Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikesmash (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 1 September 2007 (→[[Talk:Joe_Szwaja#Criminal_past_section]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

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

    Additional notes:

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



    Romila Thapar

    It seems Romila or one of her cronies are monitoring the page and delete any matter which throws light on controversies sorrounding her. Rather than being a page for information on the person, it has been reduced to a propaganda tool on a public website. Postings on those controversies have been objective and not libelled her in any way. Please look into the matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.80.138 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Category:BLP Check

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

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

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

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

    Recent changes to BLPs

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

    Unreferenced BLPs

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

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

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

    Unreliable BLP sources

    NNDB Notable Names Database

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

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

    NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007

    Jewish Virtual Library

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

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

    f1fanatic

    This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

    • Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --NYScholar 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
      • As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My last edit, and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably The Wrong Version, was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pashtun Mafia (closed)

    Trevor Marshall (closed)

    Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) (closed)

    Dennis Rader (closed)

    Anne McCaffrey (closed)

    Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (closed)

    Natascha Kampusch (closed)

    Michael Savage (commentator) (closed)

    Sourcewatch (closed)

    Nathan Hecht (closed)

    John Kosmina (closed)

    List of Chinese dissidents (closed)

    Karla Homolka (closed)

    Khalid bin Mahfouz (closed)

    John Howard (closed)

    Tom Jakobek (closed)

    Jeff Winter (closed)

    I'm far from a fan of the SCO v. IBM litigation, but the articles relating to minor personages associated with the dispute have WEIGHT problems, and could use BLP scrutiny to ensure compliance there. I've prod'd Maureen O'Gara, whose article consists of complaints about her article about Pamela Jones. THF 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me give an update so this isn't prematurely closed. Maureen O'Gara has been redirected pursuant to BLP1E. The other three articles still need investigation. THF 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you tell us what the problem is, exactly? The Darl Mcbride article has one paragraph on the subject out of 3 or 4 in the article - which probably massively underrepresents the role that SCO vs World has in his notability; the litigation is why people know his name and hate him. The Yarro article has a single sentence on the subject of SCO vs IBM, and as for the Rochkind article, although his role in SCO vs (IBM|Novell) takes up more space than anything else, it's still pretty brief - mostly because there's not much to say on his main claim to notability, namely his authorship of two or three of the most popular books on Unix/Linux programming. --82.45.163.18 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is removing my questions as a 'BLP' violation (closed)

    Terry Gerin (closed)

    Anna Svidersky (closed)

    Barbara Schwarz (closed)

    Jim Gibbons

      • The cringeworthy stuff is sourced to major newspapers, but I agree the article is lopsided because the only one who has bothered to add detail to the article has added the scandals and controversies but no positive accomplishments as are easily available from Gibbons' web site. Is there anything that can be done other than to add balancing well-sourced positive information? ←BenB4 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When I checked the article on 25 August, there were extensive citations to blogs in violation of WP:BLP, as well as POV editorializing on Gibbons's voting record, and extensive editing was needed to fix the problem. I am disappointed that several editors took a look at this article and decided that BLP violations did not need to be addressed because they did not like the subject of the article. Some of the material sourced to blogs is likely able to be sourced to reliable sources, so I am keeping this open for a few days in case someone wants to take that task. THF 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Velupillai Prabhakaran (closed)

    Paul Davidson entry has been vandalized, opinionated commentary added (closed)

    Simon Mol (closed)

    Helen Clark (closed)

    Kasey Kazee (closed)

    Anne Foy (closed)

    Tigarah (closed)

    Merle Terlesky (closed)

    Michael Kay (sports broadcaster) and Joey Salvia (closed)

    The eXile section on Michael Wines

    Strange section on strange newspaper. The intent seems to be to humiliate Michael Wines. Reverted by editor who called me a "gentleman from New Jersey." (What does he know that I don't?) 24.127.156.41 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, just noting your IP adress, I have no idea as to whether you are in fact a gentleman. :) Regardless of what you think "the intent" of the section is, it does conform to WP:BLP. It is verifiable from previously published news sources, and obviously not OR. If you think it's not NPOV, rewrite it without removing info. I have initiated discussion on the relevant talk page. Dsol 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This reasoning is pure nonsense. The only reference cited is the eXile itself - which is not reliable - it is a libel factory. 24.127.156.41 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the references to yahoo news (which I already noted in my edit summary), and regarding the bure case, the moscow times and pravda. Please read before you blank. Please assume good faith. This discussion should continue at talk:the eXile Dsol 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "two vaginas", "equine sperm" "We shit on everybody equally" (sic). Please don't pretend that this is anything other than a classic BLP violation! 24.127.156.41 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources cited do not use such a tone. I suggest you consult previous discussion at talk:the eXile to familiarize yourself with previous consensus on what sources are valid. I am now reverting since you refuse to engage in a real discussion. If you continue to revert without discussing at the eXile's talk page, you will be promptly reported. Dsol 08:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Religious Freedom Watch‎ (closed)

    John McCreary Fabian (closed)

    Timothy Paul Baymon (closed)

    Alton Brown (closed)

    Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people

    Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people

    The category contains many BLP problems that need looking into. I'll list a few here:

    Many of these do not assert notability and some use sources only from local newspapers and the like. Most of them have been created recently by one editor (User:TerranceDC) who is trying to document all LGBT-related murders. On Talk:Nireah Johnson he has indicated that he is not happy that so many of his articles are being called up for lack of notability. violet/riga (t) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggested on that talk that a list would be acceptable to collate all of these, what do you think? Circeus 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Syring + Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring (closed)

    J. Michael Bailey (closed)

    Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (closed)

    Barbara Pierce Bush (closed)

    List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A

    List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A is a featured list. However, there are several people listed who are not referred to as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual" in any listed source. The first example I found was Christina Aguilera. The source listed notes that she kissed a woman in a media event, and said women's lips were soft. The article did not refer to her as gay or bisexual, and she has never referred to herself that way. No source claims she is gay or bi, and no source claims she has ever had sex with someone of the same sex. I claim that calling her gay or bi is OR, and could be seen as slander by some people. I removed her from the list, but my removal was reverted, and the page was protected (with the unsourced allegation kept). There are probably many more people listed who were never called gay or bi in reputable sources. (Jane Adams, for instance, is listed; however the source given specifically does not say she was gay or bisexual, but only that she had a long-standing friendship with a woman which was probably non-sexual.) What should be done? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone should scrub these and delete everyone without a source. THF 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they all have "sources" -- the problem is, some of them have sources that don't support the statement that the person is gay or bisexual. I've looked through the first 20, and Jane Adams and Christina Aguilera are the only problems I've seen so far. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since lists are often used as an alternative to categories, I am inclined to apply the BLP criteria for the use of categories to lists. That might be considered a bit harsh by some. - Crockspot 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lists should agree with the articles, IMHO. The issue is also popping up at List of bisexual people, so a solution is needed. Maybe WP:LGBT should be alerted too, since that list is sort of their major brainchild. Circeus 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It strikes me that sexual orientation is rarely related to the reason that a person is notable. Simply listing people by purported sexual orientation makes just about as much sense as listing people by hair colour. The only individuals who should be on this list would be ones whose corresponding article describes their sexual orientation, and the reason that it is noteworthy. I tend to agree with Crockspot, though; a category makes a bit more sense rather than a list. Risker 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not being heterosexual is normally considered unusual enough to make such lists pertinent,but this noticeboard is not the place to argue over this. Circeus 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Risker's point, being Polish or Mormon is rarely related to the reason a person is notable, yet we have List of Poles and List of Latter Day Saints. In any case, I don't seewhat objective determination we could make as to whether a person's notability is related to their nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other defining characteristics. So long as we have adequate sources I don't see a problem with these lists as they are. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, unsourced allegations should be quickly deleted, it seems to me, and especially so in sensitive topics like this. It's especially complex for sexuality. One British MP was apparently a closeted homosexual -- after his death it was revealed that several people saw him at gay bars with attractive men, and one man claims to have been his lover. But he never called himself gay, and his family objects to the characterization. Another comedienne had a romantic relationship with a lesbian, but calls herself "straight". Another actor claims "I'm a bisexual who has never been with a man". These are are actual cases, by the way. The source for one woman casually mentions that another woman is her "life partner", but doesn't go into any detail on what that means. It's very thorny, and it's especially difficult because of the negative stigma that many perceive. I've kept all those cases listed, but I don't know where to draw the line. The Christina Ag case is pretty clear-cut, but others aren't. Keep in mind this is a featured list -- the best that Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Christina case is by no means clear cut or we wouldn't be having an argument on her talkpage. All of these people are sourced with reliable sources about their sexuality, yes it is "sensitive" to some, yes, it is complex, but you seem to think we just found the first available source and chucked it in, when we have spent months, literally, looking for the source that says it clearest and most succinctly. The cases you have all mentioned above are fine, people in relationships with same sex, people who have come out regardless of their relationships, someone happily mentioning their same sex partner without feeling the need to say "yes, she's my life partner, we're both gay and have gay sex together, because we're gay" (which as far as I am concerned is a good thing). If you wish to slaughter the article because of some perceived stigma, that's your problem, not the problem of the people on the list, and certainly not the problem of WP:BLP. We're not making accusations, we're not inferring, we are placing people on a list and providing a source for other people to look at, sources that WP:LGBT considered convincing. And as that's what we do on Wikipedia, I rather think we ought to be congratulated for hunting down 113 separate references, not hounded because not every person on the list didn't say "I'm here, I'm queer, and I'm fabulous!". We have to face the reality that it's precisely because people's sexuality can be a sensitive issue, something people don't want to explicitly talk about, we're not always going to get the perfect source, the interview with the Advocate, the news article covering a civil partnership, sometimes we get sources we might not be best pleased with, but that doesn't change the stark truth that it conveys. Of course we observe WP:BLP, you will not find Jodie Foster, Tony Slattery, or Kevin Spacey on our list, even though we all know who they are. Just because a source isn't as top notch as we would like it (and believe me, if every LGB famous person lined up to tell the Advocate they were LGB, it would make my life SO much esier) doesn't mean we're trying to make people gay. But if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and has a reliable source stating it to be a duck... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So. . . Ms. Aguilera has never referred to herself as gay or bisexual. . . no reputable source has ever referred to herself as gay or bisexual. . . and no source has said that she has committed an act that would be unambiguously gay or bisexual (e.g. had a romantic or sexual relationship with a female). And yet she is listed as "gay or bisexual" in a featured list, due to some editor's interpretations of her comments. Am I the only one troubled by this? Isn't this just the sort of thing that could lead to a libel suit against the Foundation? – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quadell, you know very well what a fatuous statement that is. You know that as a host, as long as the Foundation promptly removes libellous material on request we can't be sued for libel. You know that being referred to by a different sexual orientation than one's own is not in any way defamatory. And you know that Christina Aguilera, even were she straight, would not be so utterly outraged by claims she is bisexual as to drag a not for profit to court for everything they have. That's just stupid, and you know it.
    And you should know, to judge by the numbers of times I have now told you, that one does not need to explicitly refer to oneself as gay or bisexual in order to be so, or have a relationship with the relevant sex. Michael Stipe is bisexual, but refuses to define himself as anything in protest of labels. Similarly Jim Carroll. There is no difference in the eyes of Wikipedia between someone who says "I like both girls and guys", and someone who says "I'm bisexual". In terms of categorisation, they are the same thing. I have provided you repeatedly with quotes where Christina Aguilera makes explicit reference to being attracted to both men and women. The entry which you so abruptly and nonconsensually removed from List of GLB people/A was cited - and in fact that citation had been changed during the FLC to a more explicit comment in order to satisfy the FLC reviewers: and they were satisfied. So your gumpf about how we shouldn't be allowing this sort of thing in an Featured List is so much straw, because that entry was explicitly endorsed in the FLC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are factually incorrect on a number of statements. First, we absolutely can be sued for libel even if we promptly remove it when it's brought to our attention. WP:BLP does not allow us to keep potentially libellous information just until someone complains. Second, many people would find it defamatory to be called homosexual or bisexual, and there have been many successful defamation suits brought for that reason. And thirdly, just because FLC didn't spot the problem, that doesn't mean BLP should ignore it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly does BLP says that that all information that could be construed as libellous, even when it is reliably sourced to the subject's own words, needs to be removed immediately? Please point that out to me, that's sounds a fascinatingly silly idea and for the life of me I cannot find it it anywhere in WP:BLP. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you put it as "reliably sourced in her own words", you wouldn't list her as bisexual. I know two different women who look at soft-core pornography of nude women as a sexual turn-on, but both adamantly identify as straight. I know a gay man who has occasionally had sex with women, but would be quite offended if someone calls him bisexual -- and I don't think Wikipedia should be applying a sexual label to anyone that they object to, unless the use of that particular label is sourced. Look, here is an entire page of letters from gay men who like to watch cunnilingus porn. You or me or some random Wikipedian might judge "he's not really gay, since he gets turned on my watching a woman receive oral sex", but it's not a judgment that belongs on a Wikipedia page unless it's sourced. There's no source that applies the label "bisexual" to her, and we shouldn't be the first. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a further note, one could easily see Bob Allen or Larry Craig listed on the same list. Even though neither member of Congress has ever referred to himself as "gay" or "bisexual", and even though no reputable news source has ever said they were gay or bisexual, a Wikipedian could reasonably claim that "straight men don't solicit anonymous sex from men in public restrooms" and place them on the list. But this is the exact sort of thing that WP:BLP was created to prevent. How is the Christina Aguilera case any different? – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because they've both denied being attracted to other men! Larry Craig's article has a long quote from him specifically denying he is interested in other men! Bob Allen claims he was in that bathroom because he was scared of the other guys in the park - at what point in either of these men's lives did they say "I think it's hornier staring at men more than women", or "God, I love experimenting my sexuality - men are so hot"? Do you see either of those two men on the list? But Chistina Aguilera DID say that about women and I am starting to be utterly mystified why you're repeatedly ignoring that fact and babbling about lawsuits; Aguilera is not going to sue us for pointing out she said she is attracted to women! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, I know we disagree, but let's try to keep this civil. I think that we shouldn't call someone "gay or bisexual" unless they have referred to themselves that way, or unless a reliable source has referred to them that way. It's really very simple. I don't think it's prudent to put people on a list of bisexuals based on your interpretation of "these bisexual-sounding comments mean she must be bi". – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "I find women more horny than men" is bisexual sounding at all, but then I've said this to you four times already and there's no point rehashing it again. I'm going to bring it up with WP:LGBT and open the debate on the matter. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabloid blog used as reference in BLP articles (closed)

    Jeff Gerstmann

    Jeff Gerstmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- There are a number of unsourced, suspect bits of trivia included in this article, including an apparent minor attack on Wikipedia, supposedly by the subject. --Sethacus 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marsha Skrypuch (closed)

    John Travolta (closed)

    Matthew Hill

    The "Political connection to Altace, pharmaceutical industry" section of the Matthew Hill article appears to violate policy. The problems with the section are as follows:

    • It makes the unsourced claim that Hill received "many generous" campaign contributions from people in the pharmaceutical industry. As per WP:BLP, such unsourced contentious material should be removed immediately.
    • It includes a multitude of information (written in a critical tone) about various pharmaceutical companies. The implication seems to be that Hill is a pawn of the pharmaceutical companies who are using him to advance their agendas. However, all the information about the pharmaceutical companies is not directly related to Hill except through conjectural interpretation, thus violating WP policy.

    I editted the article to try to fix the problems and explained my edits in the talk page. However, my changes have been reverted without explanation by user Bee Cliff River Slob. I am posting here because WP:BLP clearly states that unsourced contentious material in biographies of living people must be "removed immediately and without discussion." I would remove the contentious material again myself (my first removal can be seen here), but I do not wish to get personally involved in a revert war with the other editor. Can someone else help out? --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article needed severe cleaning, violated WP:BLP, WP:EL, WP:NOR, and WP:COATRACK, and I scoured it, and gave a note to the editor who reverted you. We'll see if he edit-wars. THF 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is edit-warring, and given the systematic campaign to prevent me from productive contribution to Wikipedia, an administrator needs to step up and enforce BLP, because I cannot do anything further. THF 07:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I full protected this article and David Davis (Tennessee politician) for one week due to a complaint of disruption, but recuse myself from any specific alterations. I've posted to both talk pages referring editors to this board for any outstanding BLP complaints. If problems remain in the articles and other sysops are slow to act, please cross post to WP:ANI. DurovaCharge! 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this comment, the editor in question defends his actions by quoting Jimmy Wales saying that one should not remove important facts from articles. Wales' comment, however, does not give editors the right to violate the rules regarding reliable sources, original research, and neutrality in order to keep "facts" in articles. Judging from the comment linked to above, he seems to think that our attempts to bring the article into compliance with policy are motivated by a desire to push our pov regarding Matthew Hill (I can't speak for others editing the Hill article, but that is certainly not my case). I am relatively new to Wikipedia--what is the correct procedure in cases like this? --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has the same problem that the Hill article had, except it hasn't been scoured yet. Someone should check contributions history to see how many other Tennessee politicians have similar issues. THF 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked through Bee Cliff River Slob's edit history and found the following other articles:
    --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Morgan Mason (closed)

    RE: Helen Clark defamed (closed)

    Barbara Schwarz again

    Sorry to have to bring it up again. On the article's talk page one of the regular editors pretty much said that one of the purposes of the article is to get the subject deported from the United States. I think this would be against WP policy. Steve Dufour 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you're referring to this. You've drawn quite an extreme inference from a passing remark. I'm going to close this as frivolous unless you can provide more convincing evidence for your contention. Raymond Arritt 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another post from the same editor where he brings up irrelevant gossip about the subject in what seems, to me anyway, to be an attempt at blackmailing her defenders. Steve Dufour 01:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless, heaven forfend, you assume good faith, and take both of the referenced comments to mean precisely what they say. Hypothetically, at Wikipedia, we are looking at edits, not editors, so it is consequences, not intent, that is relevant. Do you have any evidence of improper edits to mainspace? THF 07:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole article is improper since the subject is only notable for being the subject of a "human interest" story in a local newspaper. Steve Dufour 11:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve, I tend to agree with you on the larger principle, (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring). But that's a content dispute, not a BLP dispute. She's been a party in multiple litigations that have gotten press coverage, and she is a good example of the abuses of pro se litigation, and she has been covered by reliable sources. And unlike Patrick Syring, her article isn't an orphan. The reality is that this article has flunked AFD four times, and I see nothing that has changed since. THF 12:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks THF. I might have over reacted to this. I am confident that the article will be deleted sooner or later. BTW the reason it is not an orphan is mainly because it is listed on the Scientology info box which is included on any article that has some remote connection to Scientology; in Barbara's case she is a former member of the church and still a defender of the faith. My bad. She is not on the info box and her article is linked to a couple of others. Steve Dufour 12:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Russo (closed)

    David Miscavige

    Regular editors continue to add the information that someone said he renewed copyrights when the material was in the public domain. When this came up before experts on the subject here on WP (thank you) said that this is not illegal. On the other hand, it has no effect. The statement in the article, however, creates the impression that something is wrong. Steve Dufour 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with Dufour on this one. The information isn't even really important enough to be included, it's rather a random and arbitrary thing to stick in there, and it does seem to only serve the purpose of amplifying the appearance of wrongdoing. wikipediatrix 14:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Prince affidavit exposes willful and knowing copyright fraud and is quite relevant to the david miscavige article as he was the person who ordered it done. There is presently no law against it, but it is civilly prosecutable fraud. --Fahrenheit451 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reference that says what Miscavige did was "copyright fraud"? Steve Dufour 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve, you can look for one if you want, but sticking a label on it in the article if it cannot be cited would be original research, would it not? Suggest you read up on copyfraud.--Fahrenheit451 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The court did not care about what Prince had to say, so what is left of his statement is the attempt to throw mud on his former colleague. Why should we bother continuing other people's private wars? It's sure not per WP:BLP. Shutterbug 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. That's the judge signing off on the final settlement agreement between BPI and FACTNet—there's no reason to mention Prince because he wasn't a party, and you know it. Prince's testimony, in part, raised sufficient doubts in the judge's mind that he denied BPI's request for summary judgment and appointed a special master to "untangle the thorny copyright issues involved" with the documents.[21] Until then, there was no sign Scientology wanted a settlement. AndroidCat 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good reason not to include the information in the article. Steve Dufour 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Drudge (closed)

    Marcellas Reynolds (closed)

    London Diplomatic Academy Member_Sergio Caldas Mercador Abi-Sad (closed)

    Imran Khan

    A number of editors are continually adding to this article, and to related articles, the claim that Imran Khan is "a Taliban leader". They justify this by one reference, at a website called Axcess News. I have never come across this site before, and have no idea whether it is considered normally reliable; but this claim seems palpably false, and potentially libellous. I request administrator intervention to prevent this abuse of Wikipedia. RolandR 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've noticed that similar material has been added to a few other related articles; I've linked them above as well. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pakistani politics are murky at the best of times, but this does seem to be very dubious. Axcess News is not by any means a mainstream news outlet and we should be very wary of using it to source such a contentious claim. I've removed the questionable material and warned the three editors who appear to be most active in pushing this line - User:M12390‎, User:Tube Deny‎ and the badly misnamed User:Neutral Ray. -- ChrisO 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the concerns of other editors about the BLP edits of User:M12390‎ and would be grateful for the opinions of others on these. --Slp1 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I have added another article of concern.--Slp1 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Imran is a fairly common name, and thus Imran Khan is as well. An American reporter might not know that a notable Imran Khan already exists, and thus print it without a disclaimer. Even in a reliable source, I would not assume that "rabid terrorist John Smith" refers to John Smith (UK politician). Hornplease 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, and I initially thought that this was what was going on as well, but it appears that they are specifically referring to Imran Khan the ex-cricketer. As far as I can make out, it appears to be an attempt by one or more political factions to smear Khan by associating him with the Talibs. -- ChrisO 07:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. OK, that drops Axcess News back into the pile of "don't touch with a bargepole" sources. Hornplease 07:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately User:M12390 has continued to violate BLP despite further warnings from FCYTravis; I've therefore blocked M12390 for 24 hours with a warning of a further, longer block if he persists. -- ChrisO 07:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Neutral Ray has also continued to violate BLP on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf despite further warnings from RolandR; I've blocked him for 24 hours. -- ChrisO 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Vehicular homicide (closed)

    Aishwarya Rai

    An anonymous user at 209.8.58.126 continues to add unsourced and potentially libellous material to Aishwarya Rai and also identical material to her husband's page, although it's been reverted more than once. He's been warned twice by me and once by someone else, both on the talk page and his user talk page, and offered assistance to add references if he requires it (which apparently has been rejected). I wonder if it's appropriate to block this new user who is only making edits to these two pages. Accounting4Taste 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand it, the insertion of unreferenced, controversial information about living persons is an appropriate reason for blocking. If information is potentially libelous, I'd like to suggest that you consider using the uw-biog templates in warning. Template:Uw-biog3 should make it clear to the anon user (assuming that he or she receives the warnings) that the end-result of continuing to insert potentially libelous unsourced information is blocking. Template:Uw-biog4 is the requisite last warning before taking the matter to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Moonriddengirl 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for this guideline, which I will follow in the future, and my apologies for not knowing exactly what to do -- except I figured something needed to be done!! I note that the anon user is now adding references and I also note that admins are watching over the process, which means it will be handled properly. Accounting4Taste 19:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole purpose of community is to help each other figure out what to do. :) Believe me, when I don't know how to handle something, I ask. I'm glad to offer some input. --Moonriddengirl 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <chuckle> You may regret saying that when I fill your life with questions, but thanks, I may be coming to you in the future for some guidance. Accounting4Taste 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims were re-added with questionable sources. I've found some decent sources on the case relating to the Dhoom 2 scene, but nothing more recent than this Times of India story. The Mangal Dosha article also discusses the tree marriage incident, but the sources there are conflicting as to whether it actually happened and not all are still live links, so I'm leaving that out for the moment. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of privacy

    My biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Nusbacher is being consistently edited to reveal private information irrelevant to my notability as a little-known person. I have emailed in greater detail. NetNus 22:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The private information in question is available from a British newspaper (and from international newspapers on the first page of google-search links), and, as comments on the talk page indicate, lead to confusion from omission given the redirects for the article. It seems, given the correct note that the subject is "little-known", that the best option under BLP is article deletion. I have PROD'd the article. An admin may wish to speedy-delete. If there is an AFD, the AFD should be blanked afterwards. If the page is kept, admins may wish to consider blanking talk-page history. THF 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The newspaper in question is a tabloid, the Sun. BLP policy on Wikipedia is not to act like a tabloid. I would be happy to write to the Sun to ask them to remove the story if that would help. The Sun story does not come up when I google my name.

    The Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work. The international newspapers are not in English, and that concerns me less.

    I haven't demanded deletion, but if that's the only way I can get information irrelevant to my notability off of Wikipedia, fine. NetNus 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A previously used name, under which some of the publications which make you notable have been written, is an important fact that needs to be included in the article. Deletion is an option, an obviously incomplete article is not. --Tango 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Given that all of your press mentions and the majority of the google hits to your current name are to the issue you wish to keep private, it would seem to me that deletion is the only way to keep the information off of the encyclopedia. Readers redirected to your page by searching for your more commonly known name are going to be confused, research the issue, and seek to be "helpful" by inserting the information you wish left out. Another option is a full-protect of the clean version of the page, delicately edited to indicate the most recent name-change and nothing else, but that won't stop discussion on the talk page, and I'm not sure Wikipedia even permanently locks articles from editing. But I don't get to make any of these decisions by myself. THF 23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Listed at deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 28.Geni 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Craig

    There have been about 50-100 anonymous edits to this article in the last two hours since a recent salacious scandal broke, and it is surely not the case that all of these edits comply with the Wikipedia BLP policy. I've requested semi-protection, and someone should scour the page after that happens. THF 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For example. THF 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike Rogers is that guy who outs "anti-gay gays", isn't he? He certainly seems to have been right on the mark with regard to Craig. Looking at Talk:Larry Craig, it's amusing to see how much time was spent (last year!) discussing whether Craig was gay or not. I think that question might just have been answered... -- ChrisO 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we can stick a fork in the question, but we still should not be republishing blog rumors. There are reliable sources aplenty regarding this. - Crockspot 02:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I agree completely, but it's bound to be mentioned in reliable sources given the circumstances. In fact, I think it already has been (I vaguely recall seeing something on CNN making the connection). -- ChrisO 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Page is protected, the "salacious scandal" seems well sourced - the guy pleaded guilty frevvinsake - and I think it inappropriate to omit reference to the event given that it has already impacted the U.S. Presidential campaign. Much more notable than the average celebrity's DUI then re-hab situation, IMHO. Carlossuarez46 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is claiming that the widely-reported Minnesota incident shouldn't be included, as it is clearly notable and will likely torpedo the senator's career. The issue was that anonymous contributors were adding many improperly sourced blog rumors of allegedly similar conduct elsewhere. Perhaps these rumors are true, I take no position on that, but BLP is quite clear that they don't belong in the encyclopedia beyond what AP or other reliable sources have said about the blog rumors. THF 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rumors of similar conduct should be excluded; reliably sourced statements to similar conduct are a closer call: as I understand the senator's position, he stated that his actions were misconstrued, if a RS reports similar conduct it would tend to weaken that position. The page is now protected so the anons shouldn't be a problem. Carlossuarez46 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I heard that Brit Hume was talking about the blogger mentioned above on his show, so that is probably getting to the point of some kind of includability. Whatever is put in needs to be neutrally worded, and factually accurate as to what was reported. No OR or "connecting the dots"... - Crockspot 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The blog post was widely covered in the press in October 2006. Probably the best source, though, is the Boise Statesman Review, which actually investigated the rumors and got Craig's deatiled reaction to the accusations: "Men's room arrest reopens questions about Sen. Larry Craig". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the rule on categories and BLP? Someone inserted a "Gay Republicans" categorization into the article, which may be true, but Craig denies it. Some real POV-pushing going on in that article, and editors acting inappropriately should be warned. THF 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Those categories are absolutely out of order, and have been removed. FCYTravis 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You know... as accurate as it may or may not be, I just don't think including it in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies is appropriate for a living person who's claimed time and again he's not gay. I'm not trying to defend him, just saying that per the guidelines about contentious/controversial information it seems inappropriate. As expected someone disagreed with me and re-included him. // Paliku 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a problem with this. Individual projects can decide what is within their scope of interest. If the LGBT studies wanted to include Abraham Lincoln or Wikiproject Judaism wanted to include Christopher Columbus, they may be historically incorrect, but they're entitled to say members of the project might be interested. LGBT studies links to pages like Westboro Baptist Church, but that hardly means that institution is gay. THF 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Monckton

    Many blog links and other unreliable sources in possible violation of BLP. THF 01:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a look and the only blog link I can see is realclimate.org (in external links). Although WP:BLP does say "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person", I don't think this prohibition quite covers the article in question. The prohibition concerns the use of such sources to provide biographical material; this source, however, is a discussion by a recognised and published expert of the individual's scientific arguments and contains literally no biographical material on the subject other than mentioning his name. It's not being cited in the article, so the prohibition on its use as a source is moot.
    As for the "unreliable sources", which did you have in mind? I've just looked through them. Of the 11 references, 5 are to newspaper articles, 4 are by Monckton himself, one is a US Senator's website and one is a book website. Of the 6 external links (not sources of course), 3 are by Monckton, 2 are newspaper articles, and the last one is the above-mentioned blog. Which are unreliable? -- ChrisO 07:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:RS/N#Overlawyered, where material by a "recognized and published expert" was systematically scrubbed from BLP articles because it had been published on group blogs. Either BLP's provision on blogs being banned from BLP should be enforced consistently, or it needs to be modified and it should be permissible to cite to Walter Olson's blog when discussing abuses of attorneys, but there is no exception for realclimate: the rule is bright-line.
    I now see that some of the links I was thinking about are to Monckton's own writing, so the only one at issue is realclimate. I apologize for my quick look where the first thing I saw was a blog. THF 11:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The pros and cons of the subject's views on Global warming, or Climate change denial, can be dealt with in those articles. In that context self-published writings by published experts in the field may be used with caution. It isn't necessary to discuss all aspects of the subject's writings in his biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, according to the blog itself, some of the same points are covered in a Guardian article.[22] To the extent we need to discuss the issues in the biography that can be used as an alternate source for a significant viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already pointed out above, the blog is not being used as a source. It's an external link only. Concerns about the use of a blog as a BLP source are moot if the blog isn't actually being used as a source in the first place. -- ChrisO 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The external links guideline lists "links to be avoided", including this entry with a caveat:
    • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. [23]
    Since the author of the blog posting is a credentialed NASA scientist published in peer-reviewed journals it would appear that he'd qualify as a "recognized authority". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to be perfectly clear then: SPS weblogs that qualify under WP:EL can be cited as an external link of a biography of a living person? Is that correct? THF 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The text of the guideline says "recognized authority". Also remember that for these purposes we're looking at individual authors, not entire group blogs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On further reflection (while sitting in the dentist's chair) I believe that the source's author must be a "recognized authority" on the topic of the article. While the NASA scientist may be an authority on climate, he is not an authority on the subject of the article: Monckton. So I think the blog reference in question would be better used in articles on climate rather than a biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to repeat something I've already said only this morning, but I'll do so, since people don't seem to be getting this. The piece is not being used as a source, it's an external link (so please don't call it a "source"); and the linked article isn't a biographical piece, it's a review of the subject's scientific arguments with literally no biographical material on the subject other than mentioning his name. Its relevance is covered by WP:EL#What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Since Monckton appears to derive most of his fame (or infamy) from his espousal of climate change skepticism/denial, an expert review of his work strikes me as being a very relevant link for his biographical article. -- ChrisO 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't Monckton's views also covered in relevant articles, like Climate change denial? If so why can't we put the link there instead? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're not covered there, but this isn't surprising. A person's views on a topic may be significant in terms of their own biography, but they aren't necessarily significant in terms of their impact on the discussion of that topic. For instance, Charles Darwin's views are obviously very significant on the topic of evolution and need to be mentioned in that article, but you couldn't say the same for the views of the creationist Ken Ham. However, because of the notability of their public statements, they need to be covered in their biographies along with the reactions to their views. That's our standard practice for many who've participated in controversial scientific debates - see e.g. Michael Behe, Michael Crichton, Graham Hancock, Bjørn Lomborg, etc. In this case, Monckton's views on climate change are significant in terms of his own profile, but not in terms of the wider debate, in which he's a minor player at best. -- ChrisO 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosalind Picard

    A crisis is brewing about Rosalind Picard. The basic dispute revolves around whether the New York Times is a WP:RS and WP:V source, and involves appearance on the Discovery Institute Dissent from Darwinism petition. User:Moulton is now threatening to publish in the outside media at least two articles which are critical of Wikipedia's handling of this matter. I have rough drafts of these articles as well as contact information for Moulton, and a large number of emails on this subject. Several administrators have already been involved in trying to resolve this. I need someone to assist and look into this matter.--Filll 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've offered to mediate on the talk page. THF 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Dissent from Darwinism" article is a great example of the obsessive coverage of the "creation/evolution controversy" here on WP. This is a petition with 700 signatures yet its article is much longer and better referenced than many on genuine scientific topics. On Ms Picard's article half of the space is taken up by the "controversy" about her signing it. The point of the controversy in her case is that her field is computer science, not life science. Steve Dufour 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are reasons for this, obviously. For example: (1) When I first came to Wikipedia, and tried to help on evolution, it was very clear to me that with the creationist trolls constantly attacking the real science articles, we would not be able to make progress unless we built up the articles on the creation-evolution controversy to deal with this onslaught. And so I helped make subsiduary articles and articles on various aspects of the controversy. (2) The articles are actually not so high quality if you look at them, except for one or two exceptions. The creationism article and the creation-evolution controversy article are in pretty sad shape for major articles. Intelligent design barely managed to make FA and this was through tremendous efforts. The other articles on intelligent design and creationism are in general not so high quality. (3) In addition, people are interested in this controversy, and therefore there is more input and more people helping. (4) It is an area where people are confused, and are badly in need of careful documentation. There are many good books on Biology or Genetics or Physics. There are very few that organize and sort through this confused mass of information on the controversy, and most of those are quite partisan and show only one side or the other, and it is something that is important in people's lives and something people are confused about. Conclusion There are obviously many other reasons. I suspect strongly that the progress made in the last few months on the evolution article and related articles is due in large part to the development of more and better articles about the controversy itself, deflecting attacks from the main science articles. A similar thing was done at dinosaur and creationist perspectives on dinosaurs. Without dealing with the creationist issues in another article, it would have been impossible to make progress on the dinosaur article. I will also note that there are many many articles on obscure parts of religion and philosophy on Wikipedia. These are just things that people are interested in, so they get articles and develop. Eventually the holes in our coverage get filled in...--Filll 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the perspective. I would like to see better coverage of real science here. On Ms. Picard's article, I still think 50% is too much of it to be taken up by her signing a petition that has nothing to do with her field of notability. Steve Dufour 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't write that and it is now being looked at. Certainly the discussion in her main areas of interest should be expanded considerably. I might also note that people are drawn to controversial subjects; look at how much effort went into the Creation Museum article when it was first opened. I also might note that just a couple of months ago, before I and a few other editors busted our butts, the assorted petition articles dealing with the controversy were in disgusting shape. Look at the histories. They were all expanded drastically in the last couple of months. And they could stand a little more fleshing our and opposing views and citations in some cases. This is hard work, but I think it will pay off to have a suite of articles documenting this controversy, which in itself is an interesting sociological phenomenon. Could I edit in my areas of expertise like mathematical physics and physics and applied mathematics and statistics? Yes I could, but I wouldn't be learning so much, and then I would be butting heads with assorted morons who didn't know what they were talking about and who were over-ruling me. So I mostly avoid areas that I know something about. A friend who is an editor here and a surgeon has ended up being completely frustrated trying to edit medical articles; it is too awful to fight the people who do not know anything but revert everything you put in the article and use consensus to put in nonsense in an article. So I edit these things that I don't know much about, and I can learn and still contribute a little.--Filll 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Keep up the good work. (p.s. I have noticed that most of the people whose articles come up on this page are creationists, scientologists, or republicans. :-) ) (p.p.s. I forgot alleged closeted gays.)(p.p.p.s. I think the critics of creationism would be more effective if they focused more on scientific debate rather than criticism of individuals. There is already beginning to be a backlash against that.) Steve Dufour 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What the assumption here is, is that being identified as a creationist is a bad thing. Not to most of these people, actually. Look into this a bit before you make that unfounded POV claim.--Filll 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In some cases being identified as a creationist could be harmful to a person's career. Being identified as an evolutionist might be too, for instance for a professor in a fundamentalist Christian school. So we should be careful how we identify people. Steve Dufour 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem is that both sides are giving way too much importance to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a 32 word petition with 700 signatures which has its own article and a category for its signers. Steve Dufour 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the information that has been released by our editor with the WP:COI-violation problem, Moulton:[24] and on various talk pages, it is clear that there is no WP:BLP problem here, only the actions that are consistent with malicious trolling at this point. All the evidence published in WP:RS and WP:V sources, the statements of Moulton, the private email conversations etc strongly argue that Picard knew what the petition was when she signed it, knew what the Discovery Institute was, no fraud was involved, Picard meant to stay on the Dissent petition, Picard is proud of being on the Dissent petition, the "Do No Harm" provision of WP:BLP is not relevant in this case, etc. I am sorry for having wasted everyone's time with posting this notice here. Please feel free to close it if you feel this is appropriate.--Filll 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that there could be major problems if people are trying to use WP to put pressure on people to take their names off of the petition. Steve Dufour 01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. However, this case is more likely just a troll trying to jerk us all around. I am not happy about it. I no longer feel obligated to AGF in this case.--Filll 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Domenech

    Article cites Wonkette, among other questionable sources and likely WP:WEIGHT violations. THF 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything seems well-sourced to me - this was a rather notable exposé of plagiarism and I think a good example of the effects of the intersection of journalism and the blogosphere. FCYTravis 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A blog citing an "unnamed source" -- "Wonkette subsequently cited an unnamed source at Regnery who said...." is really appropriate under WP:BLP? It was also on the Regnery page. THF 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a notability tag on the article since he is only known for being fired for plagiarism. Steve Dufour 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've removed it, because Domenech certainly meets WP:BIO. He is a prominent blogger who founded one of the largest conservative blogs - this would be tantamount to deleting Markos Moulitsas Zuniga because he's only known for founding DailyKos. FCYTravis 02:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article doesn't talk about that. It is 90% about his being fired from a job because of college plagiarism. (I have never heard of his blog BTW) Steve Dufour 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the article should be expanded and edited, not deleted. The fact that you have never heard of his blog is not cause to delete the article. I have never heard of Stanley Fish either, or probably more than one million of the things on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However if the article doesn't ESTABLISH that the person is noteable then it should be deleted unless someone edits it to establish the person is noteable, particularly when it is a BLP and currently it only attacks the person because of some past controversy. I haven't heard of Stanley Fish either, but from reading the article I know why he's noteable. Nil Einne 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't consider that a great analogy - Domenech is most definitely not of comparable notability to Moulitsas. JavaTenor 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree that we probably shouldn't use Wonkette as a source for that, because no other reliable sources have reported on the same issue. Out it goes. If other sources are found later, it can be reinserted. FCYTravis 02:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The same language is in the Regnery Publishing article, and needs to be deleted there. WP:BLP applies to all information about living persons, not just the information found in the main subject article. THF 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonkette cannot be used as a source for information on any individual other than possibly Nick Denton. And even that's iffy. Quatloo 17:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Domenech Steve Dufour 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regnery Publishing

    I've removed material and protected this over blp concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Guettarda objects to my removal and protection.[25] Review appreciated. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it's (a) from a reliable source, and (b) about a corporate decision, not a living person. And, of course, because it seems that every time I run into Tom it's because he is using his admin powers to win content disputes. Guettarda 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the history of the article, and I see that Tom harrison never edited it prior to seeing a report (whether accurate or not) of a BLP violation made at AN/I, and going in as a completely uninvolved administrator, deciding (whether rightly or wrongly) that the complaint had merit, removing the passage, and protecting the article. I can't see how that's remotely similar to using his admin powers to win content disputes. And, as usual, he has brought it to the community for review. If he's wrong (and I don't know whether or not he is), then the only accusation that can be made is that his judgment in deciding that it was a valid BLP concern was faulty. Every uninvolved administrator who acts on a BLP report has to make a judgment as to whether or not it has merit. ElinorD (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the issue here whether Wonkette is a reliable source for WP:BLP-related stuff? MastCell Talk 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, I hate to say it, but it's probably not a great source for this kind of thing. WP:BLP, as currently written, has a blanket prohibition against blogs as sources. I personally think this needs to be tempered with common sense, and I'd generally make an exception for a blog like Wonkette, which is in the top 1%, or 0.01%, of blogs in terms of stature and reliability. Nonetheless, BLP also enjoins us to "avoid repeating gossip". An unnamed source speculating about the reasons for firing an employee, reported in a blog (no matter how good of a blog), strikes me as repeating gossip. Because of that constellation of issues (blog plus somewhat gossipy nature of the content), I think BLP, at least as currently written, suggests that the passage in question should be removed. As to abuse of admin tools, I have not looked at that issue and this forum might not be ideal to do so. MastCell Talk 15:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a blog for those purposes. Similar to how the New York Times now has "blogs" written by some of their reporters that are fact-checked and have editorial oversight. Wonkette may be called a blog but it has fact checking, editorial oversight and is published by a major publisher. So it is a reliable source. Simply because something self-identifies as a blog doesn't make it off-limits. It is a blog only in name. JoshuaZ 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you're calling Gawker Media a "major publisher"? That is LOL, seriously. And you're claiming they have "fact checking"? A heartier LOL. If you read the drivel that frequently appears in their publications such as ValleyWag or Defamer, one thing you know it is not, is fact checked. Quatloo 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonkette seems to be fall under the category of a blog-that-isn't-really-a-blog, i.e., it has content that is similar to lots of other sources and appears to have a reasonable degree of editorial control. If it distributed on paper instead of Internet tubes no one would think of it as a blog. I'm more concerned about the shadowy unnamed sources on which the Wonkette article is based. This isn't the sort of thing we should rely on. Are better (preferably named) sources available? Raymond Arritt 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I would generally consider Wonkette a decent reliable source, but with the current BLP fetish and the "gossipy" nature of the content in question, I'd lean toward excluding it. Just my 2 cents, though. MastCell Talk 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Good reporters use anonymous sources all the time. If this were from a print publication I doubt that anyone would be still objecting to the use of an anonymous source. In any event, if this is all the problem is, it certainly isn't severe enough to justify Tom protecting the article while he is involved. JoshuaZ 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not involved. He never edited the article before. He came to it as an uninvolved administrator after a complaint was made at AN/I. He judged that the complaint had merit. He removed the material and protected the article, in accordance with the BLP policy. He brought it here for review. I don't have any opinion as to whether his judgment was correct or not, but if it wasn't then it would be just like blocking someone you have no prior involvement in because you were acting on a 3RR report, and erroneously judged a particular edit to be a revert when it wasn't one — a mistake, not an abuse. ElinorD (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No Elinor - Tom came in, reverted the page, participated in a discussion with Joshua (in which he conceded that Wonkette was a reliable source) and then protected the page. He said it was an acceptable source, but that it wasn't "good enough". So after admitting it was a content dispute, not a BLP issue, he then protected the page and raised the issue here. That's abuse of admin tools. Don't protect pages when involved in content disputes (much like that other rule he ignores "don't block when in content disputes"). Guettarda 22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with JoshuaZ on this. Refining BLP to prevent content from being used solely because a reliable source uses an unnamed source is a little troubling to me and seems to start BLP down a slippery slope. If Wonkette is a reliable source, then the inclusion of the content should be taken purely from a content inclusion standpoint without a consideration of it being a BLP violation or not. The very nature of a reliable source means that Wikipedia should "trust" the content they include. To do otherwise would make the source an unreliable source, wouldn't it? --Bobblehead (rants) 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me be clear that I have nothing against anonymous sources in general, and of course good reportage and reliable sources use them all the time. But we're not talking about Deep Throat blowing the lid off Watergate here - we're talking about water-cooler gossip about office politics. MastCell Talk 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is a NPOV decision, not a BLP decision. The undue weight claim may have merit for the very reason you say, but that reason should not be applied to to the BLP claim. It shouldn't really be up to Wikipedians to decide where the line is drawn in regards to what content from a reliable source is a BLP violation and what is not. The presumption is that a reliable source always acts reliably when reporting, even when it comes to water-cooler gossip. That, of course, does not mean that just because a reliable source reports something that it has to, or even should, be included in an article on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not Wonkette is a reliable source, if we're going to decide that this is, in fact "water-cooler gossip" then that alone would call for its removal. See the third paragraph of WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. And of course this would apply to biographical material in an article like this. If the information remains, it would clearly make us the primary vehicle for spreading this information about an old scandal, whether or not it's been reported back in the spring of 2006. Also, I think it's definitely a BLP decision because more than neutrality is involved -- the importance of the information to the Regnery article needs to overcome the mandate to write articles touching on biography "conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy". Is this information important in helping readers to understand Regnery Publishing better? I don't know, but I think the answer to that determines whether the information should go or stay. Noroton 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct - I was referring to the portion of BLP that enjoins us to "avoid repeating gossip". MastCell Talk 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sacred Heart University

    An anon keeps adding salary information for the University's President, something that is surely a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • While the anon's edits were unsourced and not 100% accurate, private nonprofit universities such as Sacred Heart are required to disclose their top officers' compensation on IRS filings which are publicly available. (See GuideStar for information about a web site which makes such filings publicly available for free.) The president of this university's salary has been referenced in reliable sources such as the Chronicle of Higher Education. So it's not necessarily a BLP violation to mention it in the article. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Sourced or not, it seems undue weight which would be a violation of BLP, to mention the salary of the president particularly when there is no noteable, sourced, controversy or relevance about that salary. It's the same as adding a statement someone made because some editors perceive it as controversial even though there is no sourced information demonstrating the statement is important or controversial Nil Einne 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article has gone from bloated to boney, so in its current condition the salary of the president may well be undue weight at this stage. But note this: Anthony Cernera must be one of the longest-serving college presidents in the U.S. (18 years is a long time for these guys) and in that time he wasn't just a figurehead: he's vastly increased the school's endowment, budget, campus, range of programs, enrollment, geographic range of incoming students, etc., etc. Cernera, for instance, went down the road a piece and got General Electric CEO Jack Welch to help the university in multiple, major ways over the years (culminating in the business school name). When the article grows into something closer to what it should be, there's no way that Cernera won't be mentioned in a prominent way. At that point, it would be absolutely proper to mention his salary as well. Noroton 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Nugent

    • Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Happened across this while doing RC patrol. The section on the Vietnam War is very troubling. The first paragraph appears to draw a synthesis between two unreliable sources (newshounds and nndb), or possibly newshounds is basing claims on an nndb entry. The middle part about crapping his pants is uncorroborated, and the last paragraph appears to be original research. It says he "appears to insinuate" something in an interview that apparently aired tonight. It is using the secondary source as a primary, and drawing a conclusion about it. I think this entire section needs to come out. I would prefer not to be directly involved, as my NRA life membership may leave a perception of a COI. // Crockspot 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a member of the NRA, and I commented out the section until it can be more reliably sourced. THF 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this is troubling even without the crazy scatological part. Even if true, what does his military service have to do with his artistry, fame, etc? It would be a witch hunt to find every liberal, conservative, or apathetic person who took steps to avoid Vietname service, even those people outspoken on the subject. It's just not relevant, and worse, it seems to be an attack section that violates BLP. If someone can establish that it is relevant it should be merged with the "outspokenness" section and renamed "controversies" or something like that, and pruned heavily to avoid WP:Weight problems. Most likely, the only relevance is to show that he's an opinionated, crazy acting rebel, something that we can easily do without subjecting his specific acts to that kind of criticism. Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been reinserted. I'm not going to edit-war. We need admin intervention. THF 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted again. The person who wrote and inserted it has mentioned Talk:Ted Nugent#Why does Nugent.'s avoiding military service during Vietnam keeps getting deleted here that he did it by way of disparaging the artist. It's a pretty clear case IMO. He seems to be a newbie, and acting in good faith, so I think prospects are good for getting him to understand short of an edit war why it's not cool to use Wikipedia in this way. If he reverts again, I agree, someone ought to intervene. Wikidemo 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mentioned on the subject talk page that the entire section shouldn't have been commented out. A judicious edit would have been well received, I think. There is at least one reliable source referenced (and commented out) and this reliable source can be used to establish the reliability of some of the other claims in the section. Undue weight cuts both ways. This appears to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ossified 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bathwater is still in the tub. Anyone can edit the commented area and add back whatever is appropriate. Meanwhile, attacks against living people should not just sit there while waiting to be cleaned up. If you can clean it up so it's acceptable either be bold and just do it, or be meek and propose a revised version here or to the article talk page. It shouldn't be a big deal. Wikidemo 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it's an attack against a living person when the quotes used are from the person himself, and without taking them out of context. So, that being said, anything based on anything Nugent has ever said, or has been directly taken from his own website or any reputable article, should be erased from the page I suppose? Evets70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evets70 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's Undue Weight. There's not a celebrity alive that we couldn't find direct quotes from if we wanted to use them and amplify them to make them look bad on Wikipedia, but we don't (in most cases). wikipediatrix 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If Nugent was a musical artist and solely a musical artist then the 'crazy scatalogical part' might be an undue weight issue. In the case of Nugent, however, we have someone who has used their notoriety as a soapbox from which to declare a particular political philosophy. It isn't an undue weight issue to provide context regarding how their actions may not be congruent with their words (that's a nice way of calling someone a hypocrite, I think). The fact of the matter is, some of that section needs to be removed and other parts kept. Moonriddengirl has provided a good jumping off point for the worthwhile part on the Nugent discussion page, and I think that it will be possible to have a consensus for a re-write within the next 48 hours. Ossified 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That amounts to synthesis, to deliberately juxtapose two discrete elements to make an argument. Find more reliable third-party sources who comment on the perceived hypocrisy rather than making the voice of Wikipedia's omniscient narrator do it. Should be easy enough to find. wikipediatrix 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
    Do you feel that something along the lines of the proposal that I made at the talk page for handling the material is appropriate? It draws no conclusions about Nugent's motivations or character. It's getting hard to navigate that section, so I've bolded the words "it might be appropriate to say something like" to make it easier to locate first draft suggestions, if you or someone else would care to take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (reset indent) I'm also at the talk page attempting to reach consensus. I believe that the material may be appropriate for inclusion if carefully crafted to maintain Wikipedia:Neutrality. --Moonriddengirl 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Bartlett

    Resolved
     – no BLP issue
    • Bruce Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal printed an opinion piece by Bruce Bartlett that was almost totally incorrect. Nearly every paragraph in the article was factually or logically inaccurate. It has brought serious negative attention to the FairTax movement, creating a situation in which grassroots FairTax supporters have to compete with the WSJ about the FT's link to Scientology and other blantant faslehoods. I added a section about the article in the current works section, and while I was doing that someone else added a quote from the article. Since then, Jimintheatl and I have gone back and forth re-editing the same two sections. He never leaves any sort of commentary, he hasn't responded to my post on the discussion page, and I honestly don't know what his beef with the truth is. I can only imagine he is one of the rabid Anti-FairTax people that have no problem intentionally misrepresenting fact in order to promote their position. I added an external source from the Atlanta Journal Constitution that verfies my position (namely, that the article was poorly researched, and that the FairTax has nothing to do with Scientology), and even with this evidence, Jimintheatl continues to re-edit the article to match his expressed bias. I hope there is some way to resolve this issue accurately.

    Thank you, Justin in Oklahoma Aug 30, 11:15 CDT

    This is really an NPOV dispute, rather than a BLP dispute. I question the WP:WEIGHT of a single op-ed about a proposal that doesn't have much in the way of mainstream support, but I hope I resolved the edit war with a neutral account of the dispute. If the two of you have further disagreements over the text of the article, please use the Template:RFCpol to get further input. THF 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your changes, jimintheatl does not. I've undone his last edit to your changes. Thank you, sir.
    I disagree with your suggestion that the FairTax doesn't "have much in the way of mainstream support". It was a topic that helped decide the Iowa straw poll, several presidential candidates are in favor of it, and it enjoys the largest number of bi-partisan co-sponsors in the house and the senate of any tax reform proposal. But, as you suggested, those are just facts that support my POV.
    With Bartlett's resume and his forum (the WSJ), I submit that he provides all the weight needed on any economic topic he chooses to broach. A man with 4 years as a top presidential advisor writes his opinions in the most widely read econ/business media outlet... that's about as much weight as you can place on something. 66.210.187.162 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Justin in Oklahoma.[reply]
    That Bruce Bartlett criticized FairTax in the WSJ is notable wrt FairTax. It's not one of the ten most notable things about Bartlett. Please go to WP:RFPP and ask for full page-protection if there is continued edit-warring, especially if it is without discussion on the talk page. At the moment, I am avoiding participating in any edits that may be controversial. THF 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Well, no wonder he ended up on this page. He is a Republican and someone said he was a Scientologist. :-) Steve Dufour 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do hope you are not referring to me ending up on this page. I am neither a Republican nor a Scientologist. I am a FairTax supporter, and I don't like the idea that people will willingly lie on Wiki about situations in order to promote their own agenda. If you are referring to Bartlett ending up here, it's only because some people aren't willing to accept facts.66.210.187.162 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Justin in Oklahoma.[reply]
    Sorry if I was misunderstood. I was making a joke about articles about Creationists, Scientologists, and Republicans being the ones most often mentioned on this page. Steve Dufour 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Stossel

    Edit-warring to insert unsourced WP:OR BLP violation after warning. The article as a whole suffers from WP:WEIGHT problems that are being discussed on the talk page. THF 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the article is being improved. Still too much weight to "he said something and someone else disagreed" type stuff. Steve Dufour 07:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Samantha Ronson

    Independent research et al, unsupported commentary regarding Lindsey Lohan. Tessemily 10:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actors/Actresses

    I hope you can help me here, I have recently added updates to a British actress based on a CV provided to me by her agents, and I have left a copy of this in the talk page. The CV itself is not online. Is this an appropriate method of adding info? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP tag removed

    Someone took off the BLP tag from this article: Category talk:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". As far as I can tell all people included in the category are living persons. Steve Dufour 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    But, the category isn't a biography. Is there any reason it should be there? ←BenB4 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP tag does not say that the article that it is added to is a biography, just that it is subject to WP policies on living persons. As I said, all the people in the category are living persons. Their signing of the petition could be a sensitive issue with their careers, so I thought it was worth putting the tag on the category. Steve Dufour 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Blp says the tag can be used on lists, but doesn't mention categories. Steve Dufour 02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean Godden

    Jean Godden - Mikesmash, a campaign worker for the opponent challenging Jean Godden, keeps inserting irrelevant and controversial material about Jean that is either not sourced or sourced to improper sources (blogs, "community weeklies" produced by supporters of Jean's opponent, etc). He has been called out on this and the material has been repeatedly deleted, but he simply reinserts things verbatim. His insertions are just simply of no consequence and have no business on Jean Godden's wiki page. I'm asking for some help as he simply reinserts anything that is deleted. Thanks. // Landsfarthereast 05:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm the other editor in this dispute. Yes, I've volunteered with the Szwaja campaign, but Landsfarthereast is the Godden campaign manager and he's consistently edited out any criticism of said subject, even when it's been well-cited. He's even tried to edit out the names of the three primary candidates challenging his opponents, while posting increasingly condescending messages on his edits and on my discussion page. The instance that he's talking about was recently looked at by a neutral third party. He is speaking of two quotes criticizing Godden by a prominent housing activist (Google his name "john fox seattle" if you like.) who is mentioned not in a blog, but in two local community papers with editorial oversight. The statements are put into a balanced context and set against the contrast of statements in the subject's favor, as in an endorsement list of local organizations.

    Fox did endorse her opponent, but isn't uncritical of him in said editorial. Another editor: Lawrence Cohen said the following:

    The sources that Mikesmash is adding to Jean Godden appears valid for reporting criticism of a politician. Real Change News and Beacon Hill News are both valid news sources with full editorial oversight. • Lawrence Cohen 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While I've done volunteer work for Szwaja like doorbelling and some sign making, Landsfarthereast as the campaign manager represents a huge Conflict of Interest and continues to edit out well-cited comments that are unflattered to his candidate. I request a neutral third party review of the situation. Mikesmash 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned Landsfarthereast regarding incivility in edit summaries. Raymond Arritt 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Joe_Szwaja#Criminal_past_section

    I have no idea what this all is. I added a few newspaper sources that a trivial Google search reported to this page, now these fellows are debating rather angrily (mostly Landsfarthereast) on my talk page and Landsfarthereast put this on this political canidate's talk page:

    because he is a woman beater, mike, and that hits close to home. maybe shattering a place in a woman's face is no big deal to you, but it disgusts me. so much for you being a progressive. i guess you're only a progressive when it's convenient. when it comes to calling out domestic violence, you're nothing but an apologist.
    i've known a number of good friends whose lives have been tremendously affected by dv, and it is not something to gloss over. his son, who was 7 at the time of this incident, will live with this for the the rest of his life. shame on you for diminishing its importance. it is also something that TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES anyone from ever holding public office.

    Could an admin check this out ASAP? Thanks. I don't think I want to be dragged futher into this in any way, and it looks somewhat out of control with anonymous users referring to political canidates as wife beaters, and people apparently trying to out each others' anonymous handles. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawrence, I apologize for dragging you into this. I honestly didn't expect it to get this heated. My contention in the debate is that this isn't worthy of a full section the size of which dwarfs everything else on a person's site. I never edited mention or citation of the incident out of the article. I merely condensed it to a size to match its relevance to the subject's life. The other editor has posted derogatory things to my Talk Page which I invite Admins to check out where he taunts me in an off-topic way. It's gotten really old and I would like Administrator intervention. Thank you and I apologize to everyone who's gotten headaches over this. Mikesmash 07:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=154971540"