Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive60

Sam Adams (politician)

I am being accused of violating WP:BLP on the subject's talk page by using of the word "grooming". I've provided the WP article defining the term, reliable sources describing the subject's behavior without labelling it (The New York Times and the Oregonian), and sources actually using the word. Nonetheless, I am directed to remove the word. My biggest interest on WP is fixing BLP problems. The accusation rankles. Other opinions would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you violated BLP. It's within the realm of reasonable opinion, and you even provided a cite. If it were to go into the article, it would have to be prefaced as the cited opinion of so-and-so, but you seem to understand that already. THF (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In order to decide whether something is okay by BLP or appropriate for the article, you have to be able to mention what it is that you are talking about, propose it on the talk page, and have people discuss why it does or does not comply. This is Wikipedia, not the Fight Club (The first rule of BLP is - you do not talk about BLP violations...) Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To start off with, there is a problem with some of the contentions here. The talk page is not the place to make accusations about a BLP. Per WP:BLP, in fact the very first sentence which should help indicate the importance of it, it states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. (emphasis already there). So, no, the talk page is not the place to make unsubstantiated claims, period. I say unsubstantiated claims because no reliable source that could be used in this BLP article has been provided that supports the contention. First, the first article provided to actually use the term grooming in the same article as Sam Adams is an unsigned opinion piece, which to me fails the RS guidelines under BLP (also at no time has David said that according to the Statesman Journal’s opinion Adams was grooming as would be required if that source was allowed to be used since it is an opinion piece). The community blogger would also fail as a RS unless you can show he is subject to the full editorial control of the newspaper, but even then read the article and tell me where the blogger says Adams was grooming. The blogger quotes someone else who uses the term (but doesn’t actually come out and say Adams was grooming, which might be because he is afraid of a libel/slander suit), and then later refers to the conduct of someone else as grooming, not Adams. The last article repeats the quote from the previous article, which is actually where the quote comes from (again not saying Adams was grooming), and the other mentions are opinions of people who called in and from people posting comments after the story, none of which belong in a BLP. The notion that David provided the definition of grooming (using Wikipeida which fails RS BTW), and then used an article that described Adams actions, and then David makes the conclusion that this is grooming is WP:SYNTH, or as it states: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Now, I am not saying what Adams did was right, or that it wasn’t grooming. That isn’t the point. The fact remains that no RS has come out at said Adams was grooming. What is needed is a RS that comes out and says “Sam Adams was grooming Breedlove” and until a source that says that is provided, mentions of grooming need to be retracted. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The "unsigned opinion piece" is from the editorial board of a newspaper, so isn't exactly anonymous or violative of BLP sourcing. The sourced sentence "The Statesman Journal called for Adams to resign for lying and raised the issue of whether he had been "grooming" his teenaged lover" would pass BLP in mainspace, much less the talk-page. The article arguably violates NPOV for omitting it. The entire response above is completely misplaced. THF (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." (emphasis not added). Which if we look above that within RS we have "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." The Statesman Journal is not the high quality end of the market. They are not in the same league (they are the equivalent of Double AA to the Washington Post being an MLB club), they do not win national awards for quality, and they make tons of errors all the time. Sorry, but an unsigned opinion piece in a second rate paper should not cut it. At least The Oregonian signed their piece. For something like this, we must demand what the guidelines and policies call for, and those given so far do not meet the standards. If mainstream sources think this is what he did, proper sourcing should easily be located. If not, this should give us pause as to why The Oregonian or other newspapers have not come out and called it grooming. Also, if you haven't looked through the Willamette Week newspaper (which is a Pulitzer Prize winning paper that broke the story) you might try it, and their archives do not come up in Google. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be much more impressed with your argument if the Portland Mercury's op-ed and the opinion of the "board of the Portland Area Business Association and the LGBTQ chamber of commerce" weren't in the article without any complaint from you. I detect POV-pushing. Regardless, there is no BLPN issue. THF (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) retracting 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, assume bad faith much? Aboutmovies raised a legitimate point and you ignored it and instead went for an ad hominem attack. Let's stick to discussing the BLP issue. -kotra (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: hypocrisy (real or imagined) doesn't matter. We're discussing this particular issue and nothing else. -kotra (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There is no BLP issue. My proposed language accurately sourced the material. It's legitimate to discuss the issue on the talk page. The Statesman Journal is more notable than the majority of existing sources quoted on the Sam Adams page, so it's a NPOV violation to exclude them.THF (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on whether the material should be in the article or not, but an editor has to be able to make a good faith proposal on the talk page, for editors to be able to discuss whether the sourcing is strong enough. BLP does not prevent those discussions. If it did we could not have this discussion either and, in fact, the matter would be beyond discussion - just revert warring presumably until one side wins.Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, the argument about is there/isn't there is simply the OTHERSTUFF argument. I didn't add what was there. Secondly, the argument has never been whether grooming should be in the article, that is a secondary issue. The problem has been that an editor has called what Adams did was grooming on the talk page, which as no proper source that could be used in the article categorizes what he did as this behavior, it cannot be on the talk page or the article or on someone's user page (not to mention it was called grooming long before any sources were even proffered). Next, note that my argument above isn't that the Statesman Journal could not be used as a source, it simply cannot in this circumstance for this article. Remember that "How reliable a source is depends on context." (from the lead of RS). Thus in this circumstance the opinion piece fails as an RS. As to the other sources, I didn't add them and thus could not tell you if they are reliable. But I do know that there is a big difference between using a source to say "The Oregonian called for the resignation" which is related to them and is a response to Adams' actions, versus the Statesman Journal in its opinion says Adams was grooming, which is related to their view and classification of his actions. The calling for a resignation will not lead to liability in a libel suit, calling someones actions something can, which is one of the main points of BLP. Now obviously under case law the Statesman Journal is unlikely to have liability as a new source, but individual editors are not news sources and NYT v. Sullivan would not be of much help, which again ties back into why BLP exists, but this is getting off point. As to the last contention, true, but the discussion on the talk page was never about adding it to the article, it was simple categorizing of actions. Discussion whether to add it with the providing of sources to begin with is a different matter. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the argument about is there/isn't there is simply the OTHERSTUFF argument. No: it's a POV argument. If fringe sources can be quoted on the page, then it violates POV to misuse BLP to prohibit a mainstream newspaper from being cited. THF (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, newspapers or any media outlet are not inherently a reliable source. A RS is determined in the context of how it is used. A peer reviewed, most exalted book ever on insects would be a reliable source for insects, not so much as a source for reliable information on the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. So, the prohibition on using the Statesman Journal is not because the paper itself generally would not be a RS, it is in this context that it fails, as outlined above in the direct quotes from RS. That is to say, the SJ article is an opinion piece, thus per RS, to be used in a BLP, it must be from a high quality news source, which examples are then given. So the only argument relevant in this thread related to the use of that article has to be that it comes from a high quality news source of the level of those proffered in the RS guideline. The other sources are used, so this one should is the OTHERSTUFF argument. You are arguing that the SJ article should be allowed to be used because other low-quality sources are used. That is OTHERSTUFF. The argument is whether this SJ article can be used, period. If you feel the other articles used as sources fail to meet RS guidelines in the context of how they are used, that is a separate issue you are free to raise on the talk page, but it is not relevant to whether or not this source passes RS in this context. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is proposing putting the word grooming in the article. But it is not a BLP violation to use it on the talk page. Both the NYT and Oregonian describe grooming. If an editor cannot discuss the grooming angle in a collapsed discussion on the talk page, we've come to a bad place.

Take the controversy out with a hypothetical. The NYT and Oregonian say Sam Adams put a leash on his dog, stepped out his door, rounded the block, and returned home with his dog. It is not WP:SYNTH to say Sam Adams walked his dog and source it to the NYT and Oregonian.

Now, as for the Statesman-Journal editorial using the word grooming, it is true to say that the reliable source rules prevent the use of the opinion piece to assert that Sam Adams groomed this young man. But it is not a violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP to take note of the assertion in deciding whether to name the young man in the article.

Where an editorial board of a reliable source (the gratuitous knocks on the Statesman-Journal's reputation for accuracy and professional standards border on nonsensical) raises this issue, Wikipedia editors must be able to take that into account when excercising editorial judgment about whether to name the young man in the WP article about Adams.

The reason not to name the young man in the article cannot rest on WP:HARM to him; they rest on harm to any minor now or in the future being groomed by any powerful man or woman. Such a minor should be able to count on not being "outed" on wikipedia, no matter the course the affair takes.

Please remember, the underlying talk page discussion, collapsed for reasons of discretion, is not about whether to put "grooming" in the article. It's about whether to name Adams' erstwhile paramour. The consensus seems to be that his name adds nothing important to the article and unduly risks harm to others. Consensus has not yet been achieved, but that's the direction.

The two articles summarizing, and directly quoting from, the radio program where the head of the policeman's union DID use the word "grooming" seal the deal. They both quote the union chief verbatim.

There are sufficient sources for an editor to introduce the issue of grooming and how naming the young man will harm others who find themselves in the same position, in a collapsed but ongoing talk page discussion about whether to name Adams' former inamorata.

Two other points:
1) Libel/slander is a red herring. WP:BLP rightly imposes a stricter standard than libel/slander law. I'm arguing that I've met that standard on the talk page in my comments about grooming.
2) I've commended aboutmovies on his talk page for his approach here. I repeat that commendation here. It's the mark of an adult to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I have no monopoly on wisdom and appreciate civil attempts at content dispute resolution. My thanks go out to everyone who is treating this with the seriousness and civility it requires. David in DC (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in David's use of the term in the context of discussion. Immediately following his first use of the term, David said "Not illegal." The behavior is not illegal; in the course of the discussion, it's pretty clear that it is alleged, but not 100% understood to have occurred. Partly because it is not illegal, it's a term that's open to some interpretation; in general, one person could argue that grooming took place in a given scenario, and another could argue that it didn't, without anybody being factually incorrect.

So I believe that what David said, although I do not agree with it, was no violation of WP:BLP. I don't believe it causes harm to Sam Adams. I think it's within the realm of the kind of discussion we need to be having in making editorial judgments. However, I do think it's always worth carefully considering the way we phrase such things, and it might be a nice gesture on David's part to retract a key phrase voluntarily, provided that it doesn't obscure an essential element of our discussion (i.e., provided that the transparency of our reasoning is preserved).

In response to THF, I'd like to just add my personal opinion, from having worked closely with Aboutmovies for several years: Aboutmovies has worked on innumerable articles (probably more than anyone else in the state) and consistently shows a strong adherence to Wikipedia's policies. More strongly than anyone else I've encountered on the site. Of course nobody is above the occasional effects of personal bias, but it simply rings false to me that it would be the case here. And THF, your words do nothing to convince me otherwise. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

STRIKING text below, as it's been pointed out that it's off topic. -Pete (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to David's other point (the one about article content), I find the argument about harm to others, in this case, unconvincing. I do agree that "outing" in general raises this concern. However, I don't think it's accurate in this case to refer to including B.B.'s name in the article as "outing." For someone to be "outed," they must first be "in." B.B. explained the issue on Myspace; he then granted numerous interviews, including two on national television; and now he is posing nude in a magazine. He's well past the age of consent now. What we are talking about is common knowledge, and furthermore, knowledge that he doesn't seem to object to. So for us to include the name does not go against his intent, and therefore sets no precedent for future cases where the so-called "victim" does not wish to go public. I respect David's concern for society at large, but in this instance, I believe that concern is misplaced. -Pete (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that this discussion be kept to only the issue raised here, which is the use of the term grooming. Whether or not to include the name is a separate and unrelated policy matter with very different arguments. I will now explain synthesis with a hypothetical situation to show why it is not allowed and how in this case using the NYT/Oregonian combo is synthesis (assume all sources meet RS for their purposes in the context used).

Source A: Bob watches cartoons; Source B: Serial killers usually watch cartoons; Synthesized sentence: Bob is a serial killer. (here you see why synthesis is not allowed, and what it is; here and in the grooming context it is taking a persons actions, then taking a description of the same type of actions that has a value judgment and then attaching that value judgment to the actions of the person)

Source A: Bob watches cartoons; Source B: Bob is a serial killer; Non-synthesized sentence: Bob is a serial killer who watches cartoons. (this is proper as it is taking the actions/attributes of the person from both sources and simply combines them into one sentence where two sentences could easily be used; both sources refer explicitly to the actions of Bob and Bob alone)

The first example is not allowed as it takes the actions of the person and then adds the opinion of the Wikipedia editor that since those actions meet a definition of some attribute, then those actions must be that attribute. That is OR/SYNTH.

Honestly, the example at WP:SYNTH explains it all, and is what is being put forth here:

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

Now convert to the situation at hand:

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the [New York Times]' definition of [grooming], [Adams] did [] commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the [Adams] and [grooming] dispute and makes the same point about the [New York Times]' and [grooming]. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

As to a BLP violation and talk page and what not, bringing up grooming is one thing. Outright labeling a BLP's actions as grooming, which is what was done here, on the talk page or any page (as I quoted above from BLP) is not in itself a problem. It becomes a problem when then no proper sources back up that claim when sources for that assertion are requested.

Lastly, as to the "knocks" on the Statesman Journal, those are extremely relevant. In fact if you want to use the SJ article here for the use of the word grooming, that is the only thing relevant. As I pointed out with the relevant guideline that I quoted from extensively above, the only way to overcome that is to show that the SJ is of high quality on the level of newspapers such as the Washington Post. I don't think you can, its simply not at that level. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, you make a strong case. Do I understand you correctly, that you have no policy-based problem with the general thrust of David's arguments, but only with the direct assertion that the article's subject had engaged in a specific kind of behavior? Are you saying that if David had prefaced his remarks in one or two places with "I believe that..." or "It's arguable that...", that everything would be OK? It seems like a fairly minor issue, but if the standard is "Harm," and you're arguing that the statement causes harm to the article's subject, then the scale really doesn't matter. Our policy does not state that we will seek to avoid large-scale harm, but that any kind of possible harm to the article's subject is one of the most important factors in making this kind of determination. -Pete (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. First "Harm" is not the standard, that was removed from WP:BLP, so that is irrelevant for any policy based decision here (the more appropriate choice of terms from BLP would be verifiable/accurate). Of course we could go IAR, but then if you live by it you die by it, and that would justify the inclusion of the name people that started the original discussion. The problem we have here is there are clear guidelines/policies in place that directly address this with SYNTH and RS/BLP. In sum it says, BLPs are special, don't use opinion pieces except in certain circumstances (which are not met here), and the BLP rules apply to all pages on Wikipedia (that is this includes the Adams talk page). The assertions on the talk page that Adams groomed are presented as fact, not opinion, but in many ways that doesn't matter too much. That's because if it is merely an editor's opinion, then that is OR and can't make it into the article. But what's more then is that the discussion becomes about people's opinions about the subject of the article, which is off-topic and anyone can remove, as everyone here knows talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not people's opinion's about the topic (in theory at least). So in that case, changing the wording to opinion does in fact solve the BLP issue as it no longer is an assertion of fact that is unsupported, but it becomes another issue that keeps it off Wikipedia. That's why my suggestions have focused on providing a proper source, not what is acceptable wording. To address the BLP violation issue and how can we raise things like this on the talk page and allow for discussion contention that seems to be floating out there, its rather simple. Placing content that is unsourced into a BLP is not in-itself a particular issue. It is like anytime content is added without a source, it is subject to challenge and removal. If a proper source is not provided, then just like on any page the information needs to be removed. Now in the case of BLPs that means this applies to the talk page as well. So, in the future, if someone wanted to raise an issue such as this on the talk page, they add it as was done here, then if someone challenges it (as was done here), then a proper source needs to be given or the info removed. The alternative is to leave unsourced contentions on the talk page that have been challenged, such as someone claiming Bill Clinton is an alien from outer space (I'm fairly certain I've seen that contention on the cover of one of the tabloids at the grocery store checkout at some point). This is obviously an extreme example, but I don't want a closer to reality speculation about say someone's sexuality or mental competence, and I believe there is a published source for the information. Allowing material that makes assertions about activities that have negative connotations about a BLP to remain in articles or on talk pages after being challenged goes against what the lead covers at BLP. Of course this can all be solved simply with a better source. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I used the word. Aboutmovies asked for sources. I gave sources. Aboutmovies judges those sources to fail WP:RS. I judge them to meet WP:RS. The NYT and Oregonian articles describe grooming, the same way in my hypothetical above the narration describes walking a dog. The Stateman-Journal piece uses the word. The Statesman-Journal is a reliable source. You can call it a duck or a liverwurst sandwich, but that doesn't make it any lerss a reliable source.

The two sources quoting the police union spokesman indicate he used the word on a radio program. While the spokesman's words themselves are a verboten primary source, the radio program is a completely legitimate secondary source, and the articles transcribing the quotes on the radio program are a tertiary source. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the NYT/Oregonian combo, I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand SYNTH. Your dog hypo doesn't work, and here is why. The Oregonian talks about Adams' actions, the NYT does not talk about ADAMS' actions. It talks about grooming and doesn't mention Adams. If it did, no problem. Your dog hypo says both sources mention Adams, thus no SYNTH problem. If both sources mention the person, there is not a problem, as SYNTH explains. And there is not a RS problem with those, SYNTH is part of original research.

Again, with the police union boss, he doesn't say Adams was grooming. It says "...which most psychologists call grooming". What the caller is saying is basically the same thing as your SYNTH problem. He describes the behavior, and then says psychologists call that grooming, which we already know from the NYT article that this type of behavior is grooming. Problem is, the caller (the head of the police union) does not say "Adams groomed XXXX" or some other direct allegation. He tiptoes around it. So, its not about what kind of source is used, it is that he did not say Adams groomed (reading it that way is reading between the lines). As to the "you think it is RS and I don't", well actually its not my guideline, its RS, which is a community guideline created by consensus. I had nothing to do with its formulation or revisions. So, what part of: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." does the opinion piece from the SJ not fit? It looks like an opinion piece to me and it looks like an article about a living person, so check and check. That leaves you with "what is a high quality news source" which is: "particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." So, does the SJ stand up to the quality of those types of sources? That's your only argument and you continue to avoid it. The SJ is not even in the top 100 by circulation in the US, which means it is highly unlikely they are a high quality source on the level of The Washington Post. Its pure economics. The NY Yankees have a winning record pretty much every year, and they spend the most on payroll almost every year, and in general teams with the higher payrolls tend to win (there are occasionally outliers, but in general). This is because high revenues allow you the opportunity to purchase top talent, which affects quality whether that be baseball or newspapers. The SJ has about 1/5 the circulation of The Oregonian, which itself is the 23rd largest by circulation in the US. Compared to the Washington Post, the SJ is a small town paper, not a high quality new source. To address the outlier issue, out of all the journalism categories for the Pulitzer Prizes the SJ has zero nominations or wins going by the prizes' website. The Washington Post has 9 winners alone in the first 4 categories (including 7 winners in commentary alone, thus why we would allow opinion pieces from the WP), after that I stopped counting. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aboutmovies, in your discussion of RS above, you seem to be making two claims. First that WP that says something is "preferred" should in fact mean "required", and second, that a paper's circulation is reflective of its reliabilty. By your strange Yankees rationale, the National Enquirer is more of a RS that the Chicago Tribune "because high revenues allow you the opportunity to purchase top talent, which affects quality whether that be baseball or newspapers.." Does that still apply if the revenues come from the Moonies? Does your analogy still hold if Tampa Bay make the World Series?

WP specifically outlines what RS are *not*, but leaves what they *are* largely up to discretion, in this case only saying they should be "high quality news sources only". The SJ may not have a high circulation, but a reputable mid-sized city broadsheet that undergoes significant fact-checking, reports with attributed sources, and has experienced reporters on political rounds should constitute a high quality news source. In fact, for many notable events outside major cities, these may be the only RS available. It's my understanding that it's not sufficient for editors to simply assert here that something is not an RS, as that may have ramifications elsewhere. The place to do that is on the sources noticeboard, where there is no beef with the SJ I can find. Richard Cooke (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As to your second paragraph: I have not said the SJ is not a reliable source. I'm tired of repeating that, and that RS is determined in context. The New York Times would likely not be a reliable source on astrophysics theory, they likely do not have expertise in that field. Most law students would tell you your local big city newspaper is not a particularly reliable source when it comes to what court decisions mean and what actually happened, the papers often do not have reporters with JDs available to cover the story. Thus, the SJ is a reliable source for many things, but when it comes to using opinion pieces (thus no "reports with attributed sources" in this instance) about BLPs that is not good enough, as quoted several times above from the RS guideline. It has to be high quality, and the examples given for high quality are not mid-sized-city newspapers known for errors and poor quality, as even the vandals agree.

With your first paragraph, I thought emphasizing GENERAL would be enough, but apparently not. Throw in "opportunity to purchase top talent" and "highly unlikely" as well as "pretty much" I would hope get the message across that this is in general, there will be exceptions. Which is why I then went with the Pulitzer part, as that would address the inevitable Tampa Bay example. That is to say, the New York Mets also have a high payroll and don't make it to the World Series (at least not this century) as their attempts at purchasing top talent haven't always panned out, that's why it is only an "opportunity". In our sports world analogy, Tampa Bay showed their high quality by making the World Series. That would equate to the SJ winning or at least being nominated for a few Pulitzers, which it has not been nominated nor won one (or some other award/prize/distinction that would put it on par with the Washington Post). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aboutmovies - I'm impressed with your reasoning. Has anyone checked out Factiva or its ilk for a source with a bit more authority? This thread is pretty complex now, but it does seem as though the situation would be solved with an RS using the word "grooming" with relation to Adams. I've got a Factiva account and would be happy to run a search if that would help. User:Aboutmovies, given your thoughtful criteria for the selection of BLP RS, I'd welcome your input on the Michael Wines discussion above. It's a doosie. Richard Cooke (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

David J. Schmidly

David J. Schmidly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article, not noted as a BLP, has a cited criticism section that outweighs the rest by a magnitude. An account, presumably the subject, has removed the section more than once. This appears to have all the ingredients for Oeuf pour le Visage... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have now indefinitely blocked Schmidly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disrupting the above article, and left a hopefully friendly notice on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether the block was a good idea or not but I've blanked the criticism section as a courtesy, pending resolution of this matter - you might consider protecting the page or watching it for the moment. Another admin deleted the user page of the now-blocked account, which I think was inappropriate. There should be no rush here, and the matter ought to be resolved carefully. I'll expand this thought momentarily. Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • From a response by the editor it appears that they are not the article subject, but a relative (which also does make the userpage deletion more appropriate). They also say they are going to follow the WP:Office route of complaining about the section, so together with your action in blanking the section I think I can safely unblock the account (indefinite being that only) - pending your/other third parties agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • (ec) - yes, I agree. They also may want to consider whether they want to advertise their identity or, perhaps, participate under an anonymous account with due acknowledgment of policies against good hand / bad hand accounts. Although I have not reviewed the matter in any depth, I am concerned that the "controversy" section readily triggers the "do no harm" part of BLP because it involves a prominent person who opponents are trying to have fired as a university president over a scandal involving nepotism / cronyism. I can't quickly assess the faithfulness of the material to the sources but even if it is all reliable sourced there are additional concerns about WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:COATRACK, etc. This is an evolving news story and a current scandal. When his constituents learn of the scandal and google his name they will come to this article where, in its prior form, they would get the impression that his primary notability is being the subject of these accusations. So this article could very well have an unfair effect on his career. The now-blocked editor, as a relative of the person in question (apparently), is likely upset, concerned, and only starting to become familiar with Wikipedia process (e.g. OTRS tickets, notice boards, policies). If I were in that position I would find it easy to get paranoid about Wikipedia as a place where amateurs gang up to defend bad content... on the other hand we have a chance here to show that Wikipedia is better than the professional sources at sorting things like this out in an orderly way. Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is not necessary for an article to be "noted" as a BLP for it to clearly be one. IMHO, the article therefore must conform to BLP standards. Collect (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • • • • I shall unblock, noting the section is to be blanked while the veracity is being considered. I will also draw their attention to WP:USER as regards their account page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agrees. One glaring problem with the previous section was the use of a blog. While the rest of the section appears to be better sourced (I checked the USA Today one and it appears to largely agree with the article) but as noted above the section grealy outweights the rest of the article. If the article were relatively complete, perhaps the section would be okay but as the article stands, such a section is IMHO a clear BLP violation Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I think this edit violates the BLP guideline that "criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article" It was not a notable reaction, and it is a opinion not echoed anywhere else so it doesn't have a place in the article. Another issue is that information from the same section was taken from non-English sources[1]. I understand that verifiability is taken more seriously when the article is BLP so I am assuming that this is also a violation of BLP policy. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I request that before anybody comments, they should skim the relevent conversation on the Erdogan talk page. To summarize, I would like to add the following statement sourced to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a highly respected think tank in the United States:

"Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that shortly after the Davos incident, Erdogan hosted Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Vice President of Sudan, who is being indicted for his role in the Darfur genocide. Cagaptay brings up this fact to note that Erdogan's action at Davos were less about humanitarian concern than they are about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view."[2]

Falastine fee Qalby tried the following tactics (some legitimate, some intellectually dishonest) to try to stop this statement from appearing in the article: twice reverting my edits,[3][4] argument by assertion, requesting a third opinion, disrespecting the third opinion he received and denying its validity,[5] and finally opening this BLP noticeboard discussion. In the words of the person whose opinion Falastine fee Qalby completely disregarded and insulted, "So by third opinion, you really mean as many opinions as it takes until someone agrees with you." --GHcool (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Ghcool is bullying me because I dare ask for opinions from people uninvolved. GHCool is not being honest here, I requested a third opinion on the wp:3 board in hopes of getting an opinion from an uninvolved editor, Goalie1998 (who Ghcool says provided a third opinion) is not a uninvolved party. Ghcool is now resorting to attacking me just because I wanted some input as to whether there is a copyright violation. I didn't editwar when I could certainly have. Can someone put an end to this already? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of World Championship Wrestling

• Criticism of World Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article is crammed full of original research and unsourced speculation concerning still living people; most importantly some unsourced/badly sourced bits are about the responsibillity for actual human deaths // Lots42 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ger Brennan

Repeated vandalism on this page for example http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ger_Brennan&diff=262233020&oldid=261796126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.192.131 (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

Appears to be a fairly undocumented page mainly written by User:jonwiener, which I consider odd. Might someone go there and see if this is a personal puff page or the like? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you want WP:COI/N. Or, instead of a noticeboard, leave a message with the user. If the user isn't active, put a {{COI-check}} on the article. THF (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am used to here ... will add template if no one yells. Collect (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanaz Shirazi

I zapped this down to a sourced stub when this came up at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#user:Qchristina, legal threat. The complaining editor's apparently legitimate grievance was being reverted as vandalism. This was a classic example of a legitimate complaint about a biography being unheard because the editor was a novice and didn't go about complaining in the correct fashion. I've given some guidance to the editor at User talk:Uncle G#Sanaz Shirazi, and Rjanag is helping out at User talk:Qchristina. We're no longer at the point of blocking a BLP complainant for legal threats and vandalism, I think. But some independent eyes and some extra help to a novice editor at the article and at xyr talk page, even if only a copyedit or a friendly tip here and there, would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Pearson (businessman)

• Stuart Pearson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This was brought to my attention by Tyrone laces, and I did my best to research the subject but there really isn't much information about Stuart Pearson. The claim that they bought and own Taggart Holdings may or may not be true---all I can find is that they were putting an offer in, not that they completed it. I found the same thing for the article's claim that they own 30% of Aer Lingus. I removed the Aer Lingus claim, but looking at the rest of the information in the article I'm having trouble finding any citable sources for the information. I'm not quite sure what to do in this situation, so I was looking for some input. From what I understand, unverifiable information in biographies of living people should be removed, but it would be taking away most of the article.. DreamHaze (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

• Eliot Spitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Eliot Spitzer article, which is locked from editing, contains inaccurate, opinionated information with regard to the prostitute scandal. The statement in question is not backed up by relevant citations, nor is the wording in accord with a non-partisan account of the subject matter. In the talk section of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eliot_Spitzer#Biased_commentary_in_the_.22Post-resignation_developments.22_section.), I have detailed the issue, to which another poster disagrees, using patronizing language while defending the original, unsupported claim. I would request that an editor remove the sentence in question according to my notes on the talk page. Thanks for your attention. // Bbdc (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the information. The information was an editor's own syntheses of the information in the sources. Neither source mentioned the Spitzer case at all. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it a second time and tried to explain in more detail why the information does not belong. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

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

We need some people to help with festering conflicts there along with allegations of BLP violations. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you let us know what to specifically look for? I know two editors there, not be be named, have been trying to hammer out the article. It actually looks somewhat ok, but I haven't been following it or the dispute that closely. Thanks! --Tom 13:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Events like this do not indicate to me that things are being "hammered out" in an appropriate fashion. There is currently two versions of the article and little in the way of reasoned discussion going on (more just grandstanding and posturing). ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadia Styles

An editor keeps putting in the statement, "She is now a Christian and has become a critic of the porn industry, describing the years of abuse she suffered while involved in it" and cites it to a youtube video of the subject. I've reverted the user twice and gave him BLP warnings. Is this appropriate? I feel that youtube should never be considered a reliable source nor used to support any assertions since youtube doesn't authenticate the content. Furthermore, if we treat the video as an authentic primary source, there should be a secondary reliable source reporting on this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about your assesment of youtube as a citation, but sometimes feel like a lone voice in the city :) Anyways, good luck. --Tom 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gross BLP concerns with Sathya Sai Baba

I recently made over a hundred edits to the article after an arbitration case. I have focused on fixing structure problems, dealing with undue weight, consolidating sources, and removing unreliable sources so that the content can be reworked or removed if completely unusable. It is apparent that the article is indecently sourced and is in need of some overhaul. The arbitration remedies are outlined here and here. A few editors expressed interest in reverting to an earlier version or even deleting it (both of which I believe to be unsuitable); more input would be appreciated on the matter. ←Spidern→ 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Billie Ray Martin

Doesigewebsite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made a threat and placed a notice to take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute regarding the following article:

Billie Ray Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on my talk page. However, the information is public about the subject matter in the article and it appears here // CZmarlin (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's a sock, you named the wrong threat-maker; I've fixed that. THF (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) IMDB is not a reliable source, especially if the information has been challenged, as it has. Kevin (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Right: See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source.3F THF (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now. I did a search on NewsBank for the birth name, and found nothing, so I don't think there will be any easily found sources. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rod Dreher

Can somebody keep an eye on this please? Some IPs keep re-adding a statement Dreher made a while ago about shooting trespassors in order to make him look bad. Hopefully people here agree that cherry-picking something outrageous a person has said, distorting it, and stripping it from its context isn't in keeping with BLP.70.20.106.127 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Anonymous IP Vandal(s) are making seriously flawed and inaccurate statements on the Yasser Latif Hamdani. Yasser Latif Hamdani is not an Ahmadi. He believes in a secular Pakistan and believes that Pakistan was created as a secular state by Jinnah. 125.21.165.158 in particular has been quite belligerant. History can be seen here. [[6]]

221.132.117.17 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Jack Weiss

There's a city an LA City Attorney election today and one of the candidates, Jack Weiss, has had some dubious material inserted over the last few days. I've tried to clean it up somewhat but it needs more watchlisting, as might some of the other candidates. These pages will get more traffic than normal today. Phil153 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all of the unsourced material in the controversy section, as well as a bit sourced to a DA's office press release. Watchlisted also. Kevin (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Carl Fuisz

I'm concerned that a potentially libelous statement accusing Mr. Fuisz of being a CIA operative continues to be re-added after removal, primarily by Richard Norton. The text is sourced from a just published interview with Susan Lindauer (who is Richard Norton's cousin). Ms Lindauer was been found previously to be mentally unfit to stand trial. I think the inclusion of the statement as is with this source violates the guidelines in the living person biography section.Chitownhustler (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

John Yoo

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

Your standard COATRACK, SYN, POV, and BLP violations on everyone's favorite Berkeley professor. Absolutely no effort in the article to give Yoo's side of the story, even though he has been interviewed and has written about it, and a good third of the references in the footnotes don't even mention Yoo. Lots of original research, too. I'd scrub it, but then I'd get accused of furthering a right-wing conspiracy. THF (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources - the author himself

I've run into an issue on a specific biography, but it probably has wider implications. For a couple of years I've been monitoring the biography of Mark Steyn, a columnist and author. Now this fellow Steyn apparently has his fans and detractors, and every few weeks I go in and clear out the stuff that violates BLP. Recently I removed the insertion of a quote from one of his hundreds of columns, as a combination of a WP:BLP and WP:NOR violation. I based this removal primarily on the BLP statement "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material was not published by the subject about himself (i.e. it is not a statement like "I grew up in Liverpool and attended Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School"), was based on a primary source (his own writings), was provided was without context, and was clearly inserted as an attempt to discredit him in some way; thus, its removal. As I said on the article's talk page:

Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks.

Since then, the editor who inserted it, and one other editor objected, even restoring the material. When I insisted that they find secondary sources that discussed the statement, they searched the internet, and managed to discover this source, a book review which mentioned the statement in passing. I've continued to remove the statement as an obvious violation of the very principles of WP:BLP; rather than attempt to show what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, it is an obvious attempt to reflect negatively on the subject, using primary sources (his own writings). I've also warned them that if they continue to restore it, I will block them for doing so. In reply, they have now argued that because I have been removing the material, that means I am now "in a content dispute" with them, and no longer acting in an administrative capacity. I've pointed out to them the absurdity of this claim; it would mean that any admin who removed BLP-violating material was now "in a content dispute" regarding the material, and could therefore no longer act in an administrative capacity, but they are insistent. Given their continuing insistence that the material does not violate BLP, and that by removing the material I have suddenly become "involved in a content dispute", I've come to this board for additional opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply. I am one of these editors. Here is the compromise material that I proposed at Talk:Mark Steyn. After fellow journalist Robert Fisk, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, was badly beaten up by Afghan refugees, Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's account of the incident, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." [7] [8]. The material is very clearly and reliably sourced, and note that the Steyn article is headed "A self-loathing multiculaturalist gets his due", so I do not see any breach of neutrality, and Steyn's remarks seem significant enough to me. Other sources have been given too, but Jayjg claims that they have all mentioned the remarks in passing, and that more sources that discuss the remarks are needed. But discussion mostly belongs in blogs and forums which are not accepted, although the other editor states that Fisk has discussed the subject in his book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. If we have to find non-blog and non-forum sources that discuss significance of everything like this in biographies, then there needs to be a lot of deleting. What is there to discuss about Steyn's remarks? They speak for themselves. Viewfinder (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You say the Steyn's remarks "speak for themselves", but without reliable secondary sources discussing them, what exactly do they say? In the absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement, what can we say about the relevance, notability, importance, etc. of this statement to Steyn's biography, thought, worldview? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how in-depth a discussion are you looking for, Jayjg, seeing as discussing it "in passing" does not meet your standard? As you've been told, Steyn's remarks are notable because they show a very unusual attitude for a journalist to have toward a colleague. You forgot this link I provided on the talk page: [9]. Fisk also referred to the statement in a lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporánia de Barcelona on 26 September 2002, and it's discussed on page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank for reminding me about the above source. Here in an extract: When he was almost killed by an enraged mob of Afghan refugees during the American invasion, Fisk wrote a column saying if he had been in their shoes, he too would have attacked any Westerner he saw, which led some readers to send him Christmas cards expressing their disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." This sentiment was more or less echoed by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which ran an article bearing the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." The right-wing columnist Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's column, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Is this merely a mention in passing? I see commentary on Steyn's remarks here. Viewfinder (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am still unable to see a clause in WP:BLP which demands that secondary sources which "discuss" the statement must be found. If that is our position, I think that that needs stating on WP:BLP more specifically. Viewfinder (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While not discussing the sourcing here, the requirement for secondary sources is a clear implication of NOR, whether or not they're BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That about wraps it up, I reckon. The counter-arguments have dwindled away to nothing. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon so too. I could repeat the arguments, but that would be pointless. I could restore the material, but its life will likely be shorter than the block that I will get for so doing. But no matter how we word the material, it will be seen as seriously negative by MS and his supporters, and carefully selected for the purposes of damaging him. It seems that admin have been given the power to revert such material, and block those who contribute it, however verifiable it may be. My impression is that there are well resourced supporters of conservative journalists who dislike us "losers" at Wikipedia, and that admins therefore consider that they cannot be too careful. Viewfinder (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any reliable secondary sources that have discussed the material, and you have been told on the Talk: page by more than one person that it is a BLP violation. For example: Speaking in an administrative capacity, I concur with Jayjg. That indeed about wraps it up. Failing a third party consensus here that it can be added, if I see either of you adding it again, I will first protect the article, and, if need be, block the offenders. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been provided with umpteen sources, all of which you have wriggled around by stretching Wikipedia's requirements well past their breaking points. You and others are making a mockery of your positions as administrators, and not for the first time. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "umpteen sources" like this, a personal website, and a speech made by Robert Fisk. On the contrary, it is you who are trying to make a mockery of WP:BLP; not on my watch, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are listed at Talk:Mark_Steyn#Review_of_.22sources_to_date.22. Unfortunately, whether or not we think there ought to be, there is not consensus in support of the addition of the material as currently proposed. But the incident is verifiable and should be included in the biography. More examples of and excerpts from independent media coverage of the incident should enable it to stick. Viewfinder (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 1

An uninvolved admin – meaning someone who isn't a regular editor of Middle-East related pages, and who is neither friend nor foe of Jayjg – should take this matter out of his hands. I am far from uninvolved by my own definition, but looking closely at the talk pages and the sources adduced thus far, there doesn't appear to be any BLP problem. None whatsoever. There are multiple secondary sources discussing Steyn's statement; all of them are excellent, high-profile mainstream reliable sources. When Jayjg describes an "absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement," he's simply hoping you won't actually check and discover that he's making this up.

The facts here are very simple. In a rather infamous op-ed for a very high-profile newspaper (the Wall Street Journal), Steyn laughingly cheered on the savage mob beating of a very prominent journalist. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the Steyn op-ed – and specifically addressing the very sentence of Stein's that Jay is threatening to block editors for mentioning in the article – including by the victim of the mob beating, the celebrated journalist Robert Fisk. Here's what Fisk has to say about the Steyn quote:

Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of the Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writer's disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." The "Fisk Doctrine," he went on, "taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility not only the perpetrators of Sept. 11 but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless."

Quite apart from the fact that most of the journalists who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves taking advantage of the Taliban's defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that I in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11 — or, at the least, that I would absolve the mass murderers. More important, the article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was in the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story would have fit neatly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war with no reference to civilian deaths from US B- 52 bombers and no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be "liberating" these people, not killing their relatives. Of course, my crime — the Journal gave Steyn's column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" — was to report the "why" as well as the "what and where." Wallis, David ed. Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Nation Books, 2004: 371-373.

Jay says of this passage that its "relevance is unclear," and complains that it was "found by googling Google Books."

Other secondary sources specifically discussing the Steyn quote include the London Independent (a major British broadsheet), Salon.com, and the New Zealand Herald. The CBC's Evan Solomon also discussed the significance of the Steyn quote in an interview with Fisk for the television show Hot Type.

Three things are absolutely clear: (1) there are multiple secondary sources discussing this quote; (2) there is nothing here even remotely approaching a BLP violation; and (3) Jayjg is here as a party to a content dispute, in an area of the encyclopedia where he has a known bias. This last issue is the gravest by far. In misrepresenting his own role here, in pretending to be simply an admin safeguarding BLP rather than a party to a content dispute, Jay is trying to justify the use of his admin tools as weapons in order to win that content dispute. Hence all his threats to other editors. This is a very serious form of admin abuse, the sort that might well merit desysoping. At any rate, this entire episode represents not a BLP issue, but an admin-abuse issue, and should be moved, accordingly, to the AN/I page.--G-Dett (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will preface this by saying that Jayjg has asked for my opinion on this matter. I do not, however, think that makes me biased in the matter -- I don't have an ideological commitment in the dispute, nor indeed a particularly close friendship with Jayjg. I think I can comment sensibly on the matter.

Firstly, with regards to the text in the lead. The absence of discussion of these matters in the body of the article makes them unsuitable for inclusion in the lead, where they have the potential to give a non-neutral impression. If there is substance to the discussion, it should be included in the text of the article.

Secondly, with regards to the quote from the WSJ article. The use of the quotation as it stands is staggeringly non-neutral. As it is, it is a quotation from the middle of the article that does not take into consideration the article's general tone or the context of the statement -- the presentation in the Wikipedia article gives the impression that he considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous; Steyn's article makes it very clear that it is the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up that is humorous. The presentation of the quotation is not neutral and as such it is a violation of BLP. If there is a genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy. As it is, it is not neutral and Jayjg is quite right to remove it.

As I have not looked too far into the history of this dispute, I have no opinion as to the appropriateness of Jayjg himself taking administrative actions, but I feel very strongly that he is correct to make these removals.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, your post is a very reasonable assessment of the content issue; I find it in many respects quite convincing. And Jayjg is entirely within his rights to agree with you and edit accordingly. Where he is not within his rights is in (a) threatening to block other editors who take the opposing position, (b) misrepresenting this as a BLP issue, and (c) falsely claiming (from the very heading he's given this thread on down) that there is an "absence of reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement."--G-Dett (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not going to discuss Jayjg's approach, but it avowedly is a BLP issue. They are both (in their current presentation) non-neutral, negative statements on a biography of a living person. That's about the best definition of a "BLP issue" I can think of. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of one better: negative material that is dubiously sourced.

Anyway, here's my suggestion. Why don't you take over the matter from here? You can address the neutrality issues surrounding the presentation of the quote, without falsely claiming there are no reliable secondary sources discussing it, without threatening to block fellow editors if they disagree with you, and without pretending that it isn't a content dispute. It's really win-win-win: the article improves; the cynicism that sets in when an admin abuses his privileges is stemmed or even reversed; and the ugly drama of pursuing Jay's abuse as a formal matter is avoided.--G-Dett (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful analysis and comments, Sam. You're the third uninvolved administrator who has commented on this issue, and you both have agreed with my view that the material violated WP:BLP. And I completely agree that if there is a "genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy." That's exactly why I've been asking for reliable secondary sources that discuss the statement. I've asked a couple of other uninvolved admins to take a look at this too, and am hoping that they will have the time to analyze the issue and express their views. In the meantime, I will continue to act in an administrative capacity on this article to remove all WP:BLP violations, and ensure that none are inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam's stated reason for opposing the material as currently written is completely different from yours. It would be interesting to know who the other two uninvolved admins are, whether you emailed them privately like you did Sam, and whether they took you at your word when you falsely asserted that secondary sources discussing the quote were lacking. If they believed you on this last, that would of course render their opinions on the BLP issue irrelevant.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 2

Possible compromise:

Noting the irony of anti-Western writer Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whom he sympathized with, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime" and wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter."[fn to 15 Dec 01 WSJ] Fisk criticized the remark as insensitive.[fn to book]

This would necessarily belong in the text of the article, not the lead. THF (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, my concern, as before, is unlike, say, the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair that we don't seem to have reliable secondary sources that discuss this "incident". Steyn wrote it, Fisk responded briefly in a speech and in his book, and a couple of book reviews note it. From where would a proper WP:BLP-compliant analysis come? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I may be mistaken here, but you seem to be requiring a tertiary source. The secondary source is Fisk's commentary (and the commentary of others) on Steyn's essay, and the case has been made that that secondary commentary is notable. The reason we then go to the primary source is to give Steyn a chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context so that the article isn't twisted by Fisk's tendentious reading. You seem to be concerned that the result will make Steyn look bad, but it's only going to look bad to Fisk partisans wearing blinders. Everyone else is going to chuckle.

I agree that the text you removed was correctly removed. But the issue is one of NPOV because of the failure to put the text in context, and that's readily resolved. THF (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm really only looking for secondary sources. Steyn wrote something, Fisk briefly responded; it seems to have pretty much vanished from the public eye since then. Now, if there were reliable secondary sources that discussed this; as you say "put the text in context", then I'd be fine with the addition. That's what I've been insisting on, that's what Sam Korn insisted on, and that's what, I think, you've been talking about too. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief note for casual readers, and others uninitiated in the elaborate wikilawyering GAME being played here: there are indeed several excellent secondary sources that discuss the matter and put it explicitly in context. Jay knows this well, but is pretending not to.--G-Dett (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Fisk's complaint is so ludicrous that only the sympatico are seizing on it. So editors can either leave it unanswered or, more fairly, let Steyn's words speak for themselves. NB it's not just Fisk; Kamiya also made the same disingenuous comment on the language in the Steyn column. So one's hard-pressed to say that it's not notable, when it's been noted, and, realistically, Steyn's columns don't get all that much attention outside the blog world. (Separately, there's an NPOV problem in Robert Fisk, where Steyn's words are mischaracterized.) THF (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, after I warned Lapsed Pacifist that if he added the material to the article again I would protect it, or block him, he added it instead to the Fisk article without an edit summary either. That's the kind of tendentious editing that really makes a mockery of WP:BLP. I'll have to block him if he continues. Regarding your point, I'm not really looking at whether or not Steyn's comment or Fisk's responses were fair, I'm just trying to make sure that it's notable and fairly reported. I'm still not seeing much attention to the comment or analysis of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree no mention of this belongs in the lead. Your proposed wording is an improvement. I think Sam may still object to it because in his view the article should be careful not to "give the impression that [Steyn] considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous." I don't fully share Sam's concern here, in part because it's very clear that Steyn did find the beating itself humorous–

You can understand why Mr. Fisk has been in low spirits of late: The much-feared "Arab street" is as seething and turbulent as a leafy cul-de-sac in Westchester County...But last weekend the people finally roused themselves--and beat up Fisky! His car broke down just a stone's throw (as it turned out) from the Pakistani border and a crowd gathered. To the evident surprise of the man known to his readers as "the champion of the oppressed," the oppressed decided to take on the champ. They lunged for his wallet and began lobbing rocks. Yet even as the rubble bounced off his skull, Mr. Fisk was shrewd enough to look for the "root causes."

–and it's certainly clear that the Wall Street Journal's headline writer understood Steyn to be applauding the beating; the article is subtitled "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." But given that the quoted sentence ("heart of stone" etc.) is talking about laughing at Fisk's response, I concur with Sam that that's how it should be phrased.

How about something like this: Noting the irony of US-foreign-policy critic Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whose views he'd championed, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime." Regarding Fisk's subsequent expressions of sympathy for his attackers, Steyn wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Other commentators described Steyn's remark as "vicious" and tantamount to an endorsement of the attack. Fisk himself went further, arguing that Steyn's remarks implied that Fisk "in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11." Could probably be trimmed and tightened, but that's the essence of the episode.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"US-foreign-policy critic" for Fisk is perhaps too soft an appellation, since he's a conspiracy theorist of relatively extreme wackiness. "Other commentators" is WP:WEASELly, since it would be of some relevance if they were politically aligned (or not) with Fisk's views. "Tantamount to an endorsement of the attack" seems unfair in the current context, since, after all, it was Fisk's own endorsement of the attack ("I would've attacked me, too") that Steyn was humorously commenting upon (a point that my language above doesn't quite make, either). I'm fine with the choice of Fisk quote; that was certainly how I read Steyn. And Fisk, for that matter.

Of course, Jayjg is a thoughtful and persuasive editor, so if he disagrees with me for reasons I haven't thought of, I may need to reevaluate my position.

NB to interested editors that the same issue arises in the Robert Fisk article. THF (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Fisk was a conspiracy theorist, but I've only read his major works – Pity the Nation, The Great War for Civilisation, and of course his three decades of award-winning journalism for The Independent, which is one of Britain's two or three top mainstream broadsheets. I am aware that his writing is rhetorically bombastic, and that he takes his own derring-do during the Lebanese civil war quite seriously, sometimes wearyingly so, but that is of course quite a different thing from conspiracy theories. But perhaps you are more deeply read in his minor works, or perhaps you've had privileged access to his personal notebooks or something, and found what you thought was a conspiracy theory, in which case do share. The other possibility is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are parroting something you heard some lantern-jawed illiterate pundit or thoughtful/persuasive Wikipedian say, and are forgetting that this is the BLP noticeboard, good a place as any to start not slandering living people.

If "US foreign policy critic" sounds too euphemistic, could you suggest something else? Forgive my bluntness, but "anti-Western" sounds like something a blogger who doesn't know Fisk's work – and doesn't know what "Western" means for that matter – would say.

It's secondary-source commentators in Salon, The Independent, etc. who thought that Steyn's guffaws as a mob "beat up Fisky!" and "the rubble bounced off his skull" amounted to an endorsement of the attack. His WSJ editors thought that too, which is why they subtitled his article "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due."--G-Dett (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to play Argument Clinic here. Any fair reading of Steyn's column would acknowledge that he was commenting on Fisk's own endorsement of the attack and self-hatred. As for Fisk himself, he's accused the US of faking its account of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and destruction of WTC7, so "foreign policy critic" is far too mild a characterization of his anti-US extremism; WP:WEIGHT suggests he's lucky to get any mention in the Steyn article at all. "Radical" or "anti-western sympathizer" is not unique with me. THF (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right and you're wrong about a fair reading of Steyn's column. Only an unusually tone-deaf reader (or a non-native speaker) would fail to see that he's practically wetting his pants in hilarious glee as he recounts the near-fatal beating of Fisk. But you're right that where he explicitly describes his own "laughter," he's talking about his response to Fisk's sanctimonious expression of sympathy for the people who almost killed him.

What does "faking its account" mean? Does Fisk believe the US had a role in the 9-11 attacks? If so, wow, I have never, ever heard this. What I've heard him say is that while he has nagging questions about the attacks, these are rooted in personal and anecdotal evidence not professional research; here's what he says about "ravers" at talks of his who ask him why he doesn't "tell the truth about 9-11":

I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

"Western" refers to a whole trajectory of human culture compassing everything from Athenian democracy and Hellenistic culture to enlightenment humanism and liberal capitalism. There exists a handful of semi-literate contemporary elites, elites who in their own persons, ironically, do not bear much of the intellectual fruit of the Western tradition, who seem indeed not even to know what it is, who when talking about it tend to equate it with American political and military hegemony since World War II; for these hayseed elites, yes Robert Fisk is "anti-Western." For others, he is an extraordinary journalist and fierce, bombastic, and occasionally wearisome critic of American foreign policy.--G-Dett (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 3

I have noted the above discussion with interest. I am a bit concerned about Jayjg approaching other admins on this matter; there is a tendency in such situations, consciously or otherwise, to approach fellow admins likely to be sympathetic. Did he approach the admins who have commented on the talk page? Fisk may be radical but he is a writer for a major UK broadsheet and I see nothing about him that should disqualify him from mention in the Steyn article. "Anti-US extremist" appears to me to be unjustified but even if it is justified, Steyn's laugh about another journalist's response to a mob that beat him up, in an article entitled "a self loathing multiculturalist gets his due", seems pretty notable to me. Viewfinder (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewfinder, Sam Korn has explained quite clearly the nature of his relationship with me (or lack thereof). I specifically looked for experienced admins with whom I had few interactions, and who felt they were familiar with BLP. I did not approach the editors who commented on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who comes into this discussion professing neutrality but with the stated belief that Fisk's position on his beating is "ironic" might want to take a closer look at exactly how neutral they are. Jayjg, I notice you have yet to address any of the issues G-Dett raised about your stance. Don't be coy. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone not neutral. Regarding G-Dett's comments, I haven't read them, so I can't comment on them. I will, however, read any comments from third-party, neutral admins such as Sam Korn. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about disagreeing with me? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This, sadly, is a pattern. Posts Jay senses he can trivialize, he will; posts he finds challenging and trenchant, he strawmans; posts he knows are devastating, he pretends not to have read.--G-Dett (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not in the slightest think that Fisk believes his beating is "ironic". That is such an extraordinary assertion that I cannot begin to understand how you came to it. Lapsed Pacifist attacks my neutrality without the faintest idea about my political beliefs and with a decidedly bizarre interpretation of my comments on this matter. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, you described "the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up." Lapsed Pacifist referred to this as your "belief that Fisk's position on his beating is 'ironic'," a summary which was fair and accurate. If you expressed yourself badly or carelessly, by all means clarify. But LP didn't say that you think Fisk believes his own beating to be 'ironic'. That "extraordinary assertion" is your own invention.--G-Dett (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You might better refer to it as my best attempt to understand a semantically unclear post. So Lapsed Pacifist is actually saying that I think it to be ironic. Quite what he is basing this on I have no idea. Maybe it is a rather free translation of the presentation in the Wikipedia article gives the impression that he considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous; Steyn's article makes it very clear that it is the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up that is humorous? That's a completely different kettle of fish. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Sam. But I must say, I have a pretty good sense of syntax and semantics and I read your phrase about "the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up" exactly as Lapsed Pacifist did. Nor did I think that was a crazy position. Though I wouldn't call Fisk's position "ironic," I did find it an amusing example of his penchant for bombast. I'm pretty sympathetic to Fisk's politics, and I think he's an extraordinary journalist of the old school (foreign correspondents who know the region they cover intimately); and yet "Even I would beat myself up" became a Fisk-inspired laugh-line among me and my friends.

If you wished to distance yourself from Steyn's opinion, you might have written, Steyn's article makes it very clear that he regards Fisk's continued position in the wake of his beating to be ironic and humorous. I totally accept your clarification and can see your point more clearly now; if you step back, however, I think you'll see Lapsed Pacifist was posting in good faith. Cheers,--G-Dett (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"that is humorous to him" might have helped, I suppose. I still think it's quite a difficult reading of what I said. Anyway. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting: "It should be pointed out that one of the main reasons given for the removal of the description of the Fisk incident from the Mark Steyn article was that the WP:BLP rules say that articles about living people should document what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. Since the description was about something Steyn wrote about somebody else rather than himself, it was held that the rules forbade its inclusion. Clearly, though, the description does not violate that rule when it is included in an article about Robert Fisk rather than Mark Steyn. In any case, in my opinion, commonsense implies that what the WP:BLP rule says about the inclusion of what the subject of an article says about a third-party should be interpreted differently when the subject is a journalist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)" Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Coonerty

• Ryan Coonerty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rthunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have some WP:OWN concerns with this user regarding the biography of Ryan Coonerty. These seem to be reflected mostly in the Criticism section, where I'm mostly concerned that it influences the balance of the article a bit too much. I think it would be best if someone with a little bit more BLP knowledge than me would go over it. I was originally alerted to this article trough Google News feeding me this link --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like problem mostly is sourcing and NPOV. The user you mentioned appears to be aware of BLP implications here, so I don't really see the problem at this point. There are some comments from a year ago that confused me until I noticed that they were 2008. I'm discussing things on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This controversy is covered in today's edition of the Santa Cruz local paper, fwiw. One person is quoted as saying his purpose in editing the page is to see that it "accurately represent[s] the repressive nature of Ryan's rule in this ostensibly progressive town", and the subject of the biography is quoted as saying "I would rather just not have a Wikipedia page". So there does seem to be a bit of a problem. --Delirium (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten O'Clock Classics

Can someone take a look at today's activity on this page? I have to leave so I cannot do so myself. The page was semi-protected for a month because of BLP violations. The protection is off, and it looks like the violations are back. The older edits say that the sourcing for the material is not sufficient. The sourcing on the new version needs to be checked to see if it is now sufficient for what the content says, or if it is more of the same that got the page semi-ed previously. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

TASTY COATRACK EATEN BY COATRACK MONSTER. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point I suggest dealing with it as vandalism / trolling. The content has been repeatedly and consistently deleted, and as soon as it's unprotected we have IP editors trolling with comments about "Internet censor".[10] Probably best to reprotect for now. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Ten O'Clock Classics and the protected redirect at Ronen Segev were kept at previous AfDs (TOC, RS), so it's not suitable for prodding. I've no idea why long-term or permanent semi-protection isn't sufficient, since in all the time I've watched it I don't think I've ever seen anyone but anon IPs do the vandalizing.

Note also that Segev himself is OK with the article's existence, and has in fact allowed the use of copyrighted material within (see the TO'C talk page, and OTRS ticket 2006111410009853). I'll be online for a wee while, so I can keep it watched for the moment. --DeLarge (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Dan Malloy

Dan Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Occasionally, a user (usually an anonymous one) will remove relevant information regarding this Stamford, CT mayor's dispute with the fire department. It is, arguably, one of the defining aspects of his administration, and should not be removed without discussion. The most recent incident was shamelessly motivated by agenda, since the user not only removed every mention of the issue, but replaced it with unbridled praise for the mayor. It should be noted that the language that is repeatedly removed is itself the result of a resolved dispute; both anti-Malloy and pro-Malloy editors have agreed on its neutrality, which makes its removal all the less acceptable. Minaker (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer

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

Tycoon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

71.217.9.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users have been removing entire sections of the article, claiming that they are portraying Mr. Cramer in a negative light, and therefore should be removed. After several users (including Spitfire, Gnower, and myself) went back and forth with him and reverting his edits, he decided instead to stick to rephrasing one section and removing a couple of statements (and an accompanying source) which he considers "libelous" (see diff), even going so far as to call them a conspiracy theory (see diff). I'm not seeing how these statements would be considered either libelous or conspiracies. Any suggestions? Matt (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sido (rapper)

Can someone who knows more about Sido than I do please check some of the information in there? The article cites no sources and some of the statements in there somehow surprise me. Thank you! darkweasel94 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a little makeover, using the de-wiki (and I dont even like the music). Should be alright now. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd problem with multiple legal names

Nadya Suleman, Has been legally know or referenced with all the following names: Natalie Doud, Natalie Denise Suleman, Nadya Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Suleman Gutierrez Doud, Natalie Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Dodd, Nadya Denise Doud, and Natalie Denise Doud. The most common (by far) is 'Nadya Suleman' thus the article is titled that. But there is question as to weather which or any of the other names should also be listed? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) Raeky is faster than me :) Thanks for any help and see the talk page. --Tom 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the page should be redirect to Suleman octuplets and the redirect protected. This woman is notable for one single event, there is no reason to delve into her life any more than for that event: indeed, WP policy specifically discourages it. Let the media vultures do what they want, and lets get on with writing an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the clear consensus that she needs her own page, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That AfD was closed in less than 12 hours as a snowball. The closer had edited the article, as had two of (about) eight of the commenters. Hardly basis for "clear consensus" IMHO, and probably worth another shout (without prejudice, natch). Mr Stephen (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a deletionist at heart but think that an AFD has very little chance, but who knows. I would give it more time however. --Tom 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was closed because the person who originated it withdrew it, but every comment was for keep. If you think it's a serious issue nominate it again. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just have done, here. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless of the new AfD nomination(which I think is uncalled for) any recommendations on alternative names or rules. I've not noticed anything in policies that directly deals with a person who is known and referenced by this many names. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate names are usually given in the lead. The list above appears to include a few names recombined in to every possible configuration. Do we have reliable sources for each? It may be possible to boil them down to a few main ones, with variations. Something like, "Nadya (or Natalie) Dodd (or Doud) Gutierrez Suleman." Then the body of the text could explain how these different names came about, if known. But if some are very obscure or poorly sourced then just leave them off.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Coles

Charlie Coles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User talk:Patiotable continues to add unsourced content to the article while also removed correct information. I have warned the user to no avail. The edits have become less-inflammatory over time, but continue to say the person will retire when there is no indication he will. // X96lee15 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The user made another edit, can an admin block him? — X96lee15 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef as an SPA devoted to defamation. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt

Your entry on me not only contravenes your guidelines, being biased, hostile, inaccurate and lacking in citations.

It is also libellous, thanks particularly to the most recent addition(s). Please remove it instantly, or remove every error and claim unsupported by citations.

Andrew Bolt

email addy rmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.17.161 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

email addy removed, not a good idea and article linked, I'll have a look at it and try to address your concerns. Gnangarra 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I've cleaned it up, addressed areas of obvious concerns. It still needs further tidying up of reference etc... Gnangarra 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

• Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP subject, a controversial South Indian guru, was subject to an apparent attempt on his life in 1993. What are editors' views on including graphic images of Sai Baba's dead assailants in his BLP? It strikes me such images would be okay in an article on that specific incident, but less so in the BLP of the person who was the target of the attack.

Needless to say, the whole Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram section, starting with the title, appears quite far from balanced NPOV reporting, as does the article overall. Jayen466 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed here recently: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive58#Sathya Sai Baba. The "killings" section is long. Perhaps it'd be better spun off into an article of its own.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about the spin-off. Could you say which revision of the Sathya Sai Baba article you read? There have been edits around that section today, changing its length (and title). Jayen466 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, this was the length the section had when I started this thread. Jayen466 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which version I looked at. Even the shorter version is still long. The killings themselves appear to be notable and there is apparently plenty of material available, including photos. With a standalone article all of that could go in.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayen466 10:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

David Boulton

• David Boulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - What the hell, five different guys all called David Boulton, all on one page, all of dubious notability. // Astronaut (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow. The David Boulton collective definitely lives up to the category "Living People". The article seems to have started off about 3 of 5, mentioning that he was no to be confused with the others. 1/5 seems most notable, and might warrent his own article. 2/5 is dubious. 4/5 and 5/5 should just be deleted as there is not enough data about them. Martin451 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• A good faith editor who wanted to help posted a request on the article's talk page, three days ago. It has received no answer, so far. Also note that a multi-stub is a valid article type. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A multi-stub a valid article type? That's the first one I've seen; and I've been here quite a while now. I would have expected a disambig page with links to separate articles for the notable David Boulton(s). Astronaut (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be most common for ancient people who languish somewhere between notability and non-notability. See, for example, Hippocrates (physician) or Andromachus (physician). It's somewhat less common for more recent people, but I don't think totally unknown. --Delirium (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Several articles

213.46.9.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has been warned twice about adding unverified material to articles. They have edited several articles substantially changing facts, or adding potentially libellous material. The IPs edits span over 30 articles, and I'm requesting a joint effort to undo thier work, and a temporary block. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

This article has received a fair amount of IP attention trying to add that Ms. Williams is dating Chad Gilbert, a drummer from some band. The additions seem to be coming from IPs of various geolocations, and are absolutely never sourced properly. Only two editors and myself are present to remove and fix this assertion, which has been brought up on the talk page but is never discussed by the said editors. I would request semi-protection of the article for a set period of time, or at least some eyes on this article, as I'm tired of coming back after a 3 day break and having to fix vandalism over the entire period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. In the future please keep in mind that protection requests are in WP:RFP. - 7-bubёn >t 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also asking for eyes; this page is regularly not only vandalized but has BLP violating material added to it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should a section listing an organisation's former employees be included, apparently motivated by their failure to disclose their connection with organisation? No notable activity on behalf of the organisation is included, merely the association. Rd232 ^talk 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the article, I would argue towards a middle ground. It seems like it would be useful to name directors and otherwise-notable figures, but I don't see a good reason to name otherwise un-notable figures unless grounds for their inclusion are established. I would also suggest that the employees section be moved after the platform, as the article is about the platform and not the people, I presume. Awickert (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More specifically: I would suggest that Michael Shellenberger be retained, as he is a relatively high-profile figure in his own right. The director should also be retained as it seems to be of relevance to the organization. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the others is necessary, unless (as per above) they can be shown as notable (either to the organization or in their own right). Awickert (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But Shellenberger isn't and never was an employee of VIO (his company was contracted to do a poll and some unspecified lobbying) and is notable for completely unrelated reasons. See Talk:Michael Shellenberger. Rd232 ^talk 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been similar BLP problems in other articles: Michael Shellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mark Weisbrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Center for Economic and Policy Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JRSP (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So my thought about retaining Shellenberger was that, assuming his employment (or contracting, or whatever) was important to the VIO, he has enough of a general background for it to be important. This is on the lines that if Michael Jordan advocated for something, it would be notable because he is notable. Rd232 takes the other side: that his association to the organization is unimportant (which Mr. Shellenberger himself seems to think). From reading the article and the Shellenberger source, clearly the recall election was important to Venezuela, and so if perhaps more information about the VIO and the recall election were added, Shellenberger's name should be there as a government-sponsored public relations and polling consultant. That might be the better way to do all of the names, in fact, to include them in more info about the VIO instead of just creating a laundry list that some editors find questionable. Awickert (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add more actual info, and scrubbed the names of past employees and lobbyists as non-notable/unencyclopedic (among other issues). Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it is worth noting, to those not aware, that User:Alekboyd has very strong opinions on this specific subject (eg here and [11] / [12] (looking almost like a vendetta against VIO lobbyists) and [13] (latter two domains both registered to alekboyd) - frankly if this were a court I'd ask him to recuse himself as I have doubts about his ability to fully respect WP:NPOV on this topic, but as it is, perhaps he could try and ease off a bit; Wikipedia is not a soapbox and nor is it an extension of any editors' blogs. Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia had been involved resolving a similar (and perhaps the identical) dispute in this article when there was edit-warring going on between pro- and anti-Chavez editors, and perhaps someone should get that user involved. My sense is that User:Alekboyd is a bit aggressive in his characterization of sourced materials, something I've warned him about repeatedly, and that the pro-Chavez editors are also a bit over-aggressive in removing material that is sourced. THF (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Awickert (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the Michael Jordan example, not everything that a notable person does is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article, WP:WELLKNOWN is clear about that; there have been precedents like the Jenna Bush article where a verified information was left out because it was considered to be not relevant to the subject's notability. In the cases in discussion, I have noticed also inclusion of information not explicitly mentioned in sources and interpretation of primary sources. Another problem is undue weight, we cannot just pick an individual mentioned in a small paragraph in an article dealing about other thing and claim that this is a notable information about this individual. JRSP (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - I didn't realize the precedent against notable-person-everything-notable. I do still think that even if a laundry list of names is objectionable, it may work if it is incorporated into the article in a way that talks about what they do and makes it notable. I've also asked Alekboyd on his talk page to comment here about his justification for their inclusion, hopefully that will help. Awickert (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Those names are important for more often than not those people would write letter to editors, opeds or articles, under the guise of independent, uninterested readers, when in fact all falls within the remit of VIO's campaigns. Take Naiman and Wingerter: Naiman writes for the Huff Post, together with another Chavez apologist, in one article he mentions (casually?) that an excellent source of news on Venezuela has just come to being, that is Wingerter's BOREV.NET. Neither would say that they were employees of the Venezuelan regime and people who have not followed their activism would think "oh my gosh, what a wonderful tip!" As per Shellenberger: what made him notorious? How can it possibly be alleged that information about an environmentalist, whose services were contracted by a petrostate, and who sort of made it with the publication of a certain paper, published while he was under contract with the government of Venezuela, is not relevant, while all the while ignoring perfectly reliable sources that prove the point? --Alekboyd (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the allegedly misleading quote about Shellenberger was made by User:THF not by me. [14]--Alekboyd (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't add information about living persons with the specific purpose of undermining their credibility. Whether true or not, whether verifiable or not; this kind of information must be notable and carefully sourced to comply with the BLP policy. Also, these people are presented as "employees of the Venezuelan government" but working (or having worked) for an organization does not necessarily imply you're an employee; for instance, we are not "wikipedia employees". We can't add information to insinuate that everything these persons do has been commissioned by the Venezuelan government. Regarding your question of "How can it possibly be alleged that information about an environmentalist, ... ", I will repeat it again: unless the notability of this information is assessed by multiple reliable secondary sources, it does not belong in wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia: we try to condense notable verifiable information that has already been presented somewhere else, this is not a place to expose original ideas or to "prove a point". JRSP (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose the issue is settled with the help of third parties. Until then, and given User:JRSP odd understanding of what is an employee, I am reverting changes made.--Alekboyd (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what is being done. However your insistence that *your* version is public whilst this happens (when you're in a minority of one, as far as I can see) strains my ability to WP:AGF. Ouch, managing it but it hurts. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you continue to fail to argue how a list of past employees is encyclopedic. It isn't (and NB the one employee listed as current in the disputed isn't), as others here have basically agreed, unless (as I said before) their activities are notable. We do not list on Wikipedia all past employees for every business and institution, and you're only argument for VIO being an exception (they tried to hide it) though your ability to source the employment to WP:RS standards puts that in some doubt, but anyway) is invalid. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So I've established that I don't know as much about precedents and soforth for politics/biography, but how about this as an idea. Alekboyd could create a third party website that lists folks associated with VIO, well-sourced, and place that website under the "external links".

Also, looking at the article for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental NGO (so somewhat similar in terms of being an organization with an agenda), the president and directors are listed; therefore, I think the VIO article should keep the director (and perhaps past directors?). Interestingly (and completely unknown to me), Venezuela and Citgo and Chavez are mentioned there as well with respect to the Kennedys, and not cited, so I'm going to hunt for a citation and delete if I don't find it. Awickert (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, couldn't find any source, removed. Although, Robert Kennedy is still mentioned there, and though he is a larger public figure than Shellenberger, it seems to be a parallel to Shellenberger's inclusion, provided Shellenberger did things for the VIO equal in magnitude to what Kennedy did for the NRDC. Awickert (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so we have two users User:Rd232 and User:JRSP reverting all my edits without further ado, and threatening with WP:3RR. Opinion from third parties, neither me nor users mentioned qualify, is required to reach consensus. Until the issue is resolved the version that should be published is the one previously existent, to which users User:SandyGeorgia, User:THF and User:Awickert contributed. Notability of information has been established by various mentions in WP:RS compliant sources.--Alekboyd (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reverting all my edits" - nonsense. You revert to your preferred version, without sufficient discussion, even though you're in a minority of one (so far). Again (been said several times before) in BLP cases caution applies and that also tilts the decision as to which version should be public at the moment, temporarily. (Of course, since no-one has agreed with you yet, you might consider whether a consensus hasn't already been reached, with you on the wrong side.) As to "threatening with WP:3RR", LMAO, you can't threaten with WP:3RR, it's just a hazard to watch out for. Rd232 ^talk 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of creating a third party website and placing it under "external links": That won't work, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:EL#In biographies of living people; also if that site were created by an editor we could have a case of WP:COI. Now, to sort things out, we could try to separate different cases; for instance, we could start with the two persons listed as "past employees". Who supports removing this from the article? JRSP (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither the directors nor the employees seem to be notable qua employees of VIO (I see no WP:RS of them doing anything notable) but it is not unusual for current directors to be listed in WP. However we don't know who the current one is (according to this the one supposed to be current isn't any more). And AFAIK listing past employees and directors is rather less usual on WP; they are mentioned only if there is something substantial to say about notable activities for the organisation. In other words, there needs to be prose about (notable) things they did qua employees, not merely a list. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated the same above, I agree with you that employees would be better-mentioned in context of their notable deeds with VIO. It seems that Alekboyd's main point is to show that these people who write "under the guise of independent, uninterested readers" have a bias by connecting them to their past employment. That seems to be fair enough to me, but in looking at other lobbying agencies, their inclusion in VIO does seem to go against the status quo. So my question is: is there room or precedent, anywhere on Wikipedia, for the inclusion of the bias of otherwise not-well-known writers of (I assume) apparently impartial reports and dubiously impartial articles and letters? Awickert (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It may seem "fair enough" to you, but it would breach multiple WP policies. To answer your question - there may be precedents somewhere, Wikipedia being as large and messy as it is, which is why precedents are used to inform policy, and in practice we rely on policy. The minimum for inclusion of these specific allegations would be a reliable source talking about this as a specific issue for VIO. Other evidence for these would be original research (possibly through WP:SYNTHESIS). And to include the names without being able to verify the allegations would clearly be inappropriate if the allegations are the justification given. However that justification is suspect: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a tool to right alleged wrongs. It is an encyclopedia. Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - so with that, I rest my case, and say that the best approach would be to retain the name of the director, retain the names of the agencies (as in the current version) with which said individuals were involved, and to return the names of the individuals if/when there is enough information in the article about their activities with the VIO, corroborated with sources, to warrant their inclusion. Does that sound OK to everyone? Sorry about how long it took me to get here, and thanks for your patience in explaining the Wikipedia policies around BLP. Awickert (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman aka "Octo-mom"

This article is an obvious trouble magnet, and many of the sources don't seem to actually back up the statements in the article. Also, her personal life has been reported on so widely, there may be details slipping into the article that aren't really appropriate. I think if a previously uninvolved party could swoop in and play referee and try to sort the wheat from the chaff in the references it would go a long way towards helping this article not devolve into an attack piece. More detail, way way more than you will want to read, is at the ongoing AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As the AfD has closed as Keep, I would support some uninvolved eyes on this article. That would be better for WP calmness than me doing a sweep on it, obviously. Physchim62 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chuck de Caro's page.

1- He wrote it himself 2- he exagerates what he has done. 3- His company exists only on paper, the plane and the staff do not exist,impossible to corroborate. 4- The links on his page are 20+ years old,outdated information. 5- Seems to be a narcisisstic monument to own self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearclight (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Ruttman

Resolved

My bio says, "he earned $54,196 and the scorn of many in the NASCAR community". This is untrue. Please remove.

Thank you,

Joe Ruttman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is wrong too. I go by Joe Ruttman. My middle name is not Joesph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. THF (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger

• Michael Shellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's escaped my notice for a while in editing and discussing the article, but it suddenly strikes me that it may well be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The solution would be an article on the book in question (The Death of Environmentalism), the co-authorship of which is the only reason he is notable. (His PR work etc, which has been the source of some heat, isn't notable.) Most of the article is about the book, which isn't even sole-authored by him. Comments? Move book stuff to book article and delete the bio? Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know very much about MS or his book (so I guess I don't oppose). I'd suggest you to contact user GreenExpert as he started the article and has been a main contributor to it. JRSP (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, but he hasn't edited since 15 Feb. Incidentally it doesn't matter whether you know about MS or his book (unless you want to develop more material on MS which isn't about his book) - the issue is the policy (WP:ONEEVENT). Interpretation of its application here by uninvolved editors is what I'm after. Rd232 ^talk 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a borderline ONEEVENT to me. Shellenberger seems to have done some other stuff before which wouldn't be notable in itself but which could be discussed in a bio: the question is, does that really add anything to the discussion of Break Through? I'm not sure that it does, or rather, I think it could be a sentence or two in an article about Break Through.

More worrying is the tendency for WP:SOAPBOX and possibly WP:COI in the current article: should Shellenberger's various non-notable companies really be mentioned? On the whole, I would move this to Break Through and then prune the article of any material which wouldn't fit there. Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional: in 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..."[15] Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done copy of relevant material to Break Through. Next step (once protection expires in a day or two) will be to AFD this article. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Britt

The Bill Britt article has some serious unsourced allegations in Bill_Britt#Skaggs_Lawsuit. They were eventually sourced by providing links to court documents hosted on a non-RS site (http://www.amwaywiki.com - disclaimer, I admin the site). User:Shot Info has stated that such documents are not allowed as sources so has removed them, meaning the allegations are now unsourced. As such I believe they should be removed from a BLP immediately, however he's threatening me with an edit warring report (despite the fact one of my reverts was including the material, the other was removing it!) Additional input requested. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the source of the documents was one of the editor above's self-declared hobby sites. I personally welcome sourcing of the material from appropriate sites. I suspect they are out there hence the reason the article was tagged and the inappropriate RS' removed. Shot info (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shot info, I stated I admin the site in the OP. If you can find another source, find it, however BLP is clear that unsourced allegations should be removed. If other sources can be found then it can go back in. How about being constructive and looking for some alternative sources you find acceptable? Having said that, as court submissions, not judgements, consensus appears to be they wouldn't be acceptable in either case? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There were two other similar sources in the article (which apparently Shot Info had no problem with) that I've now removed. One was trivial but the other also refers to court allegations. Also unsourced allegations of cult-like activities. I suggest as per BLP these should be removed as well. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD'd for notability issues Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt (2nd nomination). Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources, like court documents, are usually used only when they've been mentioned by reliable secondary sources. So if a newspaper covered the trial then quoting from the decision might be appropriate. But we shouldn't use legal documents in cases that haven't been reported on. Otherwise it would open the door to anything we find in databases, etc. See WP:PSTS   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately it looks like Bill Britt will soon go away and the problem with it. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Libel concerning Satanic Warmaster artist from finland

Potentially libellous and extremely poorly sourced material concerning this finnish metal music artist's ideology. Clear indication of support towards illegal organizations etc. through very vague connections etc. The artist has made it clear in several occasions that his personal beliefs are towards Satanism, yet somehow a lot of bigots try to blame him for nazism for some utterly peculiar reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Warmaster

The "Ideology" chapter is 100% against the biographies of living persons policy.

The only source used is an anarchist extremist propaganda book "unholy allianz" which is a full on attack towards heavy metal culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opferblut (talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not the only source. But material allegedly from it is hard to verify (a German book) and reviews of the book have criticised its research so it probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source anyway. I've edited the article slightly, this may be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does need work from a neutral editor who reads Finnish though. Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

Joel C. Rosenberg is undergoing some significant edits. IMO the old version was bad, and an editor has made some significant improvements. But both the old version and the new version feel very puffed-up. I tagged the new version as such (after the old version had the tags removed in the latest set of improvements) and the editor and I have had a discussion about some of the issues. That said, I'm going to bow out of the discussion (I really don't know anything about the subject nor am I good with BLPs) and would appreciate it if another editor would be so kind as to look over the article and figure out if A) my tag should be removed or B) how to improve the article. ThanksHobit (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Botelho-Handford Consulting Tower#Mental Controversy

Section looks like a BLP violation to me, esp. in the absence of sources. If I can get a supportive comment from one other editor here, I will go ahead and delete the whole section. Other parts of the article are poor but not libelous as far as I can see. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the subjects even exist (Google finds no trace of the tower, the architect firm, or the architect). Speedy deleted as vandalism (hoax). Rd232 ^talk 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, it's been a while since I've fallen for one like that. Thanks. Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Crashcarburn

• Crashcarburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - No citations (although neither did the old version, shockingly!), major edits made by a with the same name as the band in the article who removed all reference to the band's predecessor (or so the former article claimed), Tweak. User appears to have a conflict of interest if it does indeed represent the band, and the article's wording seems a bit biased. I'm looking for some help, here, as I left amessage on the user's talk page but wasn't sure what to do with the article in the meantime. I would change it back to the old version, but it might be just as bad in that it's completely unreferenced. // DreamHaze (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Marcellas Reynolds

I'm trying to make revisions and additions to Marcellas reynolds. I added a filmography, current career and early life section. I corrected age, took out erroneous and unnecessary information and added tons of current info. All my changes were deleted. I don't know why.

I'm adding a copy of the changes I added and made below.

Copy of changes removed for sake of brevity and ease of following discussion; they are available in the edit history of Marcellas Reynolds. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

NickNightNickknightley (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The date of birth was removed per an OTRS request. That must be stricken from the article unless a source (other than IMDB) is found for it. I'm not sure why the bot removed the rest of the changes, though they are in need of some clean-up. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) referees

I notice that, among our numerous articles on football referees, a large proportion devote most of their room to material criticizing or selectively reporting criticism of various decisions they've made over the years. This is often in a "Controversy" section or introduced by sentences with such a word. Do we think it is worth enforcing Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise on such articles, or are BLP concerns here mitigated by the fact that such criticisms are taken for granted as the normal course of such careers. I.e. wikipedia's articles on such subjects are 1) unlikely to effect their careers (though I wouldn't take this for granted) in football or 2) their careers elsewhere. Thoughts please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Footman

Resolved

 – Tagged as unreferenced

The article Tim Footman is unreferenced. According to Citing sources#Dealing with citation problems unreferenced biographies of living persons (which this seems to be) should be referred to administrators for assistance. Thanks218.14.50.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

Deceased Wikipedians

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

I know, they're dead (allegedly) and it isn't an article, but the issues involved overlap with BLP so I'm coming here.

In a recent MfD of this page where the danger of fabrication was a concern (vs the unencyclopedic nature of the page) the consensus seemed to be "keep, but insist on sourcing". Unfortunately, those maintaining the page don't seem to care much about WP:V or the spirit of WP:BLP insisting that internal stuff and unverified e-mails will do as it is not an article.

I have repeatedly removed an entry on Emil Petkov [16] which has a discussion (in Bulgarian) on a wikipage as its sole verification, but I'm being reverted by people insisting that that's sufficient verification. This page is wide open to the possibility of a damaging and hurtful fraud, as it names real-life individuals who happen to be (allegedly) wikipedians, assistance on maintaining this page would be helpful. I'd particularly invite people to check the verification of all other entries, and help me insit that any without hard verifiable corroboration are removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has no relevance to BLP, since the "Emil Petkov" is a wikipedia account which asserts no actual person. Also, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians is not a wikipedia article, the policy WP:V is not applicable in all its rigor, it is is a wikipedia community page, and verification withiun wikipedian's community is reasonable enough. I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to propagate a hoax. While I respect the concerns of Scott MacDonald, we are not talking about random vandals here. We are talking about a sizable community of bulgarian wikipedians who remember and respect and commemorate their notable contributor. The probability of hoax is extremely low in this case: WP:AGF trumps. - 7-bubёn >t 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to propagate a hoax I didn't believe somebody would post that in response to another editors concern. Oh well. --Tom 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the issue, not on me. My points are: (1)WP:V is not 100% applicable to wikipedia community pages and (2) WP:BLP is not applicable to internet accounts: I can register as user:Madonna, who will sue me? - 7-bubёn >t 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet accounts are beside the point. This page does not say "the owner of User:Madonna is said to be dead" it says "Joe Smith, who edited as User:Madonna, is dead". We are using a page to make statements about real world people, and we need some level of reliable real world sources for that. I'm afraid AGF will not do here. Our prevention against fraud or misstatement is not AGF but that other users can check was is said on the page. No, this is not an article, indeed it is not encyclopedic at all, but that would be an argument for deleting it if we can't ensure basic quality control, not for keeping all unverified claims.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect Scott concern, but please keep in mind that most of wikipedians are not celebrities so that their deaths are reported in NY Times. The verifiability rules for discussing of wikipedians in wikipedia pages must be relaxed. If not, we may delete 75% entries from this page, and in completely miss the purpose of this page. Al alternative would be to remove references to real names and use more cautionary phrasing about the external world. - 7-bubёn >t 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the entries are verified. And "relax" cannot equal unsourced. If we can't verify stuff, we should remove it. The same "this is not an encyclopedia entry" rational can lead to the conclusion "thus the information is unnecessary".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that there are different levels of necessary verification. If we are speaking exclusivety within "wikipedia universe", verification coming from a reasonable consensus of wikipedians, whoi claim that they received info from relatives, should be OK. - 7-bubёn >t 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're saying you trust Wikipedians? Do you trust used car salesmen too? --NE2 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I trust wikipedians. You have problems with that? Precisely because we trust wikipedians' consensus in nearly all wikipedia-internal issues wikipedia works. - 7-bubёn >t 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that this is an internal matter, we don't expect a notice in the NYTimes that picture abc has been released by xyz under CC - a simple email to ORTS will do. Similarly an internal process to verify the identities and status of the claimed deceased can be processed internally. If I get run over by a bus tomorrow my wife could email a checkuser with the account of my demise. He simply can check the IP data with my account and verify the source. It would be extremly unlikely that an the local paper would refer to my wikipedia account but with the above email the link to the news story can be made. OK not WP:RS rather WP:OR but this is not an article. Agathoclea (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few people who think quite strongly that death of wikipedians is an internal matter of high notability and irrelevant to all other wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam. Laudak (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop flogging the dead horse Laudak. That debate just got WP:SNOWball kept because you clearly can't understand that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL refers to the article space as do our WP:V and WP:N policies. If we start requiring verifiable information from reliable sources for userspace then I guess 99.999% of user pages are gone. That'll really keep the volunteers of this project happy I'm sure... Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an outrageous personal attack, but I will ignore it. I find it ridiculous how a dead person can edit his user page for years. :-) (a morose and tasteless joke, I agree). Wikipedia user pages are for working on wikipedia. Once you start putting real-word information into user pages, where is the boundary between wikipedia and free hosting service for wikipedian's cliques, hobby circles, friend networks, etc.? Laudak (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:NPA seems on a par with your understanding of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop escalating personal insults. Laudak (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read policies and guidelines before citing them. Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tasteless indeed, so why write it? The boundary is quite easy, use common sense! Garion96 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" is to be involved only in borderline, shadow cases, and only when no one objects. My common sense is in an obvious disagreement with the one of User:Pedro, and I refuse to accept that he has sense more common than mine. In other words, common sense cannot supersede community consensus, and this section is an attempt to resolve the issue, so that we would not rely on some iindividual common sense, which otherwise is called "iLikeIt". Laudak (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You will no doubt now provide the link in which I have refernced "common sense" - for example in the closing of the above MFD - otherwise I can't see why you single me out. Stump up the verifiable evidence you seem so keen on Laudak.Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" item refers to the remark of Garion96, please pay attention to talk threading. I am singling you out only for your quite derisive tone. Please tone down both on insults and irony. If you want me to provide a link, please say it plainly, without snickering. Yes I am keen on "verifiable evidence" and proud of that. If you look into my user page you will see quite a few seemingly nonsense articles I created, such as or "cigarette case" or "cigar box", nevertheless based on "verifiable evidence" Laudak (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I want you to provide a link where I have referenced common sense. Is that clear enough? If you cannot supply the link will you redact your comments? Pedro :  Chat  00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Scott has a point that we can't label "Mr XYZ" who edited as "User:ABC" as dead without some support. But equally I can't see our WP:OR and WP:RS mainspace policies apply so strictly. Surely best endeavour is sufficent here? Has anyone actually contacted Mike Godwin or the WMF about this? In the example above of Jeffpw we had confirmation via Checkuser and personal email from several long standing editors. It wouldn't stand up to mainspace I agree but so what? If I state on my user page what I do for a living, what my religion is and how may kids I have must I add a good reference? Pedro :  Chat  23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In your user page you may state all what you want about you, within reasonable bounds outlined in WP:USER. Laudak (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Laudak, I know I'm starting to sound like a stuck record, but I really would appreciate it if you read some stuff before commenting. Your inexperience is not helping you. No-one "owns" their userpage or any subspace. Anyone can contribute to it. Good manners says we don't edit another editors user pages but that's it. Jeffpw died - and this was verified by evidence frankly more reliable than a great many "reliable sources" we use for mainspace BLP stuff. But it was Original Research within a Wikipedia context. So, some simple facts;

• (1) The user who edited as Jeffpw died
• (2) This death was confirmed to a verifiable standard arguably far higher than many other "sources" we regularly use
• (3) No-one "owns" their user space
• (4) Any editor not specifically banned or under editing restrictions may edit anywhere except for protected areas (such as the WM interface)
• (5) There is no policy prohibiting memorial pages that are not in the article namespace
• (6) You can't libel the dead

So you point is what, exactly? Pedro :  Chat  00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, I am tired to pointing out our blatant disrespect. I will no longer tolerate it. This is my last answer.

• (1) Assume you are right.
• (2) then please provide the requested reference without revert warring
• (3) Where did I say otherwise?
• (4) Yes they may, as long as it contributes the overall task of creating wikipedia, which is specifically explained in policies about talk pages. In your user page you are allowed to put reasonable personal information, to the extent it profits the goals of wikipedia. For example, you cannot advertise your products or post galleries of your girlfriends there, you cannot post essays about your family descending from Capetings, etc.
• (5) Did I say otherwise? Wikipedia does not have policies for every mouseclick. That's why we all are talking in all these policy-related talk pages.
• (6) Oh yes you can, and you can be sued your pants off.

Good bye, I see no further sense in bickering with a person who likes to speak from the position of superiority and disrespect. Let some other people speak to the core topic. Laudak (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, well my post above part agreeing with Scott was trying to get this back on track. And in answer to 6. No, you're wrong. Pedro :  Chat  00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(6) He-he, actually you have to remember that (a) USA is not the whole world and (b) google is your best friend (after wikipedia of course :-). Correct answer: it depends. - 7-bubёn >t 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please stop with the "you can't libel the dead" crap. Maybe you can't, but that's beside the point. There are two problems here: 1) if the entry is unverified then the fact that the real-life person has died is unverified, so you may be talking about the living. Secondly, libel is not the only concern - embarrassing a real person, causing stress, etc to them or their families are also part of "do no harm".--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I wasn't aware of this page and I'm not sure its entirely appropriate for Wikipedia, precisely because of the verifiability issues. The whole way WP works is that online identities cannot normally be (reliably) connected with offline identities. Obviously there will be exceptions, eg WP:RS claims that X edited as User Y; and parts of the community may for various reasons be certain that User Y is person X. That still leaves an uncomfortable verifiability gap for a key B(x)LP issue, for a WP project page which serves no purpose in furthering the aims of the project (unless anyone wants to claim it is a sort of Hall of Fame which people want to get on when they die...). (In fact isn't it possible that people will be added to it who actively didn't want their offline/online identity publicised?) I'd say ditch the page, or failing that, err on the side of caution, qualifying all claims that aren't pretty rock-solid WP:RS-sourced. Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Plus, how many readers coming across the page will fully understand the meaning of the fact that it's not an article? Most will de facto treat it as if it is. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the people who previously brought Deceased Wikipedians up for a MfD--where the community decided to keep Deceased Wikipedians--now bring this issue up here without informing people about this discussion. This is not an issue for BLP. As it states on the page, people have to provide information referenced info about the deceased individuals. This page is an important part of the Wikipedia community.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the devil --- and he appears. I did nominate JeffPW and Deceased Wikipedians for deletion. Again, Per WP:NOT which explicity states Wikipedia is not a memorial. I got a rapid (5 minute) closure on both nominations and a 3rr notice on my page for contesting. I haven't re-nominated either page because it's clear to me that the community wishes to keep both pages, despite both being against policy. Hey, I respect the consensus and will abide. However, I will suggest that the community then change the line or lines in WP:NOT#MEMORIAL to reflect this consensus. That way, this never happens again. It will be a matter of policy and therefore, beyond refute for anyone. As it stands now, it is now. — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Emil Petkov definitely was a real and very respected editor in the Bulgarian Wikipedia who died some time ago. I hereby testify that this is not a hoax. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy

I removed a single sentence that implied Senator Leahy may have caused someone to die. While a source was cited, there was no context given to the allegation. I left a note on the talk page requesting more information to put this statement into context. The inflammatory line has been re-inserted into the article, and the only comment left on the talk page was:

All the context is provided in the source. CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An accusation of manslaughter, without any explanation of the circumstances, doesn't seem like an appropriate entry in a BLP. Am I correct in my evaluation? Advice welcome, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on this one. The whole article needs a lot of work, though... Poorly sourced, not well formatted or organized, looks like a good chunk of it is written by people on his staff (which, even if not true, means the point of view is not neutral) etc. Avruch ^T 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong agree. The style of the article is not "conservative", as BLP requires for living people and as WP:LTRD strongly suggests for dead people. Insinuations have no place in an article of this type (or any article for that matter, but they are particularly bad on BLPs). Physchim62 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no accusation of manslaughter here. The text is all well sourced and written in an NPOV way. CENSEI (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In my country, causing the death of a person through negligence is often called manslaughter. Regardless of what you prefer to call it, it is still a serious charge to make against another person and should not be done lightly. Your reluctance to provide context to the charge has me concerned. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE:

I have removed the following vague insinuation 3 times now:

There is a possibility that a leak of his led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt.

CENSEI has now changed the insinuation to an actual manslaughter charge, and cited a 1987 Los Angeles Times article as a source:

During a 1985 interview with ABC News, Leahy revealed a top-secret intercept between the individuals responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking. This information was used to capture the hijackers and according to intelligence officials the leak led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt who was responsible for the intercept.

I checked the sources, and they do not support the content CENSEI is attempting to repeatedly inject into this BLP article. Quite the contrary, the LA Times source clearly states Lt. Col. Oliver L. North "was subsequently named by Newsweek as the leaker of information on the Achille Lauro hijacking." Someone is playing fast and loose with the facts here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is Newsweek's claim, specificaly that North released the information, and there is much more to the times story than you are quoting here if you even looked at it at all considering its not on the web. If you want to reproduce snippets of the source, please do so with the full context and dont be deceptive about it. CENSEI (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3 page LA Times article cited by you says nothing to indicate Leahy had anything to do with the Achille Lauro incident, leaked information about that incident or the death of anyone. If you disagree, please quote the text here from that article that you feel supports your edit. Until then, please refrain from inserting that information. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how else to say this other than you are deliberately lying, so I will allw someone else to independently verify this. CENSEI (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You cited the LA Times article as your source connecting Leahy to Achille Lauro leaks and people dying because of it. I asked you to provide context, and you evaded. I asked you to quote your source, and you told me to look it up for myself, evading again. I called your bluff and looked it up, and found your source blames Oliver North, and not Patrick Leahy as you claimed. This would have been a good time to just admit your mistake and let this issue close. Instead, you say I am "deliberately lying," while continuing to avoid simply quoting your source here in support of your edits? Wait just a minute, I'm being punked, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs some work. Leahy's leak to a tv network was a notorious scandal at the time, and has been mentioned in several books. There is surely an NPOV/BLP-compliant way to mention it. CENSEI, can you please provide a better cite for your claim that the leak is connected to a death of an agent? I hadn't heard that before. THF (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The leak to which you refer, and which is already covered in the Leahy article, is a seperate and unrelated matter. There is already a paragraph on it in the article, with this as a source. Please don't confuse that well-publicized leak with the actual problem here. CENSEI is trying to insert information about completely different leaks involving the Achille Lauro and dead agents; events even his sources attribute to Oliver North and not Patrick Leahy. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Amity Shlaes

Resolved

 – Protected

• Amity Shlaes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need more eyes on this, as there is an editor or two (or perhaps the same one) fighting to include blog criticism and original research through quote-mining. Current version merely violates NPOV. THF (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lou Pearlman

After I recently removed some defamatory, poorly-sourced and irrelevant information about someone else from Lou Pearlman, WeatherFug (talk · contribs) sent me this somewhat unfriendly note declaring he had reverted and challenging my removal (which I have since reverted myself).

The talk page indicates that this user has a history of this sort of behavior and other editors cannot assume good faith. WeatherFug's edit history shows a heavy focus on Pearlman and related subjects (Backstreet Boys, etc.) Seems like this situation has been going on for a long time; it's time there were some more administrative eyes on the page and this user. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that material is indeed irrelevant, even if they were closer associates than the material currently says, and Weatherfug may need reminding of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is troubling. I've just removed a screed of troubling stuff (poor sources, POV conclusions) from Les Henderson. Indeed, I suspect the article itself is a coatrack, and may not meet our notability criteria. Any opinions?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Henderson does have notability issues. Suggest AFD. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

He's digging in here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

In reviewing this further, I looked at WeatherFug's earlier edit history. He doesn't edit like a newbie when he starts out, and I wondered if he might be a sock.

I found the possible puppetmaster in the article's history: SooperJoo (talk · contribs), who edited many of the same articles (and has been accused himself of being Henderson) until he stopped editing last May (a few months after WeatherFug began, and has made similar edits. As soon as I can get the evidence together, I'm going to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't puppetry if SooperJoo has stopped editing and the account has no blocks. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, not actionable. But judging by SooperJoo's talk page I sort of wonder if this was an effort to make a not-so-clean start under a new name and thus eliminate the record of BLP warnings the former account had received while continuing to make the same edits. It's an effort to stay within the letter of WP:SOCK while violating its spirit, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein

There are some [WP:BLP]] violations going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Klein, including calling the subject an "idiot" ([17] and [18]). I removed the offending comments but they were reinserted. I removed it again. Am I doing the right thing? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"idiot" is opinion, rather than a literal claim of mental retardation. Not worth edit-warring over. THF (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment is a reference to a couple comments above mine referring to his "idiocy." All I said was "doesn't matter if he's an idiot. He is notable." You, brewcrewer, have no business refactoring my comments. Landon1980 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanked for a couple "idiots"...that's rather pathetic. Grsz¹¹ 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind WP:CIVIL, please. THF (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight needed, BLP/privacy/inappropriate treatment of child by vandal

In the article Nina Mercedez, in the last line of the awards section, some malicious creature using an IP address has harassed an actual, living junior high school student by identifying him as the child of a porn actress. The child is real or at least his name appears in the junior high school newspaper. This garbage has been sitting untouched in the article long enough to be scraped by Google. I will remove the statement now but it should expunged from the history as soon as someone can. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack page: Angel Taormina

• Angel Taormina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Created by SPA Angelo Giardini-Naxos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a subtle attack page on a non-notable 19 year old singer/film maker who at one point had a video on YouTube, since withdrawn by her management. Article made exaggerated and spurious claims about the subject in an attempt to ridicule her.[19] Note that creator has chosen a user name is very similar to hers (Angelo = Angel in Italian; Giardini Naxos = village near Taormina). It's now at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Taormina). Editors including her management, Officemailrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have removed the claims, but Angelo Giardini-Naxos continues to re-add them, e.g. [20]. AFD has 4 days left to run. Management supports deletion. Can we please have an adminstrator take a look at this ASAP? Voceditenore (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD early given the troubling circumstances. Consensus is for deletion and it is clear that Ms Taormina does not meet our notability guidelines. The article is deleted and salted, I will courtesy blank the discussion page as requested after 24 hours. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Myerson

Needs checking for bias, although good sources are used. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction was to remove the family section as intrusive and tabloid fit. But given his wife wrote a book about it, and there was some media discussion, I think it is probably OK. See Julie Myerson.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See this article from Tuesday's Guardian, by Myerson himself. A bunch of nonsense about cannabis in my opinion, but in any case he has unquestionably made his family fair game for coverage. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's covered in all of the top tier papers,so sourcing is not going to be a problem and the story is likely to rumble on in the media pages for a few weeks yet. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

marcus evans

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

Can we bring to the attention of the wiki editors that malicious and unsubtantiated personel and company details are regularly being posted on this article which contravene the biogs of living person policies. we would ask the editors to strike the history of these edits and strike the user from this article. This is also affecting the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmewi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now semi-protected against determined POV pusher. Pls watchlist, I think we've not heard the last of this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles W. Freeman, Jr.

We need to keep an eye on the biography of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who has been the victim of a recent online smear campaign in the blogosphere, which cost him a job. He's mentioned in WaPo today complaining about libel as well.[21] Our article contains a great deal of WP:Original Research cherry picking quotes from his speeches, etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be fun, NOT. Good luck. I did minor copy edit to the lead, but the controversay section is huge, imho. Anyways, --Tom 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got rid of the controversy section, putting a 1-para summary in the career section and moving some bits to Views. However Views still seems a bit WP:COATRACK. Somebody else's eyes, and maybe edits, would help. Rd232 ^talk 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments please at Charles W. Freeman, Jr. as my edits have been undone. Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

West Memphis 3

• Detroitwheel (talk · contribs)
• West Memphis 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned by Detroidwheel's edits to the article which he have introduced many times now (diff). I'm not really sure what to say about them or what his goals are, but at the very least is seems he's removing sourced material and adding unsourced and unencyclopedic material... I was hoping to get some though on what should be done about it? --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobbi Miller-Moro

I came across this auto-biography (self-confessed) some days ago and did a large pruning of POV and self-sourced (i.e., "facts" that are cited from the subject's own writings about herself) material. Now, of course, she feels I've been unreasonable and wants it all back, and then some (see my talk page, where she seems to be comparing herself to Maya Angelou). I am starting to wonder whether this article has any justification to remain in Wikipedia at all -- her books are self-published, her career achievements are largely self-proclaimed, she arrogates credit to herself that is elsewhere cited as entirely her husband's work, she's been scrapping elsewhere about a film project that is completely WP:NFF, etc. I think my emotions have been involved and I wonder if I could trouble an impartial third party to assess the article, examine the references, and do what they think is appropriate. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out her husbands bio, its a whooper to :) Tom 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:People with OCD

Resolved

User:Tiramisoo seems to filling up Category:People with OCD quite quickly and in a manner I cannot figure out. Right now, he's added Roseanne Barr and Justin Timberlake among others so does anyone know whether there is some standard about when to include living people into categories like that? Shouldn't it be self-described with a reliable source? Note that there is another discussion about User:Tiramisoo's conduct in general at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Category is red? Hopefully it got nuked. Can this be marked resolved or are the embers still hot? TIA --Tom 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)ps I marked it resolved for now :) --Tom 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

michael steele

User is deleting well-cite notable material on Michael Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without specific explanation. 97.117.120.83 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 12, 2009, GQ published an interview in which Steele said abortion is "absolutely... an individual choice" to be decided at the state level. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, the Christian Coalition[22], and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council have all issued statements attacking Steele's remarks[23]. Social conservatives also accuse Steele of having "broke a different pledge... a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage despite a promise that he'd support it if elected RNC chair"[24].

In another interview with conservative Cal Thomas Steele compared some Republican leaders of Congress to "mice" who are "scurrying" because they no longer have access to "cheese", when he lowered the amount of direct RNC campaign contributions to their re-election committees and they reacted with anger[25].

Hot of the presses? Maybe wait a few days to see what the deal is here and how big a deal this is? Tom 23:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm in favor of pushing the news of the moment, but it's worth noting that this is currently looking like a top headline story tomorrow. Looie496 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How big a deal will this "material" be in 6 days, yet alone 6 months? Anyways, --Tom 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of children that lent their name to something

The owner of the AT&L Railroad named it after his three grandsons, Austin, Todd and Ladd. There shouldn't be a problem with noting their first names in the article on the railroad, with a reliable source (Kalmbach's American Shortline Railway Guide), right? I only ask because it's not necessarily widely known; a 2007 Daily Oklahoman article doesn't mention it, for instance. --NE2 07:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If the owner isn't trying to conceal the names, and there is a reliable secondary source then I don't think there would be a problem even if it's not published in many sources. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as just include the information above. Physchim62 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama conspiracy theories, again

A small move-war has erupted out over the title of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I've moved it to what I think is a more descriptive, and less BLP-volatile title, which has a rough-but-not-perfect consensus, but it's disputed. I'd like some input on whether the old title had a BLP problem or not, because no-one's explained to me why it doesn't yet. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I find this board to be well watched and a good place to get more eyes involved, but is this truely the right board for this "issue"? Usually it seems that we deal with bios and not these "sub" article "issues" ect. Anyways, good luck on a not easy "topic", cheers, --Tom 14:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind of see this board as to deal with all BLP issues, not just about biographies. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it is also being discussed at ANI. Anyways, --Tom 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the ANI discussion has been concluded with the move-protection I performed, that's all there was in terms of immediate admin attention. The content issue can well be discussed here. I'll just say that if any admin comes to the conclusion, on weighing the arguments, that there is substantial support by not just a single person for the view that the present title is a BLP problem, I will of course have no objections against them overturning my protection. Although I'm not seeing the discussion going that way right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre is right, this board is for dealing with all BLP issues whatever articles they occur in. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ralph E. Reed, Jr.

The article has so much negative stuff, but it seems to be true stuff. Could an admin glance over the article? ThanksRich (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that it's rather long for someone of his importance, with the length coming from excessive detail. IMO some of the details should be cut down and summarised. Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

So do you think all the information that seems so negative is sourced ok and presented fairly? If so, should we take down the pov tag i put on it last night? Thanks, Rich (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hannes Vanaküla

• Hannes Vanaküla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

The problem is that there are violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP) in Hannes Vanaküla.

I have had a debate with other editors for a long time now, but the article, which unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla, is still unchanged. They haven't agreed with my edits and as one of them, user Verbal (talk) answered me in edit discussion: "If you think there is a BLP issue, take it to WP:BLPN..."[26], I had to come here.

I can not comment violations in a way they could be easily traceable through diffs here, because only few diffs, which reflect single violations exist and the rules of this noticeboard do not allow me to copy and paste any defamatory or libellous information to this noticeboard to comment violations. Just in case I bring out that a diff, which reflects all the violations exists.

So I give You the link to the more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article.

My more detailed description about the violations of policies in the article is situated here on the talk page of the article Hannes Vanaküla under the section Violations of Policies. // WorldReporter (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The user Digwuren (talk), the author of the liebel in the article, didn't let me to remove the violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP) from the article (see diff), (see diff), (see diff) and he hasn't removed these violations from the article. His vandalism has become greater WP:VANDAL as he continues to delete the "Blpdispute" template from the article (see diff), (see diff) and he lies in his edit summaries. With removing the "Blpdispute" template he automatically removes the article from the Category:Disputed biographies of living persons where it belongs as the article is blpdisputed. Another vandalism of his: He continues to add Hannes Vanaküla into Category:Conspiracy theorists (see diff) despite the fact that there is not said that Hannes Vanaküla is a conspiracy theorist in media nor in self-published sources of Hannes Vanaküla - the classification "Conspiracy theorist" is Digwuren’s (talk) personal opinion and doesn't belong to Wikipedia by the rules of Wikipedia WP:BLPWP:NOR. I informed him about this in discussion here (see discussion), but he continues to add it. // WorldReporter (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

All the sources are in Estonian, so it's pretty much impossible for non-Estonian-speakers to help out. If you think more eyes are needed, possibly your best bet would be to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia.

Why do You say it is pretty much impossible for non-Estonian-speakers to help out here?

At least in case of violations of WP:NOR and WP:RS, WP:NPOV and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP), which I have poined out, it is very easy for administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to supervise if there exist these violations. For example, to see that there are no references with sources at all in many places of violations. I suspect that You have some connections with the author of the liebel in this article and You want only Estonian-speakers to deal with my complaint.

I believed You in the first place and asked for help in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia, but after analysis I am afraid that i do not get professional help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia as I know that the main author of the liebel in the article is Digwuren (talk) who has an Estonian star [27] and has got warm relations with WikiProject Estonia. He is one of the participants there [28] and there are only 42 participants [29].

Sorry if I mistake but I suspect some corruption in case of You. WorldReporter (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Hannes Vanaküla. I made my suggestion after looking at the article and realizing that I could not possibly understand how well-supported the statements are. I have worked on enough Wikipedia articles to know that it is very difficult to tell what material a reference applies to if you can't read the reference. Even if I believe things, I can never have confidence in them. My honest opinion is that articles without English references don't even belong in wikipedia.en, because they are so difficult to verify -- but that is a minority view. Looie496 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I request the administrators of this noticeboard to delete the article

The reasons for this are:

1. The article violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP), but other editors have reverted and rejected my edits.

2. As there are no sources in English it is impossible for administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to verify all the violations.

3. It has been called in question can I get professional help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia as the main author of the liebel in the article is Digwuren (talk) who has an Estonian star [30] and has got warm relations with WikiProject Estonia. He is one of the participants there [31] and there are only 42 participants [32].

4. There are enough violations, which can be verified by administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to be convinced that the article unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla. WorldReporter (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich

This article is being used as a political football, with each side trying to kick it over to the way they want it. I've tried to create a neutral version, but the more eyes are on it the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I listed this at WP:BLPN several days ago, and nothing got done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen

I have had edits reverted by Kim D. Petersen whilst I was trying to remove biasing & irrelevant material against the atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen who believes that 'global warming' is not being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In the talk page he has just conceded that he has 'perhaps' given 'undue weight' to this material that I say is irrelevant (as have plenty of other editors) but he insists on including the material anyway. This editor has a well-known history of bias on climate change and spends a great deal of time ensuring that climate change articles in general conform with his POV. I need help in getting him to desist. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Richard Lindzen article does have elements of WP:COATRACK, and some of the claims are unsourced. There is far too much quotation. And the article structure is awful. I'm going to try and edit the article a bit. Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments referred to this version, I've now edited it to this. Let's see reactions. Rd232 ^talk 01:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A great improvement. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232's changes changed the structure, and did improve readability & style, but the biased material and obvious, undeniable violations of the BLP policies remain. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Mason

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

This gentleman, a pilot, is undertaking action at an employment tribunal in an attempt to get his job back. Various comments, which imply incompetence on the part of Captain Mason, have appeared and are not supported by the sources quoted, therefore this article could be considered libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.149.211 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the sourcing of the contentious claims. Since the tribunal issue is a breach of security procedure and the contentious claim is about actual flying, I'm not sure how relevant they are to each other. However the RAF report is a primary source and there's an element of WP:SYNTHESIS. Other views? Rd232 ^talk 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

More fundamentally, I'm not sure if he's notable enough for his career, and the notability for him of the MyTravel incident would fall under WP:ONEEVENT. (The article seems to have been created in response to that incident.) AFD? Rd232 ^talk 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Carl Donnelly

This article looks like it is urgent need of attention. As an only occasional editor, I don't have time to sort it out myself - could someone here and more experienced take it on? Chrislintott (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just libellous vandalism, reverted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Wilson (actor)

• Patrick Wilson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:MFronsdorf has repeatedly added a claim (with a {{fact}} tag) that Patrick Wilson is the nephew of Chevy Chase. I'll go 3RR if I revert again. I don't know whether it's true - though Google and GNews yield no evidence that it might, and I'd expect to see something if it were - but per WP:BURDEN I assume the contributing editor must prove the assertion before the addition can stand. Honestly, I think Wilson's Dan Dreiberg glasses in Watchmen have an awful lot to answer for... // Gonzonoir (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, MFronsdorf says he's checking out the reference in an offline source, but I've been assuming the claim should be removed until verification is forthcoming. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone following along at home may be interested in the sockpuppet investigation into the users behind these edits. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This has kicked off again today, and once again I can't revert without breaking 3RR (I don't think this qualifies as obvious vandalism, though I do think it's against policy to add this unsourced material). Could I have some help over there? Am I taking the right approach? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Geoffreys

• Stephen Geoffreys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd like some input on the reliability of the claims and the sources used in this sequence of edits to Stephen Geoffreys. There's been plenty of internet scuttlebutt about this actor's alleged secondary career in adult movies, so it keeps turning up in the article, but this appears to be an attempt to put things on a firmer footing – I'm just not sure whether it's successful or not. // 62.169.157.184 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources should be better. I actually perfer 5 x 8 color glossies but always get shot down on that point. If there are reliable sources and not blogs or the inmd or whatever the hell that site is then maybe take to talk page. I have removed the "material" for now. Thabks for the heads up. --Tom 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Weatherman (organization) BLP issues?

• Comment From the above articles, there is a short and well sourced paragraph of a current event that editor Wikidemon keeps deleting;

On February 24, 2009, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” that establish how Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, are responsible for the bombing of a San Francisco police station in 1970 that killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell, a 20-year veteran of the department. The San Francisco Police Department’s Park Station was bombed Feb. 16, 1970, killing Sgt. Brian McDonnell. Eight other officers were injured. McDonnell died two days after the bombing. The case has yet to be solved.

This above text is not an accusation; the closing states that "The case has yet to be solved." This is a neutrally worded text of an event verified by mainstream media. For more info, please see;

Fox News' article Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing, PR Newswire's article Attorney General Urged to Investigate Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn by Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, Accuracy in Media's article Bernadette Dohrn, Bill Ayers and the bomb that killed a cop, and Chicagoland's Television's article San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers are a few good examples of this current event. This event, involving San Francisco Police Officers Association and Bill Ayers has been well noted by multiple reliable sources that have verified its notability. As such the section should be not be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit problematic given the seriousness of the allegation and the weakness of the evidence. A good start would be to avoid pasting this all over the place wherever it seems relevant. There's an article specifically on this bombing (San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing). Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have noted this information on the page noted above. Also, I acknowledge that this is serious information for a BLP, though due to the degree of coverage by mainstream media concerning this accusation - it is more than appropriate to state that this accusation was made and that the subject is one that is ongoing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, but I have to point out that PR Newswire is, as the name implied, a press release service and therefore not a reliable source. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PR Newswire is a reliable source for conveying its clients' news releases. News organizations consider it reliable for that. If the information that comes via PR Newswire is meant to convey what the client organization's opinion is about something, then it's acceptable for Wikipedia to use that source to report on the fact that an opinion is held/stated by a certain group. Obviously it wouldn't be reliable as a source of any other facts. -- Noroton (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The PR Newswire article is not used in the text above. Please do not let it be used as a red herring. I only posted a link above as an example of one of many articles demonstrating media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No dog here either. Bill Ayers is now protected for 24 hrs to sort this out. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Although there appears to be no new evidence, the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing now says, with no source, leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association stated that there is “irrefutable and compelling reasons” - is that acceptable? dougweller (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's acceptable to the extent that the old evidence is acceptable. With the allegations again in the news, they do become more notable. -- Noroton (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The source for the statement above is Police union targets ’60s radical, from the March 12, 2009 edition of The San Francisco Examiner. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty busy today but I'll just note here, as I did at AN/I, that there seem to be 14 current google news sources on this latest thing (mostly unreliable ones,[33] your mileage may vary). This is a very old accusation, made by an FBI informant without any solid evidence. The police investigated twice, there were multiple suspects, and the crime was never resolved. This one source at least[34] suggests that the latest announcement is not a legitimate accusation, but is instead a publicity move by the Police Officers' association, part of their ineffective lobbying to have Ayers arrested. It is based on no new development or evidence (other than conservative opposition to Ayers and possibly Obama), and the article also says that the last investigation found nothing to tie Ayers to the murder. At the very least we should frame it correctly. However, when political partisans accuse people of murder there is a very high threshold regarding whether the information should be repeated at all. We've dealt with this very issue a few times before, in this specific article. As noted above, the right place to describe the newest move by the Police Officers' Association is probably the article on the murder itself. There is also an article giving a chronology of known weathermen actions, and it might make sense there to go over their suspected actions.Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether there was a crime or not is a moot point. The issue is that there have been multiple reliable sources that have commented on this current event concerning Bill Ayers being accused by the San Francisco Police Officers Association of acts against the San Francisco Police Department. Although one may disagree with them, these reportings by reliable sources exist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is a threshold for inclusion - it is not the only policy that applies. This is a WP:BLP issue, not a question of verifying that this particular organization made this particular statement (although to be fair, one would have to follow the sources to explain it as a rehash of an old accusation rather than a new claim). Wikidemon (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you point to the specific part of WP:BLP that disallows us from stating what reliable sources state: That there is a very longstanding allegation of murder against someone who has a proven violent history of leading an organization that has been widely acknowledged to have been a terrorist organization. Under these circumstances, an allegation of murder is not a BLP violation under any reasonable interpretation of BLP. There is NO WP:BLP passage that I'm aware of that prevents us from reporting this.

Wikipedia does not, in fact, refrain from reporting on allegations of murder in all cases. It depends on the circumstances. This paragraph, from Benazir Bhutto is full of allegations of murder, widely publicized:

Al-Qaeda commander Mustafa Abu al-Yazid claimed responsibility for the attack, describing Bhutto as "the most precious American asset." The Pakistani government also stated that it had proof that al-Qaeda was behind the assassination. A report for CNN stated: "the Interior Ministry also earlier told Pakistan's Geo TV that the suicide bomber belonged to Lashkar i Jhangvi—an al-Qaeda-linked militant group that the government has blamed for hundreds of killings". The government of Pakistan claimed Baitullah Mehsud was the mastermind behind the assassination. Lashkar i Jhangvi, a Wahabi Muslim extremist organization affiliated with al-Qaeda that also attempted in 1999 to assassinate former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, is alleged to have been responsible for the killing of the 54-year-old Bhutto along with approximately 20 bystanders, however this is vigorously disputed by the Bhutto family, by the PPP that Bhutto had headed and by Baitullah Mehsud. On 3 January 2008, President Musharraf officially denied participating in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as well as failing to provide her proper security.

When people who are widely considered terrorists, such as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid and Baitullah Mehsud are accused of murder, it's in the interests of Wikipedia and its readers that we say what reliable sources are saying -- that the allegation is out there. Protecting former terrorists Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers (and it isn't a BLP violation to call them former terrorists -- proof in the RfC I linked to earlier) or al-Yazid and Mehsud from what reliable sources say is not in the best interests of Wikipedia or its readers. These four are public figures who are famous because they are acknowledged leaders of present or past terrorist groups. It should not matter that this might mean someone would find a reason to criticize Barack Obama for working with Ayers many years later. We're here to serve our readers in a nonpartisan way. -- Noroton (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The material quoted from published books, one of them going back 30 years, shows detailed accusations against Ayers and Dohrn from sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS: Talk:Bill Ayers/Archive 2#Ayers and violence. Numerous reliable sources have reported the allegations against these former leaders of the Weatherman terrorist group. Policy, common sense and the facts all point in the same direction. -- Noroton (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond in substance - Noroton was a long-term tendentious editor trying to disparage Barack Obama last year, and got into trouble for acting on a personal vendetta against me. If you can't participate without resorting to personal attacks again, please avoid it.Wikidemon (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to respond in substance. You have never responded to the substance. Noroton was a long-term tendentious editor trying to disparage Barack Obama last year I have a record of NOT favoring one political philosophy or ideology over another in my edits. I have a record of including positive information about Obama in articles. Anyone interested in comparing our records would see that I've focused on informing readers with facts, regardless of whether the facts hurt or helped a particular cause or candidate, while your arguments and actions have been focused on protecting Obama and, by extension, Ayers, Dohrn and Weatherman. This naturally brought us into opposition over these topics. We approach them with ultimate concerns that are different. Noroton was a long-term tendentious editor [...] If you can't participate without resorting to personal attacks, please avoid it. Your hypocrisy is showing. They weren't personal attacks, but provided background information to past discussions useful for anyone considering this issue. I've made my point about you (a side issue; but one with necessary background), and you've helpfully illustrated it. I did not get into trouble for acting on a personal vendetta against you but for making intemperate statements concerning you. I've said nothing I can't back up with diffs. I'm happy to get back to the direct subject so as not to distract anyone reading this from the fact that your argument continues to be weak. -- Noroton (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The statements above, deleted by Wikidemon, are backed by reliable sources, and are stated in a neutral way. Wikidemon has yet to show how any BLP violation ever occured here, in any way. The above articles (Ayers, Dohrm, and the Weatherman) are not about non notable subjects, they are about subjects envolved in bombing campaigns - directly or indirectly. Their past actions, and comments on them by reliable sources, can not be whitewashed away out of Wikipedia. Just because multiple reliable sources have commented on the violent nature of the three subjects above, does not mean that they are violating BLP. The material deleted by Wikidemon is worded neutral and verified by reliable sources - it should not be deleted (especially without any good reason provided). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• For more information, please see;

San Francisco Chronicle - S.F. police union accuses Ayers in 1970 bombing

The Politico - Group puts Ayers back in spotlight

Fox News - Report: Police Union Accuses Ayers in Deadly 1970 San Francisco Bombing

WorldNetDaily - [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91546 Cold case: Will Ayers be brought to justice?]

Fox Business - San Francisco Police Officers' Association Supports Effort to Bring Charges in 1970 Bombing Case

FrontPage Magazine - A Murder Revisited

KGO-TV - Union accuses Ayers of 1970 bombing

The San Francisco Examiner - Police union targets ’60s radical

Chicago Tribune - San Francisco cops target Bill Ayers

Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the question is not whether a highly politicized organization accused someone of murder, but whether we will repeat the unfounded accusation. Wikidemon (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This information Wikidemon deleted described a widely publicized event - as shown by multiple reliable sources above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Widely publicized by reliable sources is not the sole criteria for including outlandish statements about living people. For example neither the Dick Cheney article nor the Seymour Hersh articles mention allegations Seymour made that an executive assassination ring existed in the previous administration and reported to directly to Dick . TharsHammar (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The statements made by the San Francisco Police Officers Association concern the death of one of their officers. Their public position on the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing is notable as this event has been the subject of multiple reliable sources. This is a well sourced notable event that should be documented appropriately, not deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Many BLPs have far less substantially sourced material in them. The people involved are notable (no issue). The group making the allegation is notable (no issue). The allegations are puvblished in a number of reliable sources (no issue). The only basis would be that the accusation is so far out that the people making the allegation should not be believed (a value judgement which WP guidelines suggest is not in our scope). Since the people involved clearly have reputations consistent with the allegations (anyone demur?), asserting that this particular one is "outlandish" fails. Collect (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Our standard for accusing someone of murder here in the encyclopedia isn't "not outlandish". BLP rests on two pillars: avoiding committing libel, and avoiding harm to living people. Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. What the reliable sources say is that an advocacy group sought to publicize an old murder allegation for political purposes. As has been commented, we need to be very careful and not plaster this, uncritically, in articles throughout the encyclopedia. The claim remains in the article about the police station bombing, so it is misleading to say that it's deleted from the encyclopedia. But if it's going to be here, it needs to be faithful to the sources and not mislead the reader into giving it any special credibility. The claim originates from a single source back in 1970, a man who Ayers calls a paid liar, who says he infiltrated the Weather Underground as an informant and heard Ayers talking about the murder in a way that convinced him that Ayers and Dohrn had carried it out. The informant is now working for an advocacy group, Amera's Survival, Inc., that has disparaging Barack Obama with a laundry list of Obama conspiracy theories - Obama attended a madrasa, Obama is a communist, Obama is a socialist, Obama likes terrorists, Obama was not born in America, Obama is anti-American, etc. The group sought the cooperation of the SF police union in connection with a press conference calling for Ayers' arrest. The union is itself operates outside of the mainstream of SF politics, and frequently attempts to discredit individuals who the union sees as adverse to the interests of oficers, e.g. those who want to expose police corruption or misconduct. Their position statement, if you can call it that, is based entirely on the America's Survival employee's claim, not any new evidence or analysis. The paper reports that this was an unexpected move because investigators have found no evidence linking Ayers to the murder. So the matter is basically a trumped up press release. Edit warring this questionable material simultaneously into five articles at last count is not constructive editing of the encyclopedia - Wikidemon (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeating poorly founded murder allegations certainly causes harm, and the entire point is to cause harm - to Obama, by bashing Ayers again. This sounds like a personal attack or could be interpreted that way. Why not remove it? -- Noroton (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC) -- I've refactored this comment but left it in. If Wikidemon will remove or reword his comment so that it isn't a personal attack, feel free to remove this comment as well, or I will. I've removed this comment from hiding because it is not a personal attack or uncivil. -- Noroton (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It reports an allegation, and reports it as an allegation. And the issue is not whether it belongs in the Obama article, but whether it belongs in the appropriate articles indicated. Further, last I checked, such issues belong on the talk pages appropriate to the issue. It is not for us to determine whether anyone is a "paid liar" for sure. As for your charge of "edit warring" it appears to me that the purpose of asking here is to make "edit war" an inapt term. As for saying "someone is pushing everything under the sun at Obama" - that is joyfully itrrelevant to the issue at hand, and all we deal wth is the issue at hand. Is reporting an allegation, attributed as an allegation, improper? Nope. Collect (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Come again? The discussion is consolidated here. Edit warring BLP vios out of the encyclopedia is encouraged by BLP policy. Edit warring BLP vios in to the encyclopedia is a conduct issue that can lead to administrative action, and has in this case. The matter was referred here from WP:AN/I after three of the five articles were protected - the edit war continued on a fourth article that was not protected. There is no proposal to call the police informant a "paid liar" but rather a proposal to repeat in five different articles his allegation of murder against Bill Ayers, something that is being revived as part of the anti-Obama smear effort. Part of that smear effort made its way to the Obama page and the press with the whole Aaron Klein affair. Another part of that effort is to publicize the old murder claim against Obama. The Chronicle article reports this as a rehash of old material by partisans for political purposes, not a legitimate new allegation. The Wikipedia article reported it as a legitimate-sounding allegation. Wikidemon (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reposting from AN/I)

These are members of a police union, in conjunction with a partisan organization called "America's Survival Inc."speaking out about their personal opinion of the matter, rather than the result of an official law enforcement investigation. If you ("you" being anyone who is pro-inclusion) actually read some of the links above (apart from WND and FrontPageMag, which do not meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria), no one has ever been charged in the death of Sgt. Young. The articles also state that there is no evidence to connect Ayers, or anyone, to any of this.

This isn't an issue of reliable sourcing at all. It is an issue of whether or not the personal opinions of private citizens in regards to Ayers being responsible for a murder are fit to be included in the Wikipedia. IMO, any sane and sensible reading of WP:BLP policy would find that it is wholly unfit for inclusion. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The San Francisco Police Officers Association public position on the San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing is notable. Their position has been widely covered as the subject of multiple reliable sources. This is a well sourced notable event that should be documented appropriately, not deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarc crystalizes my objection. What is well sourced is that a fringe anti-Obama group solicited and got an expression of support from a local union for purposes of a press conference and press release. We have to be very careful about the constant manufacture of anti-Obama news by fringe and conservative press events. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it should be coatracked into every article under the sun. It has to be relevant and significant enough to add to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. It does not increase the reader's understanding of Dohrn, Ayers, or the Weatherman, that a fringe political group held a press conference. It has minor notability in connection with the event itself, and that is where the material now sits. The BLP issue is that the material in question is a murder accusation.Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Mr. Schism, enough with the strawman arguments, please. "Widely covered" and "reliable sources" are not the sole criteria when determining if material can be included in the Wikipedia. We know that these people have stated their opinion on that matter, no one is denying that fact. However, it is a case of accusing someone of a crime where there is no evidence to support the accusation, not an official body with the authority to do so making the accusation. None. If in some possible future event a district attorney unseals a grand jury indictment, or something similarly official, then it will absolutely belong in the Bill Ayers and Weathermen articles. Absent that, this cannot appear on this project, in any form. Re-read WP:BLP, and make sure you understand "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment", please. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a strawman argument for you: Because some partisan organization picked up on the allegations 39 years later, the statements of an FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, in the 1970s must be "poorly founded". The focus of the reliability of the original accusation rests with the original accuser (Ayers' accusation that he's a "paid liar" is useless for judging that), with what else we know about the accused (leaders of a terrorist group, a group which admitted they'd planned murder at Ft. Dix -- see Greenwich Village townhouse explosion) and with how widespread the coverage is of the charges (it's been reported in newspapers, magazines, television, multiple published books). It's true that there was no official prosecution of this: But it wasn't Grathwohl's fault that the FBI and prosecutors so screwed up their investigations of Weather Underground that they violated the rights of these people, various charges were thrown out, and further prosecution was considered impossible. This is where comparison to the paragraph about various assassination allegations at Benazir Bhutto, quoted above, shows that indictments aren't the only source of BLP-compliant, reliable information about accusations. What would Tarc say about the Bhutto article's treatment of a similar case? -- Noroton (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A police informant accusing someone of murder is not a reliable source. What we know about the accuser is that he claimed he was working for the FBI to infiltrate a radical organization - at a time when J Edgar Hoover war running the FBI and the FBI was repeatedly lying, fabricating, and framing dissident groups, and now he works for a fringe conservative organization. He may be telling the truth, he may not. We are not in a position to know, and his accusations lack credibility. Further, rehashing them yet again, by reporting that they were repeated by the fringe group's press release in the context of disparaging Barack Obama - in five different articles - is way over the top. The material has not been deleted. It is in the encyclopedia, now edited for balance and conformity with sources, in the article where it makes the most sense. Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not representing the relevant facts, which have come up in discussions before: Grathwohl wrote a book with his accusations against Ayers and Dohrn in it. It was published by Arlington House in 1977. In 2008, David Freddoso's New York Times bestseller, The Case Against Barack Obama was published, citing Grathwohl's testimony before a U.S. Senate committee regarding the same allegations. WP:V#Reliable sources states: In general, the most reliable sources are [...] and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Two publishing houses as well as mainstream news organizations have discussed these allegations. That's reliable sourcing. Grathwohl explains how he came to be an FBI informant -- he approached the FBI, not the other way around. He didn't even discuss payment until he was well into the undercover operation, and I can provide quotes on that from Grathwohl's book. I have seen no reliable source, and no one other than Ayers, who has questioned Grathwohl's accuracy or honesty. In fact, I've seen Grathwohl's book cited as a source in books about the Weatherman -- some books that were even sympathetic to Weatherman. That's another way of judging the reliability of a source. See: WP:RS#Usage by other sources: How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. -- Noroton (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC) -- added information -- Noroton (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inserting this information into the discussion here to back up my point that books from different perspectives have cited Grathwohl, almost always his book, as a source:

• Cathy Wilkerson, former Weatherman member (sympathetic but quite critical of the organization), in her memoir, Flying Close to the Sun (Grathwohl's book is listed in the bibliography, page 407)
• Harold Jacobs, Weatherman (1970) mentions Grathwohl quite a bit (as an alleged FBI informer), but I saw nothing in the book impugning his credibility [35]
• Jeremy Varon, Bringing the War Home (2004) cites Grathwohl's book in footnotes and lists it in the "Select Bibliography" (page 366) [36]
• Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground (1997), Bibliography (page 189) and many notes [37]
• Jon Wiener, Gimme Some Truth (2000), snarky/disparaging (page 317), but not impugning Grathwohl's credibility [38]
• Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity (very sympathetic book toward the Weatherman), page 147 [39] -- Noroton (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No way are Freddoso's election year attack book or Grathwohl's first person recollection of events reliable sources, that's a red herring. The whole issue of the claim's credibility is also a red herring - it is clearly not reliable as to its substance. The question is whether we should report, in five different articles, that an unreliable accusation of murder was repeated again in the context of a fringe conservative anti-Obama press event. What is telling is that the organization promoting this is also promoting the "Obama not born in America", "Obama is a communist", and litany of other assorted conspiracy theories. The answer is clearly no in the BLP articles on the people accused. The answer is a qualified "maybe" in the articles about the event and institutions in question. Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because some fringe group takes up something isn't itself enough to discredit it. Freddoso's book is a critical book, not an "attack" book. Please cite where the book was criticized for including the Grathwohl Senate testimony. It isn't a stretch to believe that a violence-loving group that was willing to kill people at a dance at Ft. Dix in 1970 was willing to kill cops in San Francisco within a couple of months of that episode. When Grathwohl tipped off the authorities that Weatherman was setting bombs in two places in Detroit where innocent people would be killed, cops and the FBI found the bombs where he said they'd be. Ayers, your source for discrediting Grathwohl, was directing that operation.-- Noroton (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

All this comes down to is a simple case of someone accusing someone else of complicity in a murder. Prattling on and on about your personal opinion of "FBI and prosecutors so screwed up their investigations" and such carries zero weight here. Common sense and BLP policy should be enough for someone to realize that accusation of murder without evidence or charges ever filed is potentially slanderous. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just ignoring my argument about how this is treated at the Benazir Bhutto page. When it comes to terrorists, accusations of murder are to be expected and, in any case, not automatic BLP violations, and that is totally different from "a simple case of someone accusing someone else of complicity in murder". What I said about the FBI is basically the actual history of what happened in this unusual case and after having read up on some of this, I haven't found a source that disagrees with it. I guess I assumed everyone knew what I was talking about; please read up on it. As for "prattling", now that I've removed some of my comments from this discussion, why don't you? And if you're so sure that BLP prevents any accusation of murder in an article, no matter how well-sourced and well-reported, please just cite the part of BLP that entirely rules it out. -- Noroton (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A factual statement by reliable sources speaking within the scope of their authority (as sources, if not necessarily as officials), given on a matter that is close to the heart of Ayers' reputation, is not a violation of WP:BLP. BLP does not prohibit the publication of negative information about individuals, which is a good thing if Wikipedia is to be useful for anything at all. Ray^Talk 00:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  You lost the argument at "A factual statement...", I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Don't be a smartaleck. A group possessing some authority on matters relating to crime (to understate the matter by several orders of magnitude) made an assertion of fact that goes to the heart of the subject's notability. I quote directly from WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Ism schism has more than met that bar. Ray^Talk 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Query: How come all of the people making the claim that "Allegations without charges violate BLP" aren't edit-warring to remove the allegations of insider trading and cocaine use from the George W. Bush article? THF (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Your "query" epitomizes a common logical fallacy, but if there are BLP issues at another article, then go to its talk page and discuss it, or failing that, begin a new report here. I personally do not have Bush's article on my watchlist, but a quick perusal of it right now shows no mention of cocaine use, while the blurb on insider trading stems from an official SEC investigation. So charges were brought, investigated, and dismissed, which is not the case with Ayers. So, no balls and two strikes on the Bush analogy, I'd say. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Charges weren't brought in the SEC investigation. An investigation comes before charges. And Ayers and the Weathermen were investigated for the bombing. So the analogy is quite perfect.

I don't see the logical fallacy: it's much more plausible that pipe-bomber Ayers engaged in a pipe-bombing than Bush engaged in insider trading. And the Bush article is a featured article, so someone decided that mentioning an investigation without charges met BLP. THF (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make it right. If there are problems at an article don't mirror them on another one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Ayers (not the Weather Underground) specifically a target of the investigation for the bombing according to reliable sources? From what I can tell, Bush was specifically investigated by the SECC and this is clear from the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this suggestion will please anyone, but as a kind of compromise how about reporting the allegations in the specific article San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing (because they're relevant there, whatever one thinks of them), and nowhere else (because more general articles need to summarise, and this can be left out of the summary). Rd232 ^talk 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The allegations are given a paragraph in that four-paragraph article. They are also mentioned more generally, with a link, in List of Weatherman actions. Wikidemon (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)