Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Remove this page and urls to it - Raymond Hoser

NLT --- Collapsed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030
Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser
This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred.
Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA
Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter.
The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well.
As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith.
Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones.
A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers.
Thank you.
Snake Man Raymond Hoser
Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles

Phones: (Redacted)

Catherine Chatterley

Re: the supposedly biographical entry on Catherine Chatterley

The paragraph dealing with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is polemical and not biographical. One might say that she has been a public defender of the CMHR but to make (unfounded) allegations about the critics of the CMHR and to accuse them of anti-Semitism is unfair, potentially libellous.

A biographical entry should confine itself to facts, not the opinions of the author. Wikipedia should not be promoting dubious and even mendacious texts disguised as biographical notes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk • contribs)

R. J. Ellory

A few weeks back, articles were published in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Times, accusing author R. J. Ellory of faking glowing reviews of his own work (allegedly using sockpuppets) whilst belittling that of certain "rivals". Reference has since been made to the Daily Telegraph article and external links were added to both articles.

Since that time, there has been a slow tag-team content dispute between various editors and one registered user and two pretty static or static IPs. This involves alternate, similar and unexplained blanking by these three editors and restoration, talk page advice and talk page warnings by various other editors:

Accounts: Roger Ellory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
77.100.46.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
94.11.171.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

A few hours ago (last night, UK time), one of the editors left a message on my talk page:

"I do not understand what is happening here. Potentially libellous statements regarding myself and my work are being left on my wikipedia page, and I cannot remove them. This is grossly unfair, unjust and biased. Simply because an article appears in a newspaper does not make it true. Please could you assist me in resolving this issue. Many thank. R J Ellory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.171.216 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC) "

I was about to add a section title to the message but there was an edit conflict and the page now contains a duplicate of the above message, again unsigned, but made according to the talk page history, by Roger Ellory (talk · contribs). There have also been gentle words of advice about possible conflict of interest and blp policy in general.

My advice was to use the edit summary; to use the article's talk page and, if he had a grievance, to take the matter to this BLP noticeboard. I have added a blp sources template to the top of the article and added a disputed section template above the allegedly offending material. I have also removed the Daily Telegraph from external links, as this is already referenced and linked to in the article body (I thought this to be overkill). Perhaps the external link to the New York Times might also either be used in the article or else removed from external links?

I have also opened this issue here and will inform users of this entry. All help gratefully received in resolving this issue.

Regards, Esowteric+Talk 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this was a widely reported story, and he is reported in multiple papers to have publicly apologised for his behaviour: [1] We need clarification what exactly is libellous or unfair about the content. JN466 10:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, it's been very widely reported and well-sourced, including pieces in The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Daily Telegraph. He admits he did it and he's apologized. Then he comes here and tries to vandalize the information out of the article. He has been editing his article for a long time, even before this, as shown here [2]. I don't understand why he would admit to what he did before the entire world, and at the same time try to have it scrubbed from Wikipedia. But if he sincerely believes there is anything inaccurate in how it is presented here, we should absolutely follow WP:BLP and listen to what he has to say. Until such time, given the very strong sourcing, I don't think any changes should be made. Qworty (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one thing is he apologised, and we should make sure his apology is just as prominent here in Wikipedia as it is in the press reports (the version I looked at didn't mention the apology at all, but instead went into a lot of detail about what he had posted). JN466 01:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 19: We now have another IP reinstating material deleted from the personal life section, without explanation. See 94.11.177.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Received on my talk page just a few minutes ago:

"I am very unfamiliar with how this works, certainly as far as sending messages is concerned. I do not even know who I am talking to! I noticed this morning that two pararaphs of my 'Perosnal Life' section had been removed. Who removes these things, and why? As far as this dispute is concerned, there is a significant matter of misrepresentation in the press regarding the extent to which I had manufactured 'reviews' on amazon. Simply put, this entire issue was blown out of all proportion, and I have been treated most unjustly. However, I appreciate that you have noted that there is a dispute on this issue. My concern, as is also happening with reviews left on amazon itself, is that those reading my wikipedia page and recent amazon reviews are being given one side of the story, much of it false, and there is nothing I can do to address this matter. Were the truth ever to come out regarding this issue, I guarantee that it would receive no press coverage at all. People assume that what they read in the newspapers and on the internet is true, whereas it is often biased, invested with ulterior motive, and semi-factual. I would please ask you to leave the paragraphs in as they are on my 'Personal Life' section, unless there is some issue with this. And please could you tell me who you are, and why you are in control of what does and does not go on my wikipedia page? Also, who posted that photograph of me, and how do I get rid of it or change it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)"

I'm not in charge here, Roger: I'm just another hack/editor. You have a genuine grievance and asked for help, so I opened up this discussion on your behalf. The banners across the top of the article clearly explain what the issues are with the article content.

Recent changes were made not by me but by Qworty (talk · contribs). The photo was added by Jean-Jacques Georges (talk · contribs). See my reply to your message, which explains how to view article revision history (who made edits, why and when), and please respond here, rather than on my talk page. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, from my talk page:

The facts are very simple, and - as you say - I have publicly apologised for this. Over a span of ten years, ten reviews were left on amazon, either self-penned or penned by a family member, one for each book I have published to date. Two negative reviews were left by me, and only two. The newspaper reports have created the apparency that I had used multiple false names and accounts to post 'dozens, if not hundreds' of reviews. This is entirely false, and can be validated by amazon. As of the beginning of September 2012, there were no self-penned or family-written reviews of my own works on amazon, nor are the two negative reviews I left still present. These were all removed by me, or removed by amazon at my request. Every review of my books on amazon has been written by someone other than me or a family member. The messages left on amazon that 'every review of my books is false', or 'there are hundreds of fake reviews on amazon' is blatanly untrue and libellous, and I feel that the wording of the 'Controversy' paragraph and the attachment of newspaper links give completely the wrong bias on this issue. I am sorry to inconvenience you with this, but this is an important issue, and I feel that I am being misprepresented, not by what is being said on wikipedia, but by what is not being said. The simple fact that such a practice is pandemic across amazon and many, many other websites where reviews can be posted is beside the point. I was accused of this, admitted to it, apologised for it, and yet was subjected to a relentless character assassination in the world's press, and as far as I am concerned, the reaction was disproportionate to the crime. I am not trying to make excuses or justify this, but it had been an enormously difficult thing to deal with, and I am doing all I can to rescue my career and dignity out of this fiasco.
Thank you for your time, nevertheless, and I hope we can work this out.
R J Ellory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 11:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's try changing the Controversy section template from facts disputed -> unbalanced. Have made a start by quoting Ellory's apology in the Daily Telegraph, but more is needed to achieve balance. Now that an editor has rightly removed unsourced material from Personal life, the controversy section appears to have undue weight. Esowteric+Talk 11:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that section, as thoroughly unsourced. Are there no sources available that will help us fill in some biographical detail about this person? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will see if I can rustle up some citations, starting with his awards ... pause ... Well, I found plenty of citations for Ellory's works and awards. But when it comes to his personal life, there's a chasm. He needs to learn how to feed reviewers and interviewers with material that can later be quoted as reliable sources. Esowteric+Talk 13:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again on my talkpage:

"Once again, two paragraphs of my biog have been removed from my wikipedia page. Please could you tell me who keeps doing this, and why? I have replaced them, yet again, and I really would apprciate it if they could remain there. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC) "

Can someone -- anyone -- please try to establish two way conversation with Roger Ellory (talk · contribs)? I keep getting messages which suggest that previous replies have not been seen or understood, and I'm getting no response to any replies I make. This is rather frustrating. Esowteric+Talk 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again on my talk page. Does anyone want to escalate this to COI or AN/I. I've had enough:

So, am I not a reliable source about my own life? That biog has been there for a long, long time and - all of a sudden - it's been questioned as credible when I wrote it? I don't understand this at all. How do I speak to the person who is making these changes? I really don't understand the wikipedia protocol, nor your instructions about how to make changes. Please can you tell this person who is removing my biog that I am the most reliable source there is when it comes to my own life, and can he please stop deleting this.
Thank you.
R J Ellory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please could you explain to me why certain sections of my biog are permitted to remain and others are not. This biog has been up for many months, and all of a sudden you have decided that some of it is invalid. This is my page, my life, my biog, and you are telling me that it is not valid? I do not understand what you are doing, nor why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Ellory (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is blocked indefinitely. See my explanation on their talk page. If they understand (or acknowledge that they understand) the problem, then perhaps another admin will consider an unblock request. But this edit-warring, coupled with BLP violations and avoiding scrutiny, has gone on long enough. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to controversy: Hi, could someone please check on whether they think that the Controversy section is undue and unbalanced? Qworty (talk · contribs) (edits diff) seems to think that this has been resolved here and on the subject Roger Ellory (talk · contribs)'s talk page. The edit is inaccurate, as the cited source does not say that R. J. Ellory had been "disinvited" from the Manx festival but that he had pulled out. Many thanks, Esowteric+Talk 08:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, if balancing material is added, this thing is going to grow and grow, like Topsy. Esowteric+Talk 09:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree that the new edit is inaccurate. The source [3] clearly states that he "had to pull out"--that means they forced him out. It also clearly states that he was replaced with one of the writers he attacked in his Amazon reviews. This is not the end of the scandal, but only the beginning of it. It is, however, the end of any notion that the scandal shouldn't be included in the article. Qworty (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that possibly OR? He may have "pulled out" because he would have found the occasion difficult to handle at an emotional level? The source doesn't tell us whether he jumped or was pushed.

Okay. I've changed a few words so that they are verbatim from the article, eliminating any possibility of OR. Have a look and tell us what you think. To recap: What we have here is a guy who did something unethical, and whose actions are well-sourced. He admitted to it and apologized. Also well-sourced. Then he changed his mind and came here to Wikipedia to try to eliminate the evidence of what he had done AND his apology. I simply refuse to believe that the good faith behind BPL is to enable such a person to manipulate the project to his whim, overruling the extensive sourcing. Balance? Yes, we must strive for it. But we cannot give in to him. Qworty (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Quorty. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the apology to the section having noted Jayen466's comment that this had not been mentioned. I hadn't seen any edits to suggest that Ellory tried to remove the apology specifically, though he and IPs were section blanking. Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The impression that I got was that Roger Ellory genuinely had no clue about viewing edit history or even clicking on a "talk" link, and that he genuinely believed that he owned "his page, his life, his bio, his career ..." I want to assume good faith, though this may have been feigned. This would explain the bizarre and frustrating one-way conversations and not being able to get through to Ellory. Esowteric+Talk 11:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the controversy section down a bit. We should really be describing his writing career and awards first, and then cover the recent controversy. Beginning with the controversy right after his childhood and only then describing his writing career and awards seems non-neutral. --JN466 15:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September 2012, Jeremy Duns, the guy who originally blew the lid on R. J. Ellory's fake reviews at Amazon, posted a serious of critical tweets and details of new forensic digs. He linked to the user's talk page and to this BLP/N thread. Esowteric+Talk 10:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Singh, claim of unreliable sources, tabloid journalism, and personal harm

RE:OTRS ticket 2012091410007106

I'm relaying this request on behalf of Pamela Singh. Please consider it as if she presented it herself. --Ocaasi

Request

To delete the following from her Wikipedia page: "Pamella Bordes is an Indian-born photographer and former Miss India who briefly hit the headlines in the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989 as the mistress and escort of several notable individuals, including arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. She had been known in society columns as a social companion of Andrew Neil, editor of Sunday Times at the time; Donald Trelford, then editor of The Observer and of junior minister Colin Moynihan; it was then discovered she had a House of Commons security pass arranged by MPs David Shaw and Henry Bellingham. The Evening Standard and Daily Mail published allegations that she was associated with a Libyan security official named Ahmed Gadaff Al Damm, raising issues similar to the 1960s Profumo affair, or more broadly the World War I "spy" Mata Hari."

Rationale

Accuracy and reliability of sources: The original stories about me were originated by the News of The World a British tabloid paper which had to be shut down due to their track record of publishing inaccurate stories and phone hacking etc. Once they published stuff the material snowballed from there and other newspapers picked it up including some serious newspapers. No one called me to verify anything and by the time I got the information it was too late because it was everywhere and I had become a cottage industry for anyone to write as they pleased. In fact, they are still doing it. The information in this paragraph has been taken from various british newspapers most of them tabloid like the News Of The World etc. Everybody knows how unscrupulous British tabloids are in hounding and destroying people's lives with inaccuracies and lies.
Personal harm to the subject: This information on me in wikipedia has totally destroyed my life. I have been deeply unhappy and frightened for the past 25 years due to this . For past 20 years I have been doing very well as a professional photographer but people outside the art world do not take me seriously no matter how hard I work or how many prestigious exhibitions I have. I am sexually attacked by men because they read the wikipedia description of me and I am the target of jealous and hateful women who malign me when they see how well i have done as a photographer. I think I have been punished enough since 1989.
Time lapse between events and now: This information about me was gathered around 25 years ago and its not completely accurate. People that i have been associated with in this article like Ahmed Al-Daim are not even alive any more and Mr. Kahassoggi was only a social acquaintance.

Many thanks for your co-operation.--Pamela Singh

Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed mention of the arms dealer here [4] as there's no indication in the proffered sources that she had an intimate relationship with him. I've also softened the language a bit here [5] so that the opening paragraph no longer links to the article on prostitution. I don't know if there's much more that we can do, unless someone can demonstrate that the sources do not constitute WP:RS. That appears to be her argument. Qworty (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a UK citizen in his mid-50s, though I can't prove it, I have never considered The News of the World to be a reliable source, except perhaps on "tittle-tattle". Search RS/N archives? Esowteric+Talk 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed these two comparisons [6], since dragging her name into scandals that had nothing to do with her is a form of WP:ATTACK. Qworty (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rebalanced the lede to reflect the article content and further reduced the recycling of old gossip as UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now nominated for deletion. Comments needed. Martinlc (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve virgin (Andrew Orlowski)

Mr Virgin has expressed his displeasure with Mr Orlowski in a way that may still need toning down (~~placing "journalist" in quotes and~~ referring to AO as an "amateur"). The original version refers to AO as a "Halfwit". Given that I am a known critic of various people associated with WMUK, it is probably best if someone else decides what needs redacting or possibly revdeling--Peter cohen (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for others: the location of the concern is in the user page as linked. (I went looking to the article on Orlowski, which doesn't show any signs of the problems described.) the quotes around "journalist" are now gone; "amateur" is still there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That was my problem looking at the diff and mistaking bolding quotes for how they would be rendered. "Amateur" still means that an issue possibly applies.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Andrew Orlowski is actually very poor. Tagged for more than three years, it's almost all primary sources, and includes a lot of Wikipedia navel gazing. JN466 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins

I wonder if the sole source used in David R. Hawkins, a skeptic newsletter, passes the bar for WP:BLPSPS. It is used to make slightly derogatory comments about the subject, namely that his PhD is from a non-accredited institution. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the source is reliable to begin with, and unsourced, poorly or unreliably sourced defamatory content cannot be in a BLP. I've placed a tag on the article and will remove the defamatory content. Electric Catfish² 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again

It was added back, from the same source with additional citations for what happened to that institution. Those additional citations don't mention Hawkins however. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

l.g. williams

Most of the so called "publications" are self published books on Amazon. All in all one must have the impression that this performance artist wrote the article himself, or that large parts were written by his girlfriend, who is an art historian and helps him in his constant attempts to create PR. Williams clearly was not part of the Biennale in Venice and other major shows. The Wikipedia article must be seen as part of his self-performance and should therefore be erased since it does not provide accurate information. In addition it is also questionable if L.G. Williams and his "work" is important enough to be admitted into Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.249.117.2 (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to LG Williams?--ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he does because he sort of vandalized the page. There has been promotion of LG Williams which led to the block for socking of User:Art4em. Alas, I don't know enough about the topic to attempt to clean up the article. Most of it lacks inline references and the sources are obscure too. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Nirupam

This page contains derogatory and abusive words in hindi. Please correct as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shans nita (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Nirupam: Have removed the English word "M...rF...r" from the lede and Hindi abuse from a section. Haven't delved into history or warned any users. Esowteric+Talk 14:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney dog incident

Is the website used in a BLP on Mitt Romney dog incident reasonably characterised as "pro-Obama" just because it sells merchandise with "Bark Obama" prominently on its main page? [7] etc.

Or is it simply a neutral website which should not be categorised in any such political manner? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a neutral description of the issue. The actual issue is whether we need to add the "pro-Obama" description to a website whose name states that it opposes Romney. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The website sells "Bark Obama" merchandise. I think a website selling material promoting a candidate is "pro" that candidate by definition. In additon, the website is apparently commercial in nature in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly pro-Obama, but I think I have a solution which resolves the issue without the problem that SS24 has. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ford

This article is now 'protected' from edits. The article, which concerns the mayor of Toronto, who is usually considered to be controversial in nature, is basically in a 'slow-motion' edit war. The basic issue, I think, comes down to whether or not the article is neutral in nature. There is a 'controversies' section that is objected to by an editor, who considers it an attack on Ford. See this edit.

Any assistance in resolving this dispute would be appreciated. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Underwood

A few people watchlisting this article couldn't hurt. I've just cut out a large swathe of information about an arrest, and I suspect the article will be getting a lot of eyes at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverted. Over half of the prose is related to this recent incident. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested temporary protection, see WP:RPP.--ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

chris hemsworth

someone has changed his personal life section to include themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.130.1 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted by ClueBot. Electric Catfish (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Homer-Dixon

Jbghewer (talk · contribs)

The Thomas Homer-Dixon article has been subject to editing I find questionable. I'll be the first to openly question his notability under WP:GNG and WP:PROF, the latter because his affiliations seem either too far removed from their main educational institutions, or because they are essentially advocacy groups, non-profits, NGOs or the like. Plus, looking into primary sources, there are many, many others in the same circles and in higher positions, it's hard to believe there's much noteworthy about this individual. Honestly, it's hard to tell because of all the crap in the article. On that topic, edits by Jbghewer, namely previous and latest additions to the article, wax heavily hagiographic. Because of the quality, magnitude, and multitude of edits involved, as well as the particularity of the BLP issues at hand, I thought this the appropriate forum.

Overall, the problems snowball into a giant WP:PEACOCK. First: the WP:TONE and WP:RECENTism are less than encyclopedic; in fact, the article reads more like a WP:RESUME or WP:AUTO narrative. It is replete with the typical trappings of WP:COI editing, which is very clear from this edit summary. The editor in question has admitted the conflict of interest, but has persisted in editing. A related second: the "Selected Writings, Presentation, Interviews" section is a list without context. None of them are demonstrably seminal works, and they clot the references section with primary references. Third, I believe the "Impact" subsection is utter nincompoopery, citing mere mentions by notable individuals and the subject's attendance at certain events. Fourth, I think the article generally contains too many citations to the subject himself; between WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS, and WP:UNDUE, the significance of any particular accomplishment or publication is not ascertainable (i.e., should not appear at all), and is not additive to notability. The subject's statements about himself in interviews are likewise not additive toward notability, although they may be additive to content if there is any notability to start with.

I don't mean to whine: I'm pretty sure I'd face opposition from the conflicted editor in question, so I'd like as much consensus as possible before proceeding. My first inclination is to revert to this version on WP:COI alone, but it's not particularly spectacular. Otherwise, piecemeal, I'd start by tagging the primary sources, unsourced claims, and remove the list of "writings, presentations, and interviews" wholesale, but there may be some third-party gems floating about the primary sources. I just haven't found any. I'd also eliminate all the uncited and self-cited claims, because the level of detail or the claims themselves are insignificant, or because they are insufficient as primary sources to indicate biographical significance for inclusion.

If anyone could offer preemptive advice or editing on this article, his assistant-editor, or the sources in question, I'm all ears and eyes. I'll also post a thread at WP:COIN regarding this issue. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mokbel

A vandal is continually deleting a real picture(the one I posted of him with his infamous wig) of Tony Mokbel and replacing it with a picture that is NOT Mokbel(some bald guy at at a party drinking... NOT MOKBEL!). Please make this page so that only Auto-confirmed users can edit it. I have no idea how to do that as there's no direct link to doing that on the "Edit" page. So please someone look after it.Colliric (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please request protection of the article at WP: RFPP, not here. Electric Catfish (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin E. Baird

Resolved

– Speedied. JFHJr (㊟) 16:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an autobiography. The links at the bottom go to web sites of his. I'm not hip to all things wiki, but maybe somebody there can glance at this. It's unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.119.18 (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - looks like pure promotion. There appears at least on the surface to be no verifiable evidence that Baird meets our notability guidelines]]. I'll look into this, and if I can't find such evidence, nominate the article for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. JFHJr (㊟) 16:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 NFL replacement officials

This article does not feel right to me, BLP wise. Only one of the listed people is notable and it seems like there is a potential to hurt or embarrass people. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real familiar with sports/officials policies on WP, but I wonder if the qualifier "replacement" in the title is a bit beyond necessary. Perhaps the article should simply be List of 2012 NFL officials with a redirect from "Replacement officials," and a "controversy" section. Definitely these officials, as a body, have become notable, as has the term "replacement officials." But, as far as encyclopedic content goes, they are no more or less official "officials" than any others over the years in the NFL. Victims of circumstance, really. Ditch ∝ 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the NFL season itself already has a lot of material about the situation. I am thinking about nominating the article for deletion, but I have a feeling that would be kind of unpleasant. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate for deletion, although I am sure lots of people "like it." Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion on Paul Pozonsky

An anonymous IP wiped out sourced material at Paul Pozonsky, replacing it with POV spin, diff. In case this one gets controversial, I'd like some extra eyes on the article to make sure that everything satisfies WP:BLP.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Vandersloot

There's a conflict coming to a head over at the Frank Vandersloot BLP regarding the improper inclusion of a partisan Heritage Foundation video[8] that is rife with serious allegations about third parties (including the President and several others) and clearly violates WP:BLP. I've removed it from the article but one editor keeps on putting it back and ignoring the BLP violation.[9][10][11][12] I've pointed out the issue in my edit summaries and on the Talk page,[13] so it's now a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the other editor's part. I just left a lengthy explanation, again,[14] as to why the video violates BLP, and although policy states that it should be immediately removed, I didn't want to be the one to pull the plug again lest the other editor starts squawking about a 3RR violation, so I'm asking for some immediate assistance to get this video out of the article ASAP. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, after posting here, I also posted the issue to 3RRNB[15] and added an update indicating that the editor in question just blanked a huge swathe of the article for no apparent reason after the notices were filed tonight.[16] Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the 3RR noticeboard volunteers has since removed the offending link,[17] so the pressing BLP violation problem has been solved for now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic behavior is back. One of the other edit warriors just reverted the deletion and put the video link back in the article.[18]

Just received this notice on my Talk page alerting that the editor in question is now violating WP:CANVASS in a possible attempt at vote stacking.[19]

It's clear, and sad, that both sides are editing this article for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election. Not to provide information about the person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems especially ill advised to make an incivil attack like that here on the BLPN page. The point here is to resolve the problem, not throw gas on the fire. You know nothing about my motivation for editing, nor should you be making such accusations. I've been responding appropriately to a clear cut BLP violation and attempts at gaming the system. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait (stuntman)

Does the material removed with this edit from Douglas Tait (stuntman) violate WP:BLP/WP:BLPREMOVE? It was first removed in May but ultimately briefly discussed (here) and restored. Over the last month, the material (and other very minor bits) was again removed by a variable IP editor (who in one attack episode also reverted many of my others edits dating back some time), reverted/reinserted by me and two other eds (other eds: here and here), and removed again by an IP who finally claimed it was a BLP violation on talk (same talk section) after having failed to discuss at all until page protection was requested.

I propose restoring the article to the version reflecting the last edit I made before the IP reverted for a fourth time (since claiming s/he had done so because it was a BLP violation). I believe the information is sufficiently sourced--to four LA Times articles-- and sufficiently related to the the subjects purported notability (even if WP:NPF applies) because the subject has mentioned his high school basketball prowess as having led to his first acting gigs.

Novaseminary (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's talk page proves, Novaseminary had already had pushback from other, non-IP, editors for attempting to include contentious material that is not only 20 years out of date, but obscure and irrelevant. He has also been advised, per WP:BLPREMOVE, that the immediate removal of "libelous, biased... contentious material that violates the policy on WP:BLP" is the rule. Even after that, Novaseminary by his own admission, still engaged in 3RR, re-inserting the material several times, while claiming it's removal was also 3RR. This after being advised that BLPREMOVE also says the "three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". So Novaseminary's argument is not with other editors, but with the WP:BLPREMOVE rule (and WP:NOT3RR) itself. It was also pointed out to Novaseminary, that if he was really interested in including a reliable source like the LA Times in the BLP, then far more recent, and more relevant articles than his 20 year old clippings, do exist. Two examples were even provided to him, like here, and here. But Novaseminary expressed no interest in including them. And if his interest in including high school basketball material really was "because the subject has mentioned his high school basketball prowess as having led to his first acting gigs", then why did he exclude every single mention in those same articles about the subject's All-Star status and/or team high scorer accomplishments? That would seem much more relevant than any off-court drama. But as is clear in this request for review, the 20 year old, high school, off-court drama, is all Novaseminary is fighting to include. Which not only violates WP:BLPREMOVE, but also WP:NPF and WP:UNDUE. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:10D3:1179:DF81:3790 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the removed material is contentious; there seems little doubt about the facts. It is not flattering, sure. Even if it were contentious, though, it is sourced to four articles in a major newspaper. It is balanced, perhaps even understating what is covered in these RSs. What part of BLP does this material violate? There might be a relevance question, but that is not a BLP issue (other than WP:NPF). As for NPF, if it is worth noting Tait played basketball and that this lead to his first acting gig, how is putting his playing in context irrelevant to his notability, such as it is (whether he meets N is an open question in my book). He has received more significant coverage in articles appearing in major newspapers for his high school basketball playing (and not playing) than he has for his acting so far as I can find on gNews. And whether to include citation to unrelated paid advertisments or a bare credit is irrelevant to this discussion. Novaseminary (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response presented no new facts, while continuing to ignore the facts already available. If your interest is in referencing the connection of Tait's high school basketball career to his adult acting career, the current version already does that. If your concern is to include the LA Times source, the current version already does that too. As do the additional LA Times sources I offered here, and here, both of which are 20 years more recent than all the contentious, obscure and irrelevant material you would include. It is also worth noting that while you have repeatedly claimed to reference Tait's comments about his high school basketball career, those comments do not appear in the article now, nor have they ever, so you haven't even established a relevant connection beyond what is already in the article. The intent and purpose of WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NPF are clear. Again, your argument really boils down to your objection to these policies. So I recommend that since you feel so strongly opposed to them, that you work to change these rules. If you can find a consensus for doing so. But until then, these WP policies should be followed. You also have never even attempted to answer the basic question about what is fundamentally insufficient in the current version, that only adding your contentious and dated material would address? In future, instead of rehashing your unsuccessful N attacks, please work with editors to strengthening the article rather than edit warring with them when your disruptive editing is rejected. If you cannot, perhaps a subject ban is the necessary remedy. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:10D3:1179:DF81:3790 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the policies. I think this text complies with the policies. You think the text violates the policies. The text is cited above. We are here so other editors can weigh-in. I hope they will. Novaseminary (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say, you agree with both policies, then why are we here? WP:BLPREMOVE calls for "the immediate removal of contentious material". WP:NPF requires that we "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". We're here because you, in defiance of both policies, want to include the following: Tait "broke both wrists by punching a brick wall during a shoot-around practice" because a teammate's errant shot hit Tait as Tait "was attempting a slam dunk.", and "In January 1992, Tait was suspended for one game for fighting during a game.", and "In December 1992 during his senior year, Tait, then playing guard, was removed from the team for "using vulgarities and abusive language toward the players". Then you seriously ask how this is "contentious material?" You also believe this "exercises restraint?" And is "relevant to Tait's adult notability" - as an actor? Just because his first acting jobs were as a basketball player? But you also excluded material from those same articles, discussing his skills as a basketball player. Like being his team's leading scorer, or an All-Star. Which would at least be relevant to his getting acting roles since it would show he had the level of skill necessary to act the part of a basketball player. But you've also been given every opportunity to explain how the incidents you want to include were relevant to his getting acting jobs as a basketball player. And again and again you have just ignored the question. So for reasons clear only to you, we're here. But these irrelevant and disruptive edits are also clear policy vios. And they expose your tendentious editing on this BLP. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are here because I think the removed text and sources comply with BLPREMOVE and NPF and I would like the text returned to the article. I am asking editors familiar with these guidelines and policies to give their opinions so we can achieve consensus one way or the other.

With respect to BLPREMOVE, the material is not particularly contentious (meaning disputed, open to interpretation, etc...), and even if so, is well-sourced.

And I think it meets NPF because, according to Tait as quoted in what is the reference now at note 7, Tait's high school basketball proficiency led directly to his acting career (Tait's answer to the first question: "I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials, which quickly got me in to S.A.G., and I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills."). The full context of his high school basketbal career is more complicated, and there is no reason the reader should not know this. The references already there support the case that these additional references and text are relevant to Tait's notability. And the discussion of Tait as leading scorer, so far as it is sourced, is in the version I would like to return to.

But since you seem to object to this forum, I will repost over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.

Novaseminary (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have posted to RfC. The dicussion can now return back to the article's talk at Talk:Douglas_Tait_(stuntman)#RfC_Biography_posting. Sorry for the trouble to editors here. Novaseminary (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the record: I did not and do not object to this forum. Just as I do not object to you moving it to any other forum. However the appearance of you forum shopping does present a legitimate concern. But I do encourage all interested editors to review and contribute to this matter, wherever you may choose to post it. Thanks to all! 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Wolf

This individual does not even come close to meeting the notability guidelines and continually promotes himself via his WikiPedia page - the "living-bio" page should be deleted immediately and the user blocked from contributing further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diadelsuerte (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the page as you did (now reverted) is not the answer. Take it to WP:AFD if you think there is a case for deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I have listed some potential sources on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Russell

Lack of consensus on edits surrounding this filmmaker. Seems like a large bias on keeping select defamatory content on the page. In past cases for BLP pages, the admins have put a temporary lock-down on the page. Does that make sense to do on this one? Please advise. //Moviebuff18 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no discussion on the talk page. I've made a comment along with another user. Discussion is needed. If no one comes to talk soon, then maybe a lock down is needed to force people to come to the talk page. Its now on my watchlist. I'd be happy to participate in discussions. Why don't you start a talk page thread and outline the central issue? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help edit Kumar Parakala article better

Hello, I am quite new to wikipedia. I had written this article on Kumar Parakala, COO KPMG advisory India. It was fine until sometime back when it got in to AFD. Can anyone please help me make the article better. Here a few sources that someone on AFD suggested but i don't understand how to use them. Please help.

Comment on notability. Here are some sources that may help improve/prove notability.

PriyankaLewis (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis[reply]

It would help if you provided a link to the discussion about AfD. Is it on the article talk page? at AfD noticeboard?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article: Kumar Parakala

The current AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakal (3rd nomination)

The previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakala-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Parakal (3rd nomination)...--ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks, it looks like there is ongoing discussion on the article as well as the sources presented here. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may just be overly concerned but...

These comments concern me just a bit.[20] I would rather be wrong then see someone get discussed into the ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob beckel

September 13 entry is not accurate even if paraphrased. I listened to the entire The Five segment and Mr Beckel never said this. Request it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy from milwaukee (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Morwen - Talk 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin A. Armstrong

I am seeing highly tendentious edits by one user with an account and, to a lesser extent, by one anon IP address. The individual who is the subject of the article went to prison; the thrust of the non-neutral, unsourced material in the article in the past seems to be that the legal system was unfair to this individual, that he was denied due process, etc. As of this moment, most of the blatant, unsourced non-neutral material has been deleted or tagged, but I have a feeling that the tendentious editing is going to continue. Famspear (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed several citations to prison and court records per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I've also re-worded "without trial" to hew better to its source: he was found in contempt of court as a defendant in a civil trial. He was not held in contempt "without trial;" contempt is predicated on judicial process in the first place. The criminal trial apparently never happened because he admitted to what he was charged with; the wording was misleading and needed to be corrected. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Mehran

Here's one I'm tired of. The subject has been editing her own article, turning it, again and again, into little more than a publisher's blurb. I've warned (including a final warning), I've trimmed, I've tagged, and I've added reliable sources and tweaked/added to the text. User keeps reverting in bits and pieces to this version; compare that to my version. I've reverted the lot a couple of times already and it's clear she's not listening to me. As far as I'm concerned she can be blocked, but I won't be the one doing it, for obvious reasons. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone taking WP:OWNERSHIP over the biography for promotional ends. (76.248.149.47) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, should I give you rollback? Drmies (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha indeed. You know my old registered account already is so endowed, were I to use it again. If you're up for it have a look at the Callender business below. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks to the IP and to Qworty for their helpful intervention and edits. I hope the message has gotten through; I wish the editor would respond in words as well as in actions, but we'll see what the future holds. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Callender

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

Article is promotional in tone, and appears very similar to his imdb bio. Can someone tell which came first, to determine whether this is a copyright violation? Thanks, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a machete to the unsourced claims. I've also removed apparent sources such as imdb and other crap unreliable publications. All of the claims made needed to be cited, preferably by secondary sources. Even primary ones don't demonstrate the subject's involvement merits any WP:WEIGHT. Though the CV tag may no longer be needed, serious questions of notability remain. If it's alright, I'll swap tags. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I don't think notability is an issue, given such honors [21], but the article was a public relations cluster*@!#, now much improved. 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Leitman Bailey

I’m writing to you as an attorney here in Texas who specializes in defending 1st Amendment rights. I have a particular interest in the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (GZM) case and other lawsuits where individuals have challenged the rights of Muslim-Americans to build places of worship, despite this right being enshrined in the Constitution.

Unfortunately the opponents of these mosques, driven I believe by prejudice and religious intolerance, frequently use the internet to try to discredit and scare-off the politicians and attorneys who have defended the rights of such minority groups. In many cases attorneys working on these cases have been subjected to repeated character attacks in blogs, social media platforms, and have even received death threats.

While I am a strong supporter of the right to free speech, this type of abuse of attorneys should not be tolerated.

I’m been following the discussion on the Wikipedia page of Adam Leitman Bailey, the attorney for the GZM and it appears that certain individuals, presumably with an interest in that particular case, are attempting to discredit him and unfairly ruin his reputation.

As a neutral observer I wanted to offer my thoughts. From a review of the page and the “Talk” page, it appears that there has been something of an “edit war” between one user ‘JohnInDC’ and what may be interns of Mr. Bailey’s firm, although I admit that I use the term “edit war” as someone who is not an aficionado of Wikipedia editing.

I firmly believe that the user JohnInDC is acting in the best interests of Wikipedia here and he is just trying to create a fair and balanced page. I can also appreciate that Mr. Bailey’s intern and others have an interest in removing any negative content.

However, as I explain below, the balance that JohnInDC seeks in response to the paragraphs about Mr. Bailey’s successes should not come in the form of attacks on his character. Rather the balance should come in the form of presenting factual inaccuracies, if any, in the reported facts.

Increasingly, attorneys are being vilified and abused for representing the rights of minority groups or individuals. The unnecessary comments about Mr. Bailey’s character on his Wikipedia page simply add credence to those who believe that this abuse is justifiable.

Indeed it appears that this page includes derogatory terms about Mr. Bailey that may have either been directly entered on Wikipedia by individuals who’s sole interest is to defame his character, rather than adding to the facts, or they have been sourced from articles that refer to quotes from anonymous people.

Specifically I would like to draw your attention to the following:

“Most controversial figure” comment

This opinion of one journalist that Mr. Bailey is “one of the most controversial figures in the industry” is not a fact. Just as if one person wrote on the page that “Mr. Bailey is one of the worst lawyers in America”, such a comment would not, I presume, be permitted to stand in an encyclopedia entry because it is the opinion of one person.

JohnInDC claims that this comment is double sourced when it is not. The words were presumably used as a subheading to draw in readers. It is not based in fact and is not reported in any other articles as far as I am aware.

It is these types of slurs, promoted by individuals with a bigoted agenda that are causing more and more lawyers to avoid working on important cases like these. To elaborate further, while abortion may be controversial to some, we know how dangerous it can be to tacitly approve character attacks on professionals who perform abortions. The character and reputation of these professionals should not be destroyed by the opinions of one or two individuals.

I would suggest that the description of the Park51 Ground Zero Mosque remains as a “planned controversial Muslim community center”, but the sentence “He has been described as “one of the most controversial figures in New York Real Estate” should be removed. Let the readers make up their own mind whether or not he is controversial.

Section on “Tactics”

Wikipedia also has a responsibility to present the facts. The “Tactics” section is entirely unnecessary and presents no facts at all.

On the specific descriptions, the term “ambulance chaser” is again the opinion of one writer and is unsupported. The referenced article states “Bailey’s embrace of ILSA and other out-of-the-box methods has earned him a reputation as an “ambulance chaser” in some quarters”. No source is given for such a description.

Likewise the description of him as a “marketer and self-promoter more than a legal virtuoso” is not attributed to anyone other than “his critics”. These criticisms of Mr. Bailey’s character have no attributable sources.

JohinDC mentions F. Lee Bailey and Alan Dershowitz as support for negative comments. Both the negative comments for these pages are about actions they have taken or have been accused of which are facts and not comments on their reputation. It is potentially defamatory to use unsourced comments about Mr. Bailey’s reputation and not facts as you will find in the other lawyer pages.

I’m sure you are aware that the stated goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel

The same page states that it is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory and that it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.

The fact that there exists a separate chapter heading on “Tactics” is itself highly unusual. It is not based on any facts and instead opens the door to further abuse and character assassination. I don’t think a section on “Tactics” is appropriate for a lawyer’s Wikipedia page and having reviewed dozens of lawyer pages on this site, I see no other similar paragraphs on any other attorney pages.

None of these other lawyer pages include any defamatory remarks. None of these pages includes a “Tactics. All of these pages when reporting only include negative occurrences or events that are facts and never include an anonymous source or an unsourced opinion as used on Mr. Bailey’s page.

As one editor commented on the talk page:

“It seems to me that building a section on unsourced comments in an article stretches the utility of the page. Relevant facts might include any sanctions from courts or the bar association, anecdotes about frivolous lawsuits or defendant fishing, etc.... Anonymous sources buried inside a larger article don't really rise to the level of reliability that would make it useful to a reader. I think this is particularly troublesome with respect to a lawyer as they very often will sit across a courtroom from someone who will eventually have something bad to say about them. Basically this is nothing more than hearsay and not connected to any actual activities by the subject of the article. At the very least, these comments should be connected to specific actions before the comments have any real relevance to this article.”

I would suggest that the "Tactics" section be removed.

Summary

Any “balance” should come in the form of counter-facts. If Mr. Bailey did not win one of the cases stated then the balance should be a reference to the facts that state that. If Mr. Bailey did not win “the largest residential condominium settlement in New York history”, then the balance should be a reference to another settlement that is larger.

If Mr. Bailey violates the law then that should be reported, if he loses an important case that should be reported. That one person believes he is controversial should not be reported. In fairness, I should also point out that while I have no doubt that Mr. Bailey is a proficient attorney, the statement that “The Martindale-Hubbell peer review system gave Bailey an AV rating, its highest category” is not newsworthy at all. This rating has been given to tens of thousands of lawyers.

However, the bottom line is that an encyclopedic article should not include negative unsourced opinion about an attorney’s character or reputation. I hope you can appreciate the importance of this position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXstarJR (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a lot of text here, maybe too much. I will say this--a balanced article does not require that every win be balanced by a loss, every bad thing by a good thing. It means that bad things aren't given more weight than they deserve, et cetera. But I think you know that very well. The quote about "controversial" is hardly controversial in its own right and is sourced to a reliable source, The Real Deal (magazine). It's not "one person" who "believes" this--it was published in a reputable source, and that makes it much more than a belief or an opinion. You are mistaken in something else as well--if a person violates a law that doesn't have to be reported, if a person wins (or loses) a case that doesn't have to be reported, at least not on Wikipedia. We are not the news. What we are is an encyclopedia that is supposed to give an adequate representation of what reliable sources have published, and this controversy bit is one of those thing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some slight changes to the article. I believe that according to WP:BLP, it is quite clear that calling an attorney an "ambulance chaser" should be unacceptable at all times on Wikipedia, regardless of the fact that someone trying to smear a lawyer was quoted in WP:RS. I also think it is meaningless to call anyone "one of the most controversial" whatevers in whatever field. It's subjective, it doesn't mean anything, and in this case it appears to be meant pejoratively, so that is a WP:BLP violation as well. If anyone wants to revert, let's discuss it here first. These issues need a lot more eyes than they've gotten so far. Qworty (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's plain wrong, your comment on "most controversial"--it strikes me as very relevant and this stuff about subjective is nonsense: the statement that someone is controversial is easily verified. I can give on ambulance chaser, without a problem, but not on the controversial thing, at least not with your argument. Note also the vagueness you included (besides your "believe"): "it appears to be meant pejoratively"--the article the quote is pulled from is far from pejorative. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Talk page pretty much captures my thinking on all these issues but they could probably use a bit of summarizing here. Forgive the bulleted format – it saves me the trouble of crafting transition sentences.

The submitter’s observation about mosque opponents smearing its proponents sheds light on what was otherwise inexplicable antipathy on the part of some IP editors. I am grateful for that insight, and it provides essential context for our discussion.
I appreciate the submitter’s express nod to my good faith. I had never heard of Bailey before stumbling across a complaint at WP:EAR concerning the neutrality of the page, and I have no interest one way or the other in any of the collateral issues here (NY Real Estate, the Ground Zero Mosque etc. – take a look at my contribution history).
The article’s history supplies other essential context. The article has suffered serious COI issues since its inception. It began life as a promotional piece, and all efforts to tone it down or make it more neutral have been reverted sooner or later by one or another of Bailey’s employees or confederates. For those who haven’t seen the Talk page yet – twenty-two sock and / or meatpuppets have been blocked for these unrelenting efforts. Save for one IP editor whom I now believe to have been unaffiliated, all Talk page comments complaining of the passage are, or appear to be, puppets.
In light of the vigorous attempts by various COI editors to whitewash the article I think it is important to ensure that the article really does express a neutral – and complete – point of view and I simply ask that opining editors here not jump too quickly to conclusions.
The passages at issue were based on two reliable sources, RealDeal and the NY Observer. Interested editors should read both. The more extensive of the two was the RealDeal article. RealDeal is, to all appearances, a reliable and respected publication. The reporter researched the issues, conducted a variety of interviews of other attorneys, clients and non-clients, and drew conclusions consistent with those sources (which were in the final piece, both attributed and unattributed). The article has critical elements to it, but renders praise as well and the criticisms are well within bounds. The article is not by any stretch a “hit piece” or attack on Bailey.
In that regard, the RealDeal article was cited as a source in the very first iteration of the Bailey article, prepared by the Bailey intern, and Bailey’s own website links to it.
I agree that advocates of unpopular causes – particularly those in the First Amendment arena – should not be vilified for their advocacy of those causes. But the converse is also true – advocates of unpopular causes should not be immune from critical commentary. The RealDeal article had nothing to do with the mosque; it discussed condominiums. Written in late 2010, it may have preceded Bailey’s role in the mosque controversy altogether. Protecting Bailey from harassment for his First Amendment advocacy doesn’t give his article a free pass from all negative content.
The passage in the article (now removed) that summarized these articles was directly sourced and was, in my view understated and without undue weight. I wrote it, revised it later to tone it down a bit, and it has been edited or reinstated by at least two other very experienced editors (OrangeMike and Drmies). Perhaps it can be toned down a bit more (as Drmies says, I see the point about “ambulance chaser”) or demoted to a sentence rather than set aside in its own section; but to say it is a “clear” violation and summarily removing it strikes me as a poor springboard for discussion.
I do not fully understand the problem with the “controversial” phrase. It’s not clear that the label is even disparaging. A fair reading of the coverage on Bailey – any of it really – shows that he courts, rather than shies from, controversy. To mention it is simply to state what is true. I also don’t understand how readers can be left to make up their own minds on the subject when the article has been denuded of any hint of anything but Bailey’s successes. If the adjective “controversial” is so laden with pejorative implication that it can’t appear in BLPs without abundant sourcing, then so be it; but it seems to me that this facet of the discussion is getting short shrift.

Again I do not have any particular stake in the outcome. I do have, however, claim a stake in the neutrality of the encyclopedia and in the BLP review process, and would like to see these issues fully aired and discussed. Thanks again to the submitter for the dispassionate and reasoned statement. JohnInDC (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the comments here and the high level of reasoned discussion. I have not made any edits to the page myself, nor do I intend to, but I am more comfortable with the article as it reads now that the "ambulance chaser" and "controversial" labels have been removed. I'm glad that I could provide some context too and I appreciate JohnInDC's justifications for his earlier changes.

On the "controversial" tag, one point I was trying to make is that every litigation necessarily involves a controversy. While I might agree with JohnInDC that "advocates of unpopular causes should not be immune from critical commentary" the role of an attorney is crucially different. Making arguments on behalf of an unpopular or even a controversial client should not lead to a lawyer being labelled "controversial". That is our job and, to some extent, our duty.

My interest is in protecting young lawyers from these type of slurs. We need lawyers to take unpopular or controversial cases without fear that their reputations will be tarnished. A controversial lawyer is someone who perhaps has publicly expressed disdain for the judiciary, or who has repeatedly breached professional ethical rules, or who perhaps insists on wearing jeans and t-shirts to court. I don't see any evidence of that from Mr. Bailey. The label "controversial" is a real stigma to attorneys that can have negative professional consequences, and I just don't agree that there are enough sources out there for such a serious slur to be justified here. That's why I suggested that readers be allowed to make up their own mind as to whether Bailey is controversial or not. I think the article as it reads now allows that to happen. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXstarJR (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on "controversial." Thank you, everybody, for all of the comments above. I think there is a huge difference between saying that a person has been involved in controversies and saying that the person himself is controversial. Certainly it is appropriate to note that the issue of placing the Islamic center near Ground Zero was a controversial one, and that this attorney represented one side in those legal proceedings. But the line I took out says exactly this: "one of the most controversial figures in New York Real Estate." That phrase is misleading and potentially damaging in several different ways, and I believe it violates WP:BLP. My reasoning is as follows: 1) Bailey is not, to my knowledge, a property developer or real estate agent or broker. 2) The line implies that there is a subset of developers or real estate agents in New York who are engaged in controversial business practices, and that Bailey is one of the worst of them. 3) On Wikipedia, the term "controversial" is often used as a euphemism for "corrupt" or "unethical." So even if a reader somehow understands that Bailey is not a real estate developer or broker, there's a strong possibility of tainting him here as having done things that are dodgy or even criminal. This line, after all, appeared in the first paragraph, implying that a lot of evidence (which was never presented) would follow, demonstrating what a dodgy guy he is. Let me repeat: It's one thing to be an advocate in controversial matters; it's another to be personally controversial. I don't believe Bailey is personally controversial. Rather, he has been involved in some hot-button issues, and, as so often happens, some of his opponents have reacted by disliking him personally. Thus, they have called him "an ambulance chaser," accused him of being "one of the most controversial figures in New York real estate," etc. These are personal smears. I don't think they belong in the article. We must hold up WP:BLP here. Qworty (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue, I could live with something to the effect that he's known for taking on controversial cases. JohnInDC (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though as I continue to reflect on it, Bailey's own descriptions of his approach to cases suggests a willingness to push the envelope in directions that others are uncomfortable with and I don't think it's unfair to describe that in the article. I don't want to taint this discussion with quotes or summaries from the article while their propriety is in dispute - really, please read the articles - but I do think it's fair to quote Bailey himself: "Bailey freely admits that he’s 'aggressive, overreaching and irrepressible.'" Setting aside issues of coded phrasing (which deserve discussion), it's not a big or unwarranted leap from "aggressive and overreaching" to "controversial". JohnInDC (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and for the reasons I outlined above, I believe it is an entirely inappropriate and dangerous leap to conclude that an attorney who is "aggressive" or "overreaching" is in fact "controversial". I would suggest not making any leaps at all and leaving as is. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TXstarJR (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you need leave in order to file a surreply - JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Dowd 1

I was engaged in an interesting discussion at the talk page of this article, regarding information noted by RS outlets and prominent people. User:Viriditas, who disagreed with it, largely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("Are we all reading the same article? I haven't seen anything "anti-Semitic" or even "anti-Israel" in this piece by Dowd. I have to ask, what are her critics smoking? All I see is her calling the hawks and warmongers out on their bullshit—bullshit that the American people are sick and tired of paying for" is just one of many examples why this user believes it doesn't belong, despite RS saying otherwise). Other concerns are that certain editors believe that WP:CONSENSUS is a majority vote.

That isn't why I'm here. While in the middle of this discussion, Viriditas decided to simply shut me out completely from the discussion by archiving it. After I removed the closure, noting that the discussion was not over and it was not resolved and it wasn't right to simply unilaterally shut me out because Viriditas disagrees with me, it was once again closed on me. Now, I'm being shut out of a discussion simply becuase another editor is getting frustrated and doesn't want to continue. If that's the case, the editor should leave, not lock other editors out of a discussion...

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion here regarding the merits of any side's arguments. All I'd like to know is whether the discussion can get re-opened. I'd love to be able to continue further with anyone willing in order to reach a final possible solution, or to hear other opinions on the matter. Unfortunately, that is now being forbidden due to one editor's POV.

Thanks. --Activism1234 04:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND applies here. You're upset because the guy is tired of fighting you? The purpose of WP is not to provide a web hosting service for people to debate things just because they want to debate things. It looks like consensus has already settled the editing dispute, so perhaps you should just move on. If you want to debate this or that about bigotry or the Middle East or whatever, there are plenty of other places on the Internet to do it. We're writing an encyclopedia here, remember? Just a gentle (I hope) reminder. Qworty (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not battelground. I (and another editor who inserted it but he's not active on talk page) added information that was reliably referenced. It was originally removed, citing BLP and other concerns. It was reinserted with these concerns fixed. It was then removed on the grounds that "No, that's not what her column really says, at least in our view." To me, that's problematic. That's not a real Wikipedia policy or guideline, and I was hoping to be able to get a reasonable explanation to this, to which I haven't gotten one yet... All I'm asking is to reopen the debate, because while I've provided genuine policies and guidelines, I've gotten a lot of WP:SOAP and personal opinions on what her column is saying, which doesn't trump an RS. Throw into that the fact that an editor wrote specifically that WP:CONSENSUS is governed by the majority, you've got an issue here... I'm hoping that the issue can be resolved using real Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with all BLP concerns taken into hand, but so far, that hasn't happened. If an editor doesn't want to continue discussing it, fine, by all means, but that shouldn't lock down the entire discussion because of their personal views... --Activism1234 04:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're saying is my main point. I don't want to debate anything. I don't want to debate what her column has saying. I have never offered my own opinion of what she wrote. I have simply provided RS outlets. In return, I've gotten the personal opinions of other editors as reasons why it'd be "ridiculous" to include this reliably referenced information. It's not a debate I'm interested in, and I'd rather have a discussion using Wikipedia policy. Hopefully, that can be reopened and allowed. Otherwise, I will just move on, but it isn't exactly fair that one editor with a POV can decide to arbitrarily close a discussion and all comments. What if I was discussing content with someone else, and I saw they were clearly citing reasons for their position that I couldn't respond - can I just close the debate on them and tell them to go away?? That'd set dangerous policy, and could be used maliciously... --Activism1234 04:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would this not best be handled by seeking extraordinary references for extraordinary claims on a BLP? There were only the three of you on the discussion that lasted a week. You simply are not willing to live with the rough consensus, which is not actually unreasonable just that the discussion seems to have run it's course and the editor closing seems to feel you were not providing a good enough reasoning for these claims. What is the exact claim you wish included and what are the references? Anything too partisan is likely to be challenged on a BLP when concerning such criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not a big fan of those that claim a majority is just fine, but it wasn't the closing editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        When you talk for a week and there is no understanding from this editor and you had to analyse things and repeat things multiple times and you realise no argument is going to persuade that single dissenting editor, then you may feel differently about unanimity in consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a two-way street. You view it that way, I view it as being repeatedly told that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid reason not to include content... There have been multiple attempts to somehow prove from personal opinions what her column was saying, which is irrelevant when comapred to what the RS says... It's not up to us to interpret this, we report based on RS, not ourselves. --Activism1234 05:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You fail to realise in your logically fallacious argument that what you call RS is actually in and of itself a nasty political attack against Dowd using spin and condecension. Including the material present in this very "RS" in her bio is insulting to the recipient of the politically motivated attack. Please realise that Dowd is a highly visible political figure and the target of many politically motivated but reliably sourced adversaries. That many of her adversaries are reliable sources, or are prominent enough to be covered by them, does not mean that we unquestionably have to convert her BLP into a magnet, showcase or compendium of anti-Dowd political attacks, especially as contrived and obviously condescending as this one. It is not my problem if you fail to see this fallacy. It is rather yours. Repeatedly throwing slogans around such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT as if in automatic mode, will not help your case and demonstrates a complete lack of respect and understanding for the ethos, intent and scope of WP:BLP. Actually your case now is one of beating a dead horse. That's all it is. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand what you're saying. For that reason, I have refrained from adding this material while the current "rough consensus" (majority 2 editors) opposed it. However, it is possible that through a conversation using Wikipedia policy, this may have changed, or input from other users would've came. I don't know whether that would happen, I would like it to though. --Activism1234 05:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - AS for the refs - Politico and the Atlantic. Just look at the edit that removed it - not one Wikipedia policy for its removal, but rather a personal opinion is used to remove it. The edit summary reads, "Remove false statements about a BLP. Her column had nothing to do with religion or anti-Semitism. This an attempt to smear a BLP and it will not be allowed." In other words, "I think what the RS said isn't true. I'm removing it." Is this right??? Is that a valid reason? I didn't think it was. So I brought it on talk page. And now, that editor is just closing the debate because they've had enough (or maybe don't want to be found wrong, but I can't say that for sure). --Activism1234 05:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my position in detail on the article talkpage. What it amounts to is the inclusion of negative comments about Dowd which follow this sequence: Wolfowitz mentioned that Obama should not be allowed to "slither" his way into some political position. Dowd took the "slither" meme and accused Wolfowitz and the neocons that they "slither". Then critics of Dowd portrayed her "slither" comment as antisemitic since Wolfowitz is Jewish, without acknowledging that Wolfowitz used it first against Obama. To make things worse the critics also mentioned that Dowd may have been "unknowingly" or "unintentionally" antisemitic, thus insulting her intelligence as if she is not capable of controlling or understanding the ramifications of her comments and as if they are the only ones with the intellect to judge such things. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote and is not majority rule...ever. But why even bother to argue the point if you have a rough consensus. And I have spent far longer then a week on a consensus discussions. A week? LOL! I have spent months on consesus discussions and longer.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this particular discussion the arguments were getting repetitive and there was broad agreement between two editors on all issues. The third editor would not budge. There must come a time where circular arguments and beating the same horse have to end one way or the other. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I see [22]: The first sentence makes a claim and is referenced directly to the figure's column and is not referenced with any secondary RS...at all. Just the article being discussed. That is unacceptable and does indeed amount to OR. The second sentence makes a claim about something a publication has said about the figures comments and has no citation. It would need one even if the reference was used at the end...but what was done was to stack the same references twice on either side of a seperate one. Not a good idea. These alone are clear BLP violation: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Aside from that, the use of "some advisors" and "Some experts" are unsupported attributions, classic weasal words. The content itself seems to be supported by the references used (not the primary column) and does not appear on its face to be OR, however I have concerns about undue weight and use of a partisan publications to support a very contentious claim. Also it does appear that the statement is actually attributed to another in the figures column and that seems a little selective and doesn't balance these claims at all with mainstream opinion of equal validity. In short...I am surprised it went a day let alone a whole week. Come on Activist this is not acceptable for use in a BLP. I am very supportive of the closing and exclusion of the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amadscientist. Exactly my points. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be great to have this on the talk page, rather than locking all debate, so the passage can be improved more and reinserted? Although at this point, the discussion with these editors changed from citing policy to remove it to citing personal views on her column to remove it. That is what is unacceptable. Personal interpetations don't count as RS. --Activism1234 18:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is unacceptable is that you have refused to provide any rationale for inclusion except for WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IFTHEYSAYITWEPUBLISHIT, both of which are invalid. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we collapse the section so that there isn't a huge closed colored wall between discussions and reset at how to improve the article, moving forward. But no one is saying that there can be no more discussion, just that the one that was closed after a week was really resolved at that point. It doesn't mean you are shut out of the article and can't contribute. There is no ownership of the article, just that the contribution deleted was done in good faith and to policy-guidelines for biographies of living persons.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your well-made points. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Barnes (footballer)

Peter Barnes played for Manchester City in the 1976/77 season when they finished 2nd in the football league division 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M7mcfc (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source which verifies that? As it stands, the article is massively under-referenced. Giant Snowman 08:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris_Owen_(actor)

There is a photo circulating the internet that claims to show the actor working in a sushi restaurant. Consequently, there have been repeated attempts to add this information to the bio without citing any reliable source. I suggest someone with admin privileges temporarily lock the bio from edits until the matter is either confirmed or has blown over. Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article for two days. January (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Whole Wheat Ιγνάτιος (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne

User:208.84.212.1 has a long history of disruptive edits and has been warned many times about this behavior, see User talk:208.84.212.1. Although the user did revert himself, this unsupported edit [23] accusing an individual of a crime is a clear BLP violation, and remains visible in the edit history. A random look at his edit history [24] shows blocking this user runs little risk of harming the project. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a current content issue than please provide specifics and we can comment. If you have a behavior issue then you should post at WP:ANI.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Barnicle

Mike Barnicle is the focus of edit warring over unflattering incidents. Though much is sourced, some could constitute violation of WP:BLP in tone as well as substance. My take is that neither version has a lock on neutrality. More eyes on this welcome. 76.248.149.47

I don't think this sentence belongs in the lead and I have a problem with the wording: After a long career at the Boston Globe that ended with his dismissal for lying and plagiarizing,

The Boston Globe says: "asked for his resignation", "Barnicle submitted his resignation", "possible fabrications" [25]
The NY Times says: "Mike Barnicle, who resigned as a columnist for The Boston Globe in 1998 after failing to credit the comedian George Carlin as the source for a series of jokes in one column and being unable to verify the identities of two cancer patients in another"[26]

Neither source uses the terms "lying" or "plagiarizing".

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. But the same angle permeates the detailed and undue weight put upon the controversies. 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Bigpurn1 and Hurling dervish need to be chilled from editing on the article to allow for objective cleaning. 76.248.149.47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are additional issues but I think what has to happen is there needs to be civil and respectful discussion on the talk page about each issue. One at a time. Edit warring is not the answer. It may be that these new editors are not familiar with WP policies regarding BLP's etc. I'd be happy to participate and help folks understand the policies on the talk page if it would be helpful. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Dervish isn't new, and has edited the Barnicle article before [27]; this edit summary from February suggests what's on the agenda [28]. Bigpurn is a WP:SPA. 76.248.149.47

Thanks, but I like to assume good faith and start fresh with everyone concerned.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't presume to tell you what tack to take; rather, I'm presenting this for general consumption. That said, it's evident to me that both parties have an agenda, prefer not to use discussion pages, and may necessitate page protection if edit warring continues. Thanks, 76.248.149.47

Thanks I appreciate all your efforts and info. I'm just keeping an open mind and assuming good faith from everyone until proven otherwise. If other parties edit war and refuse to discuss that's a a problem. Let's see how it goes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait (stuntman) - 2nd Review Request

Does this material, recently removed from the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, violate WP:BLPREMOVE and/or WP:NPF? I believe it violates both, and its removal is consistent with both policies. Here's why:

WP:BLPREMOVE calls for: "the immediate removal of contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source", and WP:NPF says: Many Wikipedia articles contains material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability". A few editors have argued that since the material is from a RS, it can be used. Again per NPF: "only material relevant to the person's notability" should be included and restraint exercised. Reliable sources are not necessarily relevant. They are excluded unless relevance is established. The only relevance claimed for this contentious material is in this recent Q&A interview:

"Douglas, you have appeared in numerous movies such as 2009’s release of Star Trek, 2003′s Freddy Vs. Jason, to t.v shows like Heroes, and My Name Is Earl. How long have you worked as an actor, and how did you get involved?

Well, I started doing extra work in high school. I knew I wanted to perform, but was clueless about how to make it into a career. I got a job at Universal Studios playing Frankenstein and performing in shows, then got a manager right out of High school.

I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials, which quickly got me in to S.A.G., and I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills. I have been in the business for 15 years, but have only started working consistently for the past 2 years."

From that interview, an editor has argued this "contentious material" is "relevant":

"In December 1990, as a sophomore then playing forward, Tait "broke both wrists by punching a brick wall during a shoot-around practice" because a teammate's errant shot hit Tait as Tait "was attempting a slam dunk." In January 1992, Tait was suspended for one game for fighting during a game. In December 1992, during his senior year, Tait, then playing guard, was removed from the team for "using vulgarities and abusive language toward the players" at an Alemany High School girls' basketball game. Tait returned to the team later that season."

On the "relevance" of this "contentious material", there is none. The source(s) never say or infer that these events were causative or even influential to Tait's adult professional career as an actor/stuntman/film maker, which is the only thing that would make them relevant to his notability. So they violate both NPF's "exercise restraint" and "include only material relevant to their notability" rules. On the other hand, to claim the source has relevance to his notability that is not clearly stated in the source(s), per BLPREMOVE, is a "conjectural interpretation of a source." And I believe there is little doubt this material is "contentious." Beyond these two policy violations, I believe this material also violates WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. I welcome input from other editors. The editor who posted this material, also recently posted here, but subsequently removed it prematurely in favor of a RFC on the BLP talk page. But since only a handful of editors who contributed prior responded, it received limited response. While I expect some will also respond here, hopefully in this forum the question will also receive fresh looks from objective eyes who have more experience with BLPs. Thanks! 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon additional review, I now believe this material also violates WP:OR. Specifically the clause regarding a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Regarding synthesis, four separate articles were pasted together to source this "contentious material". By the way, that's also WP:SYNTH. The result of "piling on" or "stacking", selected edits from all those articles, has the effect of "advancing a position" not advanced by any single article in context. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:EDE0:D975:4747:24D6 (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely undue weight but the sources are a pair of articles in the LA Times, a reputable source, so it may be that a single, very neutral, sentence is relevant to the BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on undue. Which is why the current version uses the LA Times source in "a single, very neutral, sentence relevant to the BLP." Couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:EDE0:D975:4747:24D6 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with citing all four LA Times articles and summarizing Tait's suspensions and self-inflcited injury. But ignoring coverage in four LA Times articles of a subject makes no sense. Novaseminary (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With these edits, I have done so (and cleaned up and flagged some other items). Novaseminary (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great compromise, thanks! — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is restoring 4 contentious edits - which are the very subject of this BLP - "a compromise?" It is not. Regarding the LA Times source, one of its articles is already in the BLP. So the benefit of that source is already there. What would really help reach compromise is if someone would explain how this material is relevant to the subject's notability? Which is required by NPF. It's noteworthy that this deciding question is consistently ignored by editors who favor including it. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9982:6E77:E3FC:7EC8 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Fredrick Töben

Gerald Fredrick Töben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - an IP was adding unsourced material plus a sourced edit which didn't accurately reflect the source, Toben's website. I reverted twice, then another editor, who vandalised the article in June, replaced the unsourced material. The IP may be Toben or someone from the Adelaide Institute. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Jin Moon

One editor put back uncited negative material. I will take it out again but I have a feeling he/she will not give up. Borock (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on my watchlist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haitham_al-Haddad libellous article

The article about him is very low quality and it barely needs explanation why it is libellous.

For example, there are huge differences between the various types of FGM, but no mention is made which type the scholar supports. As far as my knowledge goes, there is no basis whatsoever in (Sunni) Islam for type II and up FGM, which is explained in more detail in this article: Religious views on female genital mutilation. Furthermore, I know of no statement by the scholar that opposes this. Also, the mention that the scholar had said that Jews are the decendants of apes and pigs comes from a slanderous radio station. He has denied the allegation in several interviews. If he's supposedly "on record" saying this (I think that's an inappropriate wording for an encyclopedic article by the way), then the citation should link to a recording or at least a proper transcript of his statement, not some slanderous news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.81.141 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy delete tag. The article is blanked at the moment, but the source for the allegation is [29], Radio Netherlands Worldwide. The problem is that the source isn't being reported adequately, eg it says "There is some scope for interpretation, admits RNW’s Chaalan Charif. “Strikingly, the cleric omits the definite article “the” before “Jews”. In Arabic this could be taken to mean he is not speaking about Jews in general but only about those Jews who are enemies of God and descendants of apes and pigs.” " “Those are definitely not my words,” he declared, saying that “words attributed to him” had been wrongly translated." The article also points out that this language is not unusual.

I've reworded that section. The FGM bit may be correct but the YouTube video used as a source is copyvio and I don't speak the language in any case. However, if it can be better sourced I don't think it matters terribly what type he supports. I also deleted another section based on a YouTube video which was a private video. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fassbender

A couple of SPAs have been edit warring over whether or not to include this paragraph about a dismissed case of domestic abuse. To stop the war, I protected the article, but I would like some opinions about what to do, if fighting resumes after the block expires. Erik pointed to WP:BLPCRIME, and I tend to agree with him, but the policy contains what looks like a loophole in the phrase "people who are relatively unknown", so we need a "ruling" on the present case. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the "relatively unknown" bit. We could also point to WP:BLPSOURCES where the sourcing is pretty much those related to tabloid journalism. I saw a FOX News article, but it references TMZ. There is also this but it again references TMZ. In comparison, what happened with Chris Brown got a lot more coverage, and there were charges involved. With Fassbender, the situation is too murky and violates the spirit of BLP certainty and clarity. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a gossip site? The charges were dismissed? This doesn't rise to WP:RS within the context of WP:BLP. Keep the paragraph out of the article. Qworty (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The charges were withdrawn; I don't think this merits inclusion. a13ean (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards