excellent secondary sources are available. As for "seriously contested" - the fact that Wakefield's paper was fraudulent is not seriously contested. The mainstream expert opinion is quite clearly that it was. Wakefield may protest his innocence, but independent, reliable sources disagree and per WP:NPOV they get more weight.

I do not see focusing on criminal issues as relevant, since the lead clearly frames it as scientific misconduct. BLPCRIME and CRIMINAL do not apply (particularly since the latter is a criteria for notability, and Wakefield is clearly notable).

It looks pretty clear that the consensus is against you, mostly because so many sources are explicit and critical in their handling of the matter. Your pointing to WP:NEWSORG and original research regarding whether the Time article is appropriate is, in fact, not appropriate. Both are more than sufficient to verify the statements they are appended to in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I had no idea that Wikipedia used secondary in preference to primary sources since it's the opposite of what happens in scientific literature. As to whether a reasonable person could interpret the lead as referring to criminal fraud, the whole reason I posted here was to find out. The BMJ has news articles in its first dozen pages so the distinction is blurred but I'm willing to concede the point, particularly since it's no longer seems relevant; it's a secondary source and therefore stronger not weaker ! I am grateful for the clarification on the lead. I'll use my final edit (3rd revert) to 'add' scientific after 1998 so there can be absolutely no confusion. I don't follow the sentence in relation to OR could you please clarify. I agree the consensus is in favour of the status quo, i'll give it 24hrs then withdraw peacefully and with thanks for your patience, guidance and clarification.Nernst (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've undone WLU's WP:EGG (scientific misconduct was the wikilink, but fraudulent was the wording) because that's not how we do it (easter egg links, hidden words). [6] Either we mean one or the other, but not one linking to the other. For now, I've left "scientific misconduct"-- not saying that "fraudulent" isn't supported by the sources, just removing the Easter egg link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are used in preference to primary to avoid original research. Original research is when an editor adds text to a page either without a source, or by drawing a conclusion that the source itself does not make. In this case, you are also using original research to say Time is not a reliable source because it is just citing the BMJ article. It's not quite the same context, but the sense is the same - editors must rely on an accurate summary of the sources, not what they think of their sources. For more information please read the policies in question.

Ya, my link was EGG-y, no worries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the blue link really necessary ? Sorry to bring us round full circle but in the circumstances the secondary sources seem deliberate in their use of the term 'fraud' Nernst (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

On the link, scientific misconduct is already wiki-linked elsewhere in the article, so may or may not be needed in the lead. On the broader matter, while I agree that "fraud" is supported by the sources (and the majority of them, including those of the highest quality), I suspect we can find a middle ground that will satisfy everyone-- one that simply involves recasting a few sentences to make the text even more clear. That is, as in some of my other edits, make it clear that the sources (not Wikipedia) are assigning the label "fraudulent" (and there are scores of them), and somewhere clarifying early on (without the EGGy link) that scientific misconduct (using the link) was involved. In other words, while there is nothing wrong with the current text, and sources support it, we can avoid these recurring issues by finding a way to tighten the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This really ought not be an issue. It's as reasonable to read an allegation of crime into the phrase "known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper" as it would be into "she murdered Nine To Five with her karaoke version". Formerip (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are few contexts in which the term fraud will not be seen as a highly charged and emotive word, particularly to someone with a professional qualification. Where no conviction exists, it should be used carefully and thoughtfully. My original argument regarding it's use seems to be wrong and i am sorry if my edits were poor or caused other editors inconvenience. I am NOT sorry for questioning the use of the word fraud or asking other editors to justify their logic.Nernst (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What about just changing the phrasing to something like "accused of scientific fraud" instead of "fraudulent?" Like, "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher accused of committing scientific fraud in a 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." That way it leaves in the accusation but words slightly less biased. RunnerOnIce (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Accused of" misses the point, when the journals that published some of the original work found it to be fraudulent research and retracted the original publications. The work is described as fraudulent by multiple high quality sources; we don't need to water that down. It does seem that making it more clear that it is scientific misconduct, research fraud, whatever might help, since folks seem to keep thinking it's run-of-the-mill criminal fraud (wanting words like "alleged" and "accused of", when the research fraud has been demonstrated by the journals that retracted the articles and is supported by high quality sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy -- there is no case for "accused of", it really couldn't be clearer that the scientific community and other interested parties have expressed an unequivocal view that this was fraud (not that it might have been fraud). Conveying that unequivocal view is not "bias". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; for example the Schön scandal is a similar case in which papers were forcibly withdrawn. He continues to deny it to this day, but a large number of high quality sources including the original journals determined his work to be fraudulent, and it's correctly identified as such in the first sentence of that article. a13ean (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Accused of" would be inaccurate. We strive to report what sources say; they it was fraud. They don't say he was accused of fraud. KillerChihuahua 13:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Stuart Hall (presenter)

Stuart Hall (presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BBC is today (breaking news) reporting his arrest on rape allegations[7]. That may or may not belong on his article, but the vandalism had already started so I've semied for 3 days. Can some folk watchlist this?--Scott Mac 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Winslow T. Wheeler

Winslow T. Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some IP changes on the page just now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Winslow_T._Wheeler&action=historysubmit&diff=526584374&oldid=507509104

Seem to be off on tone to me, but since I know the person in question, I'm reserving personal judgement on this. Hcobb (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed all that sentence and took it to the talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexander von Fürstenberg

Alexander von Fürstenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is verfiable that the subject has two children, as the Wikipedia article indicates. However, someone is inserting information that a "Dyllan Bernardo Zimberknopf" is one of von Furstenberg's children and representing this person as an heir. This cannot be verified reliably using any research tool available and has no background in fact with any publicly available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.24.139 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed part of that section as not reliably sourced.--ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jon Ausman

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

• Brought to my attention as it is currently at AfD -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Ausman. Subject of article is editing it (as identified by himself at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Jon_Ausman. Another editor and he are battling over between making the piece a puffy resume or hit job. Would appreciate someone looking at article and considering whether issues are so bad to merit immediate deletion, or at least whacking out the "controversies" and protecting it until AfD is completed. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

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

It would be helpful if somone besides me would look at the merits of the material that User:Jprw has repeatedly added to the lead of this article. The issue of Leather's using fake accounts to bolster sales of his books has been discussed before on the article talk page. There is a section on it in the article. Before Jprw's edits, there was nothing in the lead about it. I don't have a strong objection to it being mentioned in the lead, but a short sentence would be sufficient (I tried one - didn't go over with the editor). Also, the longer sentence that is there now is an inaccurate characterization of what is in the body. I haven't looked at the sources Jprw cites in the lead to see if they add anything to the sources already in the body, but my preference (and Wikipedia's) is that leads have no sources, but only summarize well-sourced body material. I suggested in my edit summary that Jprw go to talk per WP:BRD, but that went over like a dead balloon, and to be fair, I haven't started a topic on the talk page, either; part of that is because the issues are not really new, and I get tired of content circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I would object to having that "material" in the lede. I could maybe live with your version in the lede, but only as a compromise. Is there some reason Jprw is hell bent on his "long" version? --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you'd have to ask them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Jprw, is there some reason you are hell bent on the long version in the lede? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jprw might not be aware of this discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in the initial discussions about this material. As far as I know, this is still the same incident (for want of a better word) which is being re-visited/perpetuated. I have re-read through the three sources and my concern is the article should be accurate. Leather has admitted using sockpuppet accounts - not to posting 'reviews' of his books but rather to bolster interest in them on forums. As far as I can see, none of the sources state he wrote fake reviews; R J Ellory is the person who admitted posting fake reviews. The most recently added reference [8] does have a comment added by Vinjamuri (the author of the piece) where he states he may have mis-represented Leather and that it is just an op-ed column. It's on the third page of comments.

I am still a little unsure of wiki etiquette, so have also posted this comment on the talk page. As I said above, my concern is the Wiki article should be accurate and report facts without being blown out of proportion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanaz Alasti/User:Kabirat

User:Kabirat has been involved in addition of dangerous unsourced content across this and other articles and is clearly in breach of WP:BLP. Also involved in various edit wars (with people trying to abide by WP:BLP) on multiple articles. Given final warning regarding behaviour. [9] [10] [11] [12]. Seems to be focused exclusively on Iranian WP:BLPs with no regard for WP:NPOV. Per my talk page, refuses to accept that reading something on a Facebook which is subsequentally deleted and cannot be sourced does not count as a verifiable evidence. Almost entire edit history is edit warring over WP:BLP articles. Wasn't sure if this was the ideal place to report, it seems there's some overlap. -Rushyo ^Talk 10:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad al-Hassan al-Yamani

Ahmad al-Hassan al-Yamani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs attention. Unsourced and badly sourced contentious claims (and can anyone confirm whether or not the YouTube link is copyright free?) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The video is Standard YouTube License, which is Creative Commons Attribution. Regardless it's not proscribed to link to copyrighted works, only to include them as content. -Rushyo ^Talk 15:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless of course the video is being hosted in contravention of somebodies copyright, in which case ELNO#Restrictions_on_linking applies. If doug is referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUE2H0qaSlY then the onscreen DOG means it's probably a TV recording and the given licence is incorrect, so it should not be used. 149.241.56.23 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

john leguizamo

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

There is a line about John's son not being circumsised. John's som is 11 years old, a minor. He is also not a public person. He is being harrassed at school. Please remove this line. I've tried and it keeps coming back. It is in the "personal life" section of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.243.13 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Having now familiarised myself with the BLP policy I will not restore the content about Leguizamo's views on circumcision. I felt it was notable given the fact his wife is Jewish and for a celebrity to speak so frankly about a controversial subject is interesting, but I accept that it breaks the BLP policy and may not be appropriate. Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a similar addition of yours from Jemima Kirke - are there any others? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I revdeled the more recent mentions of the information in view of the ip's complaint. It goes a long way back in the article, so I thought getting it out of the first page of the history is sufficient under the circumstances. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa

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

This BLP was here a month ago. The talk page has discussed alot of material it seems. A New Yorker article covers alot of stuff, history. What material rises to the level worthy of inclusion? --Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Material in the New Yorker is by itself worthy of inclusion. Adding to that is this article in the San Francisco Chronicle and this piece in Counterpunch. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So we should or can include every bit of material in the article into the bio? Brillant. Feeding time is over. --Malerooster (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Paper does not usually refuse ink. That does not mean every iota written about a person rises to being useful for Wikipedia readers. That is why editors are called "editors." Collect (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing any evidence that there is a violation of WP:BLP here. The ironic symmetry of Issa having been a car thief before making millions selling car alarms has been written up by many journalists. He had an interesting and colorful past and a decent biography will say as much. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

John Nkomo

John Nkomo, Vice-president of Zombabwe, is gravely ill but is not dead. See newszimbabwe.com, which first reported the story and has now retracted this and apologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savaici (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Gans

As chance would have it, I recently visited Sharon Gans to find this version of the article, complete with sensationalist, anonymous allegations that were published from 1978-1979. After visiting the links and reviewing the information, I stubbified the entire article and left a note on the talk page. Now, I bring the issue here to this noticeboard, because I predict the obsessed editor who added this material will continue to try to add it back, as the page history shows. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

I feel there are recently deceased persons implications here. In the first place a coroner's court has yet to rule Amanda's death was a suicide, and in the second place the article is clearly in breach of guidelines published in Canada, the US and elsewhere regarding the responsible reporting of suicides to avoid copycat suicides such as appear to have been the case at Bridgend, UK, where an internet resource has been implicated.

Im ny view the article is not "encylopaedic", but rather a news story. It cannot possibly have pretensions to be encyclopaedic until the coroner's inquest has been published, and even then not until the inquest has been examined and reflected upon in reliable secondary sources. Meanwhile the article shoud be circumspect in reporting the facts and abide by ordinary journalistic standards, the more so because readers are likely to think it the more authoritative for being published in Wikipedia. In particular I feel it should be entitled "Death of Amanda Todd" until such time as the coroner has ruled and public sympathy for the case has abated somewhat.

I've argued these points in more detail at the Village Pump. JaniB (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have already been told, guidelines that media organizations adopt for themselves is not applicable here; an encyclopedia is not a newspaper, hence this "the article is not "encyclopedic" argument is quite ill-informed. This also really has no bearing on BLP policy, for painfully obvious reasons. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, if you had bothered to look at my wikilinked recently deceased persons you would have seen it was WP:BDP which is part of BLP policy. JaniB (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand why the user posted this here as well at first, but I believe it was made more as a pointer to the proposals discussion. It is also specifically related to BLP policy since that policy covers recent deaths and notable suicides. In any case, I'll make my argument only if the article goes to AFD, otherwise it's a waste of time. Ryan Vesey 04:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with Tarc that consensus was already clearly established at WP:VPR, and that regardless, this is by definition not a BLP. At this point, this seems to be forum shopping. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I made it clear from the outset I would eventually take this to a BLP notice-board. Moreover I was advised by a rep at the English chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation to do just this. To be clear, I mean to exhaust every avenue to raise this issue within Wikipedia. What would be your problem with that? Would you care to give an opinion about the merits of my proposal, to entitle the article "Death of Amanda Todd" and to make it compliant with guidelines designed to guard against copycat suicide? From your contribution at VP I gather you feel Wikipedia doesn't need to because the article doesn't make you personally feel suicidal. Would you care to clarify and expand that point of view? JaniB (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)