Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive53

Layzie Bone

Requesting oversight additional people to look over this debate. An editor has repeatedly redirected this, claiming that it violates WP:BLP. However, since the article has almost no prose content, I can't see any potentially controversial information, and the artist is clearly notable per WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article could use some secondary sources. His notability is not evident to an outsider. Redddogg (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's asserted, though I agree that it's not well fleshed out. This is partly because the other party in this dispute removed all of the prose content from the article. Chubbles (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm confused. Where's this mysterious prose content that the other editor/s deleted? [1] is the most prose I found from a brief look through the edit history and it's not much and doesn't establish his notability. [2] had a discrography but less prose. And how does it clear meet WP:MUSIC? The band Bone Thugs-n-Harmony is clearly noteable but WP:MUSIC says individual performers have to be individually noteable and not just part of a noteable band. He is also a part of Bone Brothers but as that is basically just a splinter of his previous band, I don't think it really counts as two bands. I'm not of course saying he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, he may. But if he does, then where are these trivial to find sources? Until and unless these are added to the article, I suggest the article remain a redirect. Either do it yourself, or accept the article as a redirect for now. And why are you requesting WP:Oversight? We don't generally oversight changing an article to redirect. Perhaps something clearly inappropriate and potentially defamatory about the redirect, e.g. redirecting someone who is not gay to the article on gay, then you may have a case but I don't see any here. And if you really do want to request oversight, I suggest you follow WP:RFO instead. P.S. I do agree there isn't a great BLP issue at the moment but having an article on someone non-noteable is inherently problematic as it gives more room for people to add shit and since this article appears to be relatively uncared for (given the lack of secondary sources) it's best just to have a redirect until noteability is established. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He's released several albums on well-known labels, four of which have charted in America. He's by far notable per WP:MUSIC. The content removal I was referring to is [here, which was done without explanation. I haven't added any referencing yet because the page keeps being unilaterally reverted, and it would be a waste of my time to add sourcing to a page that just keeps being redirected. I came here hoping that I could get a consensus that the article should remain; what do I have to do to get some action here? Chubbles (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Is there a respected outlet for information about the rap scene? Redddogg (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies then, I was not aware he released albums as an individual. If that's the case, then yesm he probably does meet WP:MUSIC although I still suggest the article remains a redirect until and unless someone can be bothered to write a half decent article which clearly established his notability. That saves all the drama and unreferenced stub doesn't help anyone anyway. It doesn't appear the article has ever really made it clear what makes him noteable (until now). Even the version you linked to (which I missed, I didn't go that far back), which was a serious BLP violation BTW, mentions stuff which he isn't noteable for but not the important stuff which he is noteable for. Edit: The article appears okay now, finally Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as I mentioned above the version you linked to above which had a fair amount of prose was a serious BLP violation. While an edit summary would have helped, none was needed given the state of the article. I suggest you reread it and BLP policy if you are not aware of that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After a bit of searching I can conclude that Layzie Bone was probably really caught selling drugs and that this can probably be sourced to a reliable secondary source. As such, the BLP violation you linked to above was not quite as serious as it could have been. But it was still a serious BLP violation. Any article making a controversial claim about a living person which is not sourced to a reliable secondary source is. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

John Robin Sharpe

Utterly unsourced BLP violation - impossible to stub without violation of BLP. Probably needs deleting as a BLP vio for now, until/unless someone is willing to write a BLP compliant version. Can someone do that?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I should be able to write a BLP-compliant stub. The only thing it might still run afoul of is WP:BLP1E since, while R. v. Sharpe was extremely notable, I'm not sure he has any notability independent of that event. Anyway, give me a couple of minutes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected it to R. v. Sharpe which is, unfortunately, also an unreferenced BLP violation at the moment. Fortunately, my criminal law textook seems to deal with it, so I'll see if I can reference it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good work.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If the original article is really mostly irredemable as a BLP violation, I suggest it be deleted Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think everything in there could be cited without too much difficulty, so it's not a BLP violation in that it includes false and defamatory information. It's just that I don't think that the individual has sufficient notability outside the one high-profile Supreme Court case in which he was involved to qualify for an article under WP:BLP1E. His name could be a search term, though, in which case I think what the searchers would be looking for is information about R. v. Sharpe - hence the redirect. I'd have no objections to deletion of the history (there was no merge), but I don't really see it as necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry E. Brown, Jr.

Congressman Brown of South Carolina is in a heated race for re-election, and the final paragraph of the introductory section of his page reads like campaign talking points. Rather than provide biographical information about Congressman Brown, it repeatedly blasts his opponent for her political views.

Because the page is likely being edited by the Brown campaign, I suggest reviewing the offending material, removing it, and locking the page until after Nov. 4.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.26.105 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Graham Fitch

Resolved

This article has several editors putting potentially libelous, unsourced material on it. Please watch. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It was okay when I checked it. I never knew that classical pianists could be so controversial. :-) Redddogg (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article remains unreferenced, however the negative stuff is gone.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The subject has emailed OTRS regarding this, please keep the article in line with WP:BLP and appropriately sanction those 'trolling' on it. --Brian McNeil /^talk 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Jim Tucker

OK, not sure what to make of this? The article alleges that he's some sort of conspiracy theory exposing journalist. That seems to check out, but the sources are either just his own work, or total crap. There's no secondary-source verification. This certainly needs a pile of stuff removed, but, is he notable or is this just a WP:COATRACK. Thoughts?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be deleted. It spreads a lot of negative stuff about other people. Redddogg (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I took this out. However the article still needs sources. Redddogg (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary Lou Sapone

After reading this article through several times and checking the sources cited, I have a few issues that concern the article: Does this person actually need an article on wikipedia, why is the name of a family member included when said family member has no bearing on the article whatsoever, and is this article truly written per WP:NPOV? The reason I am bringing this here is two-fold: I generally only do copy-editing; I am no expert on what NPOV is and/or how to rewrite per WP:NPOV, and I don't think I should rewrite the article because I happen to strongly oppose gun-control laws; I fear that I might not have the objectivity in this case. Regardless of my views, the article seems to violate WP:NPOV,WP:BLP, WP:RS(Mother Jones (magazine)). The article includes unproven claims calling her "an agent provocateur" and listing her page in the category of [spies]. I should think that editors would be extremely cautious about including unproven, potentially defamatory allegations, especially regarding WP:BLP. Again, I don't feel my politics would allow me to rewrite this from a WP:NPOV perspective, and I don't have the time to engage in a discussion which would undoubtedly stray off target into gun politics. The point is, I believe this article to be poorly written, but think that someone else with "no axe to grind", should take a look ASAP. Thanks for your time.radiooperator 11:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "spy" category and also the "activist" since to me she doesn't seem to be either one. I feel that the article probably would pass the notability test. The article is now tagged as an "orphan." I'm not sure who would be interested in reading it since all it does is recount her activities as a pro-NRA "spy/activist" and only people who already know about that would be able to find the article. Redddogg (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

R. Joseph Hoffmann

I'd like some help with this one. R. Joseph Hoffmann seems to be barely notable, and it looks as if the page is being used solely to promote him by one person (perhaps Hoffmann himself).

• Any material that suggests he is anything but a Great Scholar is removed within a few days, usually with no comment, never with an explanation.
• The article seems to have been created by himself or a friend (see the talk page), deleted (see the history of the main article which starts later than the talk page!) and then consistently updated positively by people who never did anything else or else were not logged in.
• Referenced material that refers to the fact that two of his books were only reviewed in one or two academic reviews has been repeatedly removed.
• The person doing the removals and reverts posts while not logged in, and has just created what looks like a sockpuppet. None of the reverters seem to edit any other article.
• What comments he does post involve personal abuse of other editors.
• Only E.A.Lacey -- who is improving the article -- and I are editing it otherwise.
• Is this person notable?

If we have a minor academic who has hardly ever held tenure and is pretty much unknown attempting to puff himself through Wikipedia, what should we do? Can the dodgy poster be blocked? Should the article be deleted, if it is just self-advertising? (I wouldn't mind a *balanced* article, although I still think he's doubtfully notable). I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, but something should be done. Help! Roger Pearse (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary Trauner

Jackson Whole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly Bert Convy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly putting weasel words and links to anti-Trauner propaganda sites on the page. BeIsKr (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article. Jackson Whole (talk · contribs) has not re-added to link or other dubious content since being warned but a new account and an IP have. CIreland (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Kärrbrandt

There is an argument between me and user User:Canadian Paul over the use of the category Possibly living people. Basically Canadian Paul feels that adding this person (Thomas Kärrbrandt) to the category violates BLP. I on the other hand, who created and categorized the article, feel that adding him to the category Living people violates WP:V and WP:NOR since there is no record of him since 1984. We agreed that it was best to take the discussion here so the community can have a say in it. Previous discussions can be found at my talk page and at Canadian Paul's talk page. All comments are appreciated. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In October 2008 Thomas Kärrbrandt (born 18 March 1959) is 49 years and 7 months old, which is much too young to appear in Category:Possibly living people. That category cannot be expected to represent "it is not known whether or not this individual is alive", but rather "this individual is almost certainly dead of old age, and eventually the year and, hopefully, date of death will become known as a result of research". Wikipedia is a community of rules and standards and encourages well-reasoned arguments for exceptions. For example, it may seem ludicrous, and actually is, that Jeanne Calment who lived beyond her 122nd birthday could possibly have numerous other supercentenarians emulating her example and surviving to such an age, and yet Category:Births of the last 123 years has remained for nearly three years as a guideline for placement in Category:Living people and Category:Possibly living people precisely to deal with disagreements and uncertainties of this nature. As of today, there are 309,633 individuals in Category:Living people. Thousands, possibly tens of thousands of them are marginally notable people in their sixties, seventies and eighties who may no longer be alive. Occasionally, a family member submits an obituary, but for the most part, there is no information and, as time passes, the names are transferred to Category:Possibly living people and, ultimately, to Category:Year of death missing. In matters of life and death, even virtual life and death, one should not rush to final judgment, but rather err on the side of caution.—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get your knickers in a too much of a twist about the right category. Most normal categories exist to group similar articles to aid as a tool for navigation; Category:Living People, however, is essentially a purely administrative category (it's certainly far too large for navigation purposes) primarily to aid in recent changes tracking via Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Living_people. If in doubt, I'd use the category; if in real doubt, there is a way to add an article to the category without the category name appearing at the bottom of the article. CIreland (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I think a better explanation of the category usage must be implemented since it currently say nothing about an age limit, just that it is for use when it is uncertain if the person is alive or dead. In this case I must admit that I expect to find a death certificate, to many warning bell ring in my ear which makes me suspect that this person is no longer alive. Maybe that's why I'm not considering PLP as a violation of BLP, but I can understand CP's view of it. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Papa Dee

Materials about the arrest of this Swedish musician is being repeatedly added to his article, despite the fact that the primary source for this is the court order. From what I can tell, his name has not been disclosed by any major Swedish media.

Andejons (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keith Buckley

This article is a mess of unsourced information, some of it defamatory and much of it pure silliness, that has been altered over time by various contributors. I considered restoring this bare-bones version from early 2007, but it's totally unsourced, and some of the more recent versions appear to have some solid content interspersed with garbage. Does anyone have the time and patience to clean up this article? (In addition, note that this article was started as an article about Keith Buckley (actor), but was overwritten. Some of the links pointing to this article might actually be about the other Keith Buckley.) --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Murray (author)

I try to keep the page about this contraversial figure clean and tidy but I'm beginning to get out of my depth. Could someone help out please? See this first edit which I reverted and thissecond one. Both were made by the same IP today. almost-instinct 11:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP doesn't understand sourcing requirements. Best to drop a note on his talk page about why you reverted. I'm going to make a couple of edits to the article and will explain on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IP returned to make this contribution, which I've deleted. Following your advice I left a message on the IP's talk page. I'm not sure I got the tone right but I think I'll managed to be helpful. We'll see! almost-instinct 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought your tone was fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Indian Christians

This list is completely unsourced, so I removed almost all entries per WP:BLP. An editor reverted me because (edit summary): "readdign deleted sections. people can read the relevant areticesl to verify if they are Chrisitians or not". Besides being incorrect (entries need to be sourced here, not at another article), it is also false, since entries like Joy Cherian, Tinu Yohannan or Ileana D'Cruz do not mention their religion at all (some random choices, most seem to be similar). I reverted again, user reverted me again. I twice started a section on the article talk page, to no avail. Can the people of this noticeboard look at the article and assess anyproblems it has (BLP primarily of course)? Fram (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not notice your first message on the talk page in my watchlist. I can point to umpteen "List of famous x people" articles which do not have a citation. Why particularly pick up this one for BPL violation? A rule must be applied equally. If it is applied to this article it must be applied to others too; not selectively.

Let me go back to the exmaple I had provided: List of famous Belgian people. I couldn't find a name I knew yesterday; but came across Tom Boonen when I took a closer look today. I didnt know that Boonen was Belgian until I came across his name in this article. The article on Boonen states that he is Belgian, but doesn't cite it!. So how do we know for sure he is Belgian? Isnt this a BPL violation!

The first of the references calls him Belgian almost-instinct 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And he has participated to the Olympics and other sporting events with the Belgian national team, which means that he self-identifies as a Belgian as well. Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In one message Fram has said: To include people on this list, the religion of each individual must be sourced to a reliable source, preferably a source where the person self-identifies as a Christian.. Seriously, do you expect to find even a single such reference? In that case every single BLP article becomes unsourced. Do you expect to find a reference where Manmohan Singh, says that he is a Sikh. Someone may say that since wears the ritual Sikh turban he is a Sikh, but it can be countered as WP:SYNTH. If that is a rule then I can argue that the premier of Belgium(PM or Prez, I dont know)is of suspect nationality becasue there is no relaible reference where he/she has declared himself/herself a Belgian.--Deepak D'Souza 14:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your nationality is not something that you can self define, but is given to you by a government. Your religion, on the other hand, is a personal choice. People should not be identified as belonging to any religion unless they make their religion public (by their profession or by stating it publicly). A Roman Catholic cardinal can be safely assumed to be Catholic until he specifically renounces his faith. A rabbi is probably Jewish. For politicians of clearly religious inspired parties, things get less clearbut their default inclusion can be defended. For everyone else though, we need a good reliable source stating their religion. I support doing this (and it should be the standard method) for every list of people by religion or sexual preference (or anything else a person can choose to make public or to keep private, and which isn't imposed by an outside authority). Fram (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fram--we have always required self-identification, except when the question of religion becomes a public issue and is discussed by unquestionably reliable neutral sources. In instances where the religion is relevant to the notability, the person will usually have self-identified. When no such source can be found, it is probably irrelevant. DGG (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true DGG, then the question is how many BLP articles and "lst of x persons" actually reference the subject nationality and relegion. And how many of them are self-references? For sportsmen it is easy to verify beacuse they will usually participate in their national side(althoug there are sporting events which allow a certain proportion of non-nationals in the team). Nationality is a mater of perception. Your government may give you citizenship but do you consider yourself a citizen?. What about artists , the culture people ususally do not subcribe to national boundaries. Take the example of Kashmiri speratists. They may travel on an Indian pasport which cannot be given to a non citizen, but refuse to call themselves Indians. Race and ethnicity could be another questionable aspect, especially with regard to multi-ethnic societies such as America. Every single BLP article must be verified, not just one. --Deepak D'Souza

Lilith Astaroth

I haved edited this page which is scheduled for deletion:

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

all of the details within this page are accurate, I have added some more 3rd party links to verify accuracy. I hope to avoid this article's deletion. Thank you.

Lilithastaroth (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not stick to the AfD page itself rather than forum shop? You are best not to write about yourself but to discuss edits you wish to make on the talk page, because you have a conflict of interest and don't seem to be willing or able to discern between what counts as reliable sources and what doesn't. Sticky Parkin 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is forum shopping, she posted here looking for help before the AfD was opened, probably when she first noticed the dated prod on her page. --CliffC (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(just posted something like this to CIreland's talk page to explain my tone :) )

A prod was removed, although it had expired and the article should have been deleted as the prod had been up for over five days. The edit summary said it was removed because she objected to the deletion at the BLP noticeboard [3](?). How is that not 'forum shopping'? `If she hadn't asked here, the article would have been deleted like others whose prods have expired. Is the BLP board the place for people to get prods on their article removed when no-one has done it who has come across the article without being petitioned? I like to think not. Oh well, there's an AfD now. Sticky Parkin 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed that expired prod (template text in part, You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page), as a courtesy to an apparent newcomer who had somehow found her way to this page to ask for assistance. Was it a rules violation for me to remove an expired prod instead of blowing the whistle for the nearest admin to come and delete the article? I saw it as a simple courtesy to extend a bit of time to someone who obviously hadn't been checking her article every day. --CliffC (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Acey Slade and User:AceySlade

Acey Slade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:AceySlade has twice edited lots of unsourced POV into the article, saying because he's Acey Slade that should count as being true or something along those lines. // CyberGhostface (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cole & Dylan Sprouse

Cole & Dylan Sprouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In running link clean-up in front of Version 0.7, I ran across this article, which had a mention of one of them having ADD, which was sourced by a link to a YouTube video, allegedly posted by the Sprouses. The link was dead, the video removed for whatever reason. The talk page contained a long discussion which basically concluded that the material was "no doubt reliable" because it was on the video. The material was returned tonight, with a reference link to another posting of (maybe?) the same video, apparently posted by someone other than either of the Sprouses, which poses two issues, the question of the acceptability of using a YouTube post for a reference for something like this (especially in a Good Article), and the copyright status of a hacked video being posted without permission.

The editor who returned the material stated on the talk page: when the author released it on youtube, we can assume that meant he didn't mind it being seen and spread. We don't know why he took it down, and it's possible that it was because he changed his mind and no longer wanted it seen. But it's equally possible that he closed his account because he lost interest in it or because it had been compromised, and his implied consent to its continued availability is still in force. That wouldn't be enough for material uploaded to WP, but I think it is enough for us to link to it. If the author really wants it gone from youtube, he'll issue a takedown notice and youtube will remove it. I'd bet, though, that he has no interest in doing so, and that's enough to justify linking. It seems to me that everything about that statement, in relationship to copyright, and the appropriateness of the use of the video in a WP:BLP, is wrong. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: After downloading the entire 9 minute video, the only thing on the entire video is a caption added to the video filmed on a handheld camera during an interview that said "Shaking camera provides proof: Never give a camera to a person with A.D.D." There is no way that this can be considered a statement that anyone verifiably is saying they have ADD. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Calum Forrester

Calum Forrester. Long story short, uncited fact about this sportsman starting a riot keeps showing up, was encouraged by other editer ('Emperor') to ask for request here if riot 'fact' returns, which it did at some recent point. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill bio

Gwen Ifill's bio, about a 53 year old whose news career spans 30 years places undue emphasis on one most recent controversy. The poster shows an obvious political agenda in over 1/3 ofthe article. I looked at the discussion thread and this topic was all the rage but editing capabilities appeared to have been turned off. Please take a look at this. Thank you for your time and effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.32.121 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The semiprotection expired on October 4, so you should be able to edit. I got tired of arguing with the people trying to push in every possible negative factoid about Ifill even after the debate, so I've been taking a break from the article. Maybe I'll take another look now that things have died down, though I imagine some of the POV warriors are still watching it. —KCinDC (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You both are right that undue weight is given to the debates. What an experienced, battle-hardened Wiki-Warrior would do is wait till after the election and then trim it down. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go take a look... I think I semiprotected it back around the debates. It seems at a glance to have serious issues with sourcing, weight, and misrepresentation of sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone is still watching this thread, more eyes and input at Gwen Ifill would be useful, as there is some debate about which sources to use and how to present them. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger Jolie

Please take a look at this. She is a former "Penthouse Pet" who wants to get on with her life and has asked her article be deleted. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's up for deletion and the votes are tending towards keep. Oh well. 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The bio is good, and there is no need to delete it. AdjustShift (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a need to look at the general standards of how WP treats porn people. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Westerman

Naomi Westerman is an unsourced BLP with specific homosexuality, ethnic, and other claims for a person that is supposedly a British actor with minor roles and uncredited roles in a few minor films. Supposedly because there are no sources that talk about her. The only source on the article got added yesterday, it is an out of print book that has Naomi Westerman as a collaborator but theres nothing to say it is the same person. Reversions of BLP violation get reverted back with the same BLP violation. There's no articles written about her in media. On Google the only sources are blogs. MySpace and IMDB and personal blog are not RS. I will AfD it, what ever happens this article should be watched. thx, RetroS1mone talk 17:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Natascha Kampusch

Other opinions requested on the discussion: Talk:Natascha_Kampusch#Stockhom_Syndrome. You will see the disputed text and citations in the edit history. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could really use help. this is ongoing and I have reverted far too much trying to keep out content I believe is inappropriate per BLP. Would be good to get other opinions to help stabilize the article. -- SiobhanHansa 23:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be better now. The whole situation is very difficult and unpleasant, but her notability can not be denied. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee

Resolved

 – Article protected, sockpuppet and puppetmaster blocked. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thomas Muthee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editors User:Tautologist and now User:JoshuaZ have contested the removal of questionable sources from the subject article. I've posted on RS/N about them, but haven't gotten any feedback. Some additional eyes would be nice, since neither editor seems inclined to abide by WP:BURDEN Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Any admins awake who can care to weigh in on this one? A brand new user, User:WitchieAnna, has jumped in, having never edited the article before, and is repeatedly reverting the challenged BLP material into the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:WitchieAnna purports to be an old user with a new name. In any case, her leaping in has now caused the article to be locked down, as she seems quite determined to multiply revert. Collect (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is longer an issue per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tautologist. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ken (artist)

There has been a lot of nasty BLP vandalism on Ken (artist), it's been removed now, but it's best to keep an eye on it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Alodia Gosiengfiao

Alodia Gosiengfiao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Been tagging this article to get this article up to snuff (Give it a chance to actually be a decent article instead of wantonly deleting like some people have been calling for), but a series of edits has somewhat concerned me. I've noticed that one source cited in the article (ref #11) also has a Wikipedia account with only this article as it's major edits. Is this even acceptable/possible Conflict of Interest/Spamming under Wikipedia guidelines? --21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)293.xx.xxx.xx (talk)

As I understand it, I think the term is more "single-purpose account", but this user doesn't seem to be doing anything other than adding a tonne of references (some of them bad, most of them good - I haven't had a chance to have a detailed look but the samples I've seen contain just referencing). If however they started going "I'm X Celebrity's brother and she's awesome!" or somesuch, then *that* would, without a doubt, be a COI. SMC (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Qzmpyt

Qzmpyt (talk · contribs) is creating various articles on possibly nonnotable people and events related to an attack website, bavermanmisconduct.com, which is being used as a source. Definitely needs keeping an eye on for BLP violations. —KCinDC (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This needs an admin with a flamethrower. This is a single issue soapboxer who needs his articles culled.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

These probably all need to turn red soon: Kilimanjaro Education Fund, The Gold Club, Gerrilyn G. Brill, Roy Cicola, and Judicial misconduct. All are coatracks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Important CFD

Could people here please have a look at the CFD for the Cat:Living People? Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Eek, we don't want that deleted!--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP has been adding some oddly referenced questionable material, and there is a under-referenced negative Controversy section. Eyes and scalpels would be appreciated. the skomorokh 14:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

scalpel duly wielded.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been reverted, Scott. The subject is now requesting assistance with the article. the skomorokh 18:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh, and reverted back, with an explanation of my surgery posted to talk. An armed admin keeping watch here would be good.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I put it on talk for discussion (with full explanation), and removed that material in the meantime, but the OWNER is continually revering me. Any passing admin please consider full-protection (with material removed) pending talk page discussion. Edit warring is the alternative.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected for 72 hours, but open to review. I also considered replacing with a 3RR block + semi pro, but too little time for digging, and wanted to stop the fire now. Scott's reversions are in my judgment, under the BLP related exception as described in WP:3RR--Tznkai (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks

• Skylar Deleon (AfD discussion)
• Jennifer Deleon (AfD discussion)

This is advance notice to avoid a wheel war. On BLP1E grounds, I'm about to take on these two and speedily merge and refactor them into an article about the crime at Murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks. I'm going to leave the first AFD discussion open, to discuss the refactored article, and close the second. Please note that these two have hit the headlines today, hence the sudden surge of interest. I expect that the resultant redirects will need protection for a while, as no doubt someone will edit war over them. Your coöperation would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

William M. Gray (external links this time)

We, the talk page participants, would like to know whether it's acceptable to link criticism from a blog (Real Climate) in the external links section of this BLP.

WP:EL says that blogs should be linked sparingly, and only for blogs that are established authorities. (Links normally to be avoided #11.) Real Climate is acknowledged as an expert publication in the field of global warming. Except for the pun in the title "Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming," the article is mostly free from personal attacks, and focuses on criticizing Gray's theories. However, it also comments on Gray himself, asserting that he has failed "to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying." Additionally, the Real Climate post has no a "group" byline, and apparently cannot be attributed to any individual author.

Is Real Climate—or any third-party blog—an appropriate external link in BLPs? Should this post be linked from William M. Gray?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts! Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say, RealClimate is a good quality blog and might be an exception that proves the "no blog" rule. However, I don't think this particular piece should be linked because there is no byline. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a distinction between "good quality" and any other blogs. If we start saying some blogs are ok, we open Pandora's box. Collect (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. This is an unusual blog in that the contributors are all experts writing within the field of their expertise. Under many circumstances it could be an appropriate external link or even source. However this particular posting is unsigned, which tips the balance against it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a byline, anyone reasonably familiar with the site would know it: Schmidt, Mann, Bennestad, Connolley,.. - its a limited list. And the byline specifically says that its a group posting. (and therefore written by all in collaboration). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) -- addendum: at least to me a posting signed on by all the contributers is worth more, than a posting by only one of them. As opposed to the implied (here) of: more authors => less reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that it's a group posting signed by all of the authors. Does the word "group" indicate that? If it really were a group effort by each and every member of the blog team then that'd be different. But it's hard to make that determination based on a single word with no context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Group" on RC means its attributed to the entire group of RC authors William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've revised the description with additions in bold. I didn't mean to be misleading: in good faith, I didn't consider "group" to be a byline, and there was no objection to the wording on the talkpage. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you did intend to be misleading. Nonetheless, "group" is a byline; see above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested clarification on who wrote it from User:William M. Connolley, who is a participant on RC (and I believe going back to the time that posting was written) and he has (so far) refused. The membership at RC may have changed since it was written, more than two years ago. "Group" is vague, and would be inappropriate for any reliable published source. Why don't they just list the authors? Also, even with an explicit byline, I would still have concerns, since the criticism is very pointed. This is a group of scientists who are very much aligned in their views, and being posted on their blog there's not any review from outsiders. And what does it add to the article? There is already reliably sourced criticism of his GW work right in the article; why do we need to link to a blog? And it bears mentioning that the main editor pushing for inclusion appears to be one of the authors of the piece. ATren (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Judging by this it appears that William Connolley has no intention of clarifying who wrote the piece. Since WMC is listed as one of the "group", I can only conclude that he was a co-author. So here we have an editor warring to include a link to his own blog-sourced criticism in the BLP of an ideological opponent. If this doesn't violate the letter of BLP, it certainly violates the spirit, not to mention COI. ATren (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If this were a matter of adding a link to an article on a climate topic then this would probably be acceptable. But since this is a BLP matter I don't this is appropriate. If the article were actually signed by the individuals responsible for it then that might make it acceptable, but the "group" byline appears more of a way of avoiding responsibility rather than sharing it. Furthermore, the blog writers are capable of submitting materials for publication in unquestionably reliable sources. I think we should not use this link for this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your emphasis in the last sentence. This link in this article. On science topics, Wikipedia greatly benefits from the accessible and timely commentary from these experts. I agree that this would be a narrow editorial decision for this BLP; no one should get the idea that RC is not a generally reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Am i the only one who noticed that Connolley (a member of the group) assures that its a group effort, and that all members signed on to it? Something which is also plain from the site (with the "group" tagline). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not obvious, and WMC's cryptic responses to my questions didn't make it any clearer. But is anyone else concerned that Connolley is pushing links to his own external unpublished work into a BLP of an ideological opponent? Isn't that exactly not what editors are supposed to do? People have been topic-banned for much less than that. Do we want to create a precedent of allowing people to insert links to their own unpublished critical material directed at people they disagree with? ATren (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that it's an exceptional blog and even an exceptional source on climate change topics, RealClimate is self-published. WP:BLP makes it absolutely clear that self-published sources cannot be used in a BLP unless written by the subject of the article. This would be true whether the post was the RealClimate blog, a website, or a book, whatever it's quality. As I understand it, the primary WP:BLP issue here is lack of editorial control. "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." It seems clear to me that RealClimate does not meet that standard for BLP unless there is some process of editorial control that I am not aware of. This is particularly true if the material is critical, and it is. Mishlai (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" From WP:SPS Mishlai (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the issue at hand, then you will notice that RC isn't used about the person - but instead as a comment on the science. Which is allowed per BLP. The trouble is that its two exceptions. ;-) I would agree completely that if it had been an article about Gray as a person. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But "the science" is not the topic of the article. Gray's scientific views and the controversies they have occasioned are relevant, but if this controversy only exists in a blog post of 2006 we have to question how notable it is. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the science is also the topic of the article. Gray's scientific views (on climate change) are so much on the fringe that his article, is the only place that it can be discussed. And the controversy is being discussed in almost all biographical material about Gray, such as in reference 1,3 and 7 to the article. The RC post differs from the rest by going into detail about the scientific issues raised, which none of the others do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But when we tried to remove Gray's "fringe" views (a while back) as non-notable, WMC blocked us from doing so. So when you argue that his views are fringe, I would argue that those views don't need to be detailed at all. But like so many politically charged topics on Wikipedia, editors like to amplify the controversial fringe views of their opponents, notable or not, just so they can knock them down. What should happen here is that the GW should be cut down as non-notable (has he ever published anything scientific on GW?) and a simple statement added in its place that he holds controversial views on GW. But we'd rather include the non-notable unpublished views because then we can also include non-notable unpublished debunkings. ATren (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone holds notable fringe viewpoints then their biography is a good place to mention those. For example, if a scientist seriously asserts that the moon is made of green cheese then that should be in the biography but not in our article on the moon. To omit a fringe viewpoint from a scientist's biography would be to omit important information. We just need to make sure that it's handled in a neutral manner. On the other hand, if a scientist makes an offhand remark about the moon's composition, and if that view is not repeated in reliable sources or otherwise notable, then there's no need to include it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. And in this case it is notable for Gray, not because he's published on the subject (he hasn't), but because its mentioned in every single biographical article (and just about every other article) about/on Gray (see again the references.) Gray's is mainly known for his work in/on hurricane's where some of his work is seminal. In the later years, his primary notability comes from his stance on climate change though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Gray's fringe views are notable to the article, and agree that it's appropriate to contrast or criticize them. Unsure on whether inclusion of the RC article in EL could be considered to go beyond that and criticize Gray himself and not just contradict him on scientific points. I would argue that if RC is used narrowly to address scientific issues then it is acceptable as a RS for that purpose only in this article. If any text is used to criticize Gray himself then we have a WP:SPS issue that is unacceptable. Listing it in the External Links is probably inappropriate for the same reason. I would suggest using it as a citation but not allowing the content of the article to stray beyond disagreement with specific scientific viewpoints. Opinion about his adaptation to modern meteorology etc. would be inappropriate. Mishlai (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely on the narrow usage issue - otherwise it would be a breach of BLP. All of the previously mentioned references, could be used in the same way, but they aren't, and shouldn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, using this diff [4] as an example. I think that this part: "RealClimate has disputed Gray's assertion that the thermohaline circulation or evaporation changes cause global warming" would be appropriate because it addresses the science. (and perhaps more detail would be good) The remainder: "and his understanding of the mechanisms of climate change, saying that Gray doesn't even understand that the greenhouse effect works primarily through the effect of greenhouse gases on the top of atmosphere radiation budget, and only very indirectly through the surface budget'" seems more like criticism of the person. Rewriting to include that his analysis did not account for these things would be one thing, but to assert that he does not understand... that would be inappropriate in a BLP as I understand it. Mishlai (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the other appearance of William M. Gray on BLP/N. [5] Not much to see. The archive of the article talk page has some extensive discussion concerning text describing a bet and similar issues.[6][7] I'm not sure how much of it is really helpful to what's being discussed. Mishlai (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WMC ups the ante, now using his blog as a source in Gray's BLP

WMC has now added his own RealClimate criticism to the text of the article, something that consensus decided was unacceptable many months ago, and something that is explicitly forbidden in BLP. I've reverted once, and WMC reverted back, and since I make it a policy not to edit war, I will not revert again, but even if the EL question was open (though even there consensus seemed to sway towards removal), inclusion of material in the body of the text sourced to a blog is clearly not permitted - for any blog. Can someone take a look? ATren (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the relevant text pending resolution per WP:BLP

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (original emphasis)

William I think I understand your viewpoint, but nonetheless there are very real and legitimate questions about the use of this material in a BLP. Please don't add it back in until suitability is determined. Mishlai (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The trouble here is that A) its neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. B) And its not contentious.

Its an SPS, yes, but one that is accepted by the exceptions for these as an RS. And, the article does not pertain to the character or person of Gray - but instead comments on his scientific claims (unpublished), in a scientific way. As for the contentious part, what ever little there might be (if any), is 100% the same as what we find in the other references (1,3,7).

I'd argue that RC here is a good reference, exactly because it goes into detail on the science. As opposed to the other sources, which only superficially touch on the subject. (ie. it explains the scientific view - as opposed to the public view (which the other sources handle)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I largely agree with you on its use. If you'll forgive me I've taken the default stance of removing it pending discussion because a BLP is involved and because the inclusions itself is contentious. Mishlai (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As indicated on talk, i agree with that stance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

e.c. From WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." This is clear and unambiguous. No exceptions are listed.

In fact, this debate has already occurred in the past on the Gray BLP, the last time WMC tried to insert criticisms he wrote. (see the talk page and archives). I also dispute that this is not personal - if your ideological opponents got together and criticised your ideas and methods in an unpublished piece, would you consider it impersonal?

Also, I'd like to touch on Kim's other point here: "I'd argue that RC here is a good reference, exactly because it goes into detail on the science. As opposed to the other sources, which only superficially touch on the subject." Isn't that the whole point, that these views are so non-notable (both Gray's and the responses) that the only source for criticism is an unpublished blog entry? Your point supports an argment that Gray's GW views should be removed, not that WMC's criticisms should be added. But then, when we tried to trim Gray's GW views as non-notable and largely unpublished, WMC blocked us from doing so, apparently because he'd rather quote non-notable views so he can add his non-notable responses to those views. We should not be quoting unpublished views just so we can debunk them with unpublished criticisms, that's not the job of an encyclopedia (maybe a watchdog site, but not an encyclopedia.

If RC is the only source for these specific criticisms, then it doesn't belong here; if that creates an unbalanced article, then Gray's non-notable views should be removed as well. ATren (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ATren, but you seem to be more embedded in commenting on WMC, than in a rational discussion of Gray, and the BLP issues open here. I've already commented on your points earlier, i suggest that you leave comments on WMC out - and try again, if you have any points that haven't already been raised and commented on. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, please comment on this specifically from WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." This is clear and unambiguous. No exceptions are listed. Is WP:SPS wrong, or are you misapplying it here? ATren (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim & I are both arguing that RC, a SPS could be used narrowly - not as a third party source about a living person - but as a third party source on specific scientific points. I contend that text about bets (article archive) and statements that Gray doesn't understand (discussed above) would not be appropriate and would violate the SPS text you just quoted. Text contradicting the science of a fringe viewpoint would be acceptable, so long as it is confined rigidly to that and that only. Mishlai (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no wiggle room whatsoever in the SPS wording. It is unequivical in prohibiting any SPS source in a BLP, so either that policy does not reflect actual practice, or you are misapplying it.

Note, I am not a BLP/SPS expert, so I'm not saying you are wrong; just that there is a disconnect between stated policy and practice. If this practice is endorsed by the community, then the SPS/BLP policy wordings should be changed explicitly allow certain self-published criticisms in BLPs, as is being done here. ATren (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there isn't a disconnect, since the BLP guidelines are concerned about contentious information about persons, not views. In a nutshell, what BLP is about, is contentious information about persons, whether it be libellous, slander or whatever. That isn't what we are talking about here - we are specifically talking about the scientific part of Gray's biography - not the person. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim, the word "views" is not in that sentence. It is a blanket statement that SPS are forbidden as "sources about living persons". There is no phrasing that says, "but they may be OK if they speak about the person's views". At the very least, this wording is too vague, and if SPS are allowed in certain cases, that should be explicitly mentioned. As it stands now, if what you are saying is correct, then the unequivocal wording of SPS will only create confusion (as it obviously is on this thread).

If this is established practice, then we should edit SPS to reflect it. Would someone like to do that, or should I take a stab at it? ATren (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to adhere strictly to the wording, instead of the spirit of the rules, then the wording "about living persons" is in that sentence. But i've explained my views already. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, this isn't the Constitution, we don't have to rely on interpretation, we can just change policy to reflect practice. :-) I will make an attempt and see how it goes. ATren (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest that, given that you've already stated "Note, I am not a BLP/SPS expert," BLP is an important Wikipedia policy and not to be altered lightly. Mishlai (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I already modified WP:BLP and WP:SPS to reflect this. I realize I'm not an expert, but this is the BLP noticeboard, and there seems to be consensus that this is accepted practice, so I've boldly updated the policy to reflect the practice. I've also left a note on both talk pages to alert other editors of the change. ATren (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Its almost always bad practice to change policy when addressing specific grey areas. The rules already cover this, since situations like this are the specific reasons for the WP:IAR policy. (see the essay Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to both policies. Neither reflected what is being said here. Further, I would say that those actions looks suspiciously like point proving via a breaching experiment in which your edits would be reverted by a community aghast at the suggestion that a SPS might sometimes be used to reference material about a living person, thus demonstrating that this is unacceptable practice. No one is saying that a SPS can be used to reference info about a LP, indeed we've both stated quite clearly that this would be unacceptable.

I would suggest at this point that we require comment from uninvolved parties experienced with matters of BLP. Mishlai (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I thought I was repeating what was said here almost verbatim. Obviously I don't get it yet. Please explain it to me again, how the wording (which you just reverted back to) allows for this blog to be used as a source. BTW, it was not to prove a point, thank you, it was an attempt to clarify an apparently muddy policy, with notifications on both talk pages.

Now, can you please explain how that particular wording exempts RC from the no SPS rule in BLPs? ATren (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're not offended, just looked that way.

In a BLP about Bob, multiple BLP appropriate references show that Bob asserts that the moon is made of cheese, and this assertion is included in the article. To provide context & balance to Bob's assertion, the article needs to inform the readers (who for our example cannot be expected to know what the moon is or is not made of) that other, more mainstream scientific sources believe that the moon is made of moonrocks. A source, which is reliable, but self-published is used. I am arguing - and I am not certain that this is a correct interpretation of the relevant policies - that because the SPS is being used to assert that the moon is made of moonrocks, and not to levy a criticism of Bob (or provide any information about Bob whatsoever), that the text "SPS is never acceptable as a reference for information about a living person" does not apply because the information is not about Bob, it's about moonrocks. Moonrocks just happen to be in Bob's article because he has a fringe theory about them. Allegations from such a source that Bob was dumb, bad at science, or in league with the cheese industry would be completely unacceptable, because then the material would be about Bob and the BLP restriction on a SPS would apply.

It may very well be that I'm incorrect, and that a SPS cannot be used in a BLP article anywhere for any purpose, and this is why I would like to see commentary from someone more experienced than myself with BLP issues. Mishlai (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding further complexity to this is that the SPS in question is in fact about why Bob's view of the moon is wrong, and (I would argue) does criticize him. The relevant question becomes "Can such a source be used, very narrowly, to support statements about moonrocks if criticisms/discussions of Bob himself are scrupulously avoided?"

If not, what would be the proper treatment of Bob's assertions about mooncheese? Mishlai (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP provides no exceptions, and I'm not sure why we're straining to here. The article makes clear that Gray is scientifically wrong (or in the minority, if you prefer) about global warming. There's no need to throw self-published sources on the fire.

Incidentally, the example you've provided rings hollow for the disputed material. Perhaps it would be analogous if in the example one used a blog to source a quote that says "Smith doesn't even understand that the moon is made of moonrocks." That's what the disputed text says, "Gray doesn't even understand..." This isn't a close call in my view—perhaps prose actually criticizing the science would be a closer case, but text speculating on the mental state of a living person is garbage from a self-published source. Cool Hand Luke 02:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read my arguments further above in the main section you'll see that I agree with you, and flagged that text as unacceptable myself. The example I provided is not representative of the disputed material, but of what I propose would be acceptable. Anything placed into the article would have to be purged of assertions critical of Gray himself. Mishlai (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's above the section heading. I missed it before.

We have apparent consensus then, that those words violate BLP. I'm hesitant that any of it should be allowed. That a published source has not previously commented on some aspect of his life suggests that it's not WEIGHTy and should be trimmed. However, this portion doesn't clearly violate BLP to me, so I agree that it might be something suited for discussion on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kay Sieverding

I believe the present version of the page consists almost entirely of a BLP violation, similar to the one that had the user page deleted. I'm not sure what could be done about it except to delete, salt, and indefblock Kay. There's too much history on this page which would be helpful in determining whether Kay is indefblocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be under discussion by various admins in a number of locations, so I'm loathe to intervene unilaterally. For the record, this may or may not be a BLP issue (my instinct is that it is) - but it's clearly a misuse of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground or a place to import external conflicts. People who don't get that should be politely asked to move on - c.f. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal, which this brings to mind. MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much assuming good faith, I think... My view is it's violating WP:BLP and WP:NOT, blatantly. Risker has stubbed the page back again. (see this sage advice and particularly the stubbing itself. I support these actions. Next infraction I spot will result in me indef'ing and taking it to AN/I again for review, where I expect to be sustained. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Shailagh Murray

Shailagh Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An unregistered user added a one-sentence comment to this some months ago, which has since been removed by about half a dozen independent editors and re-added each time. I ran across the problem and semi-protected the article to let it cool off - even though there wasn't any real discussion on the talk page, it seemed clear to me that there was a passive consensus not to include it - but I've since got drawn into an argument with the editor in question. Since I'm now somewhat involved, would any third parties care to drop by and give their judgement on the issue? // Shimgray | talk | 09:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

removal endorsed on talk page.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

A very controversial song. There are disputed claims that a living person (Thompson (band)) sang a version of this song. People have warred over whether to add the song lyrics and a translation of them (the only source I see is this YouTube video just playing the song). Sources indicate that he played the song, his sources deny it, and I don't think we should be having lyrics put up indiscriminately. I've also asked about copyright concerns as we have at best vague allegations that the song is not copyrighted. I'd err on the side of caution and leave it to sources that describe people's reactions and if they do, quote specific lyrics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Red diaper baby

Hi can a few people add Red diaper baby to their watch lists please? The latest vandalism was up for 24 hours. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

• Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Troubling POV edits by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) to this article. Edits violate WP:Undue weight in a WP:BLP article. Edits by user are almost exclusively to the source Anson Shupe - who has an obvious bias and financial conflict of interest in the material discussed - Shupe was a witness in a court case against Rick Ross, and has assisted the Church of Scientology and Scientology's lead attorney Kendrick Moxon during and after the court case, and was compensated for his services. This financial conflict of interest source should be avoided. Not to mention the obvious WP:Undue weight in a WP:BLP article issue - this particular segment (the Jason Scott case) was expanded to take up way, way too much space in this WP:BLP article. Obvious POV pushing and inappropriate usage of a biased financial conflict of interest source. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The main source, Anson Shupe, is a recognised authority in the field who was indeed an expert witness in the case. The publisher, Transaction Publishers, is likewise an established and reputable academic publishing house. Other citations include The Nation and original court documents provided on an academic website recommended as a research source by authoritative university-level textbooks. The Jason Scott case was a landmark case. It was by far the most notable case that the article subject was involved in. It had extremely far-reaching consequences in the United States. The amount of coverage the case received in our article as it stood was not commensurate with its importance. Jayen466 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The main source, Anson Shupe, has a financial conflict of interest in this matter. The Jason Scott case is one aspect of the biography of Rick Ross (consultant), an article which is a biography of a living person. The information should not take up more than a couple paragraphs in this article, and the expansion by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) was WP:Undue weight in a WP:BLP. Shupe should not be used as a source, due to bias and financial conflict of interest, as stated above - he cooperated in the court case against Ross, and was financially compensated for his time and services. He has also worked with attorney Kendrick Moxon, lead attorney for the Church of Scientology. Does not get more of an obvious financial conflict of interest than that. Obvious smear attempt in this WP:BLP article, which should not be tolerated. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is normal for expert witnesses to be compensated for their services; indeed, Ross himself is or has been thus compensated for performing this function. I am not aware of there being any conflict of interest involved in an academic publishing a book giving an outline of a case where he acted as an expert witness. What do you base your assertion on?

The religious affiliation of the opposing counsel is, to my mind, immaterial. More importantly, it was decisively characterised as immaterial by the judge, who remarked upon the apparent inability of the defendants to appreciate the maliciousness of their conduct, choosing, in the judge's words, to portray themselves throughout the entire process of litigation as victims of the alleged agenda of the opposing counsel. Their conduct was found, by the jury, to be "so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community". These are documented facts, established in a court of law, upheld on appeal, and I see no good reason why our article should skirt around them.

Again, this was an extremely notable case, with far-reaching implications and consequences. We owe it to our readers to describe it. Jayen466 18:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• For other editors' convenience, the main source I used can be viewed here. Jayen466 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest reservations do not apply to sources. For example, a liberal author who is notable may have a "conflict of interest" as it relates to John Mccain, but if the author is published in a secondary source, it can be used as a source in the Mccain article. Granted, it may be a "biased" source, but all sources have their biases. As for the undue weight claims, these can be resolved in article talk page via constructive discussions and the pursuit of WP:DR if editors cannot find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion to address the WP:UNDUE issue, would be to create an article named Jason Scott case (over the current redirect) that can be expanded with Shupe and other sources that referred to this notable case, and summarize that article in a section on the Ross' article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

some of the references in the RR article are indeed a little dubious. Presentations at academic conferences that have not been peer-reviewed are perhaps the least authoritative possible type of scientific publication. to use as reference [8], a paper admitted by its authors as being based upon unpublished work and their own opinion, is particularly doubtful when used to attack someone's academic work or legal testimony. As controversial BLP, I consider it totally unacceptable anywhere in WP, whether in a bio article or elsewhere. The other conference presentation [9] is at least documented, and might be acceptable for other purposes--if used about the organization, not the person.

A good deal of that article generally contains unevaluated primary source material and OR synthesis, and needs to be re-examined, irrespective of the person wh made the contributions. DGG (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the citations to the Shupe/Darnell papers were present in the article before I touched it. I believe the sources I added are the 2006 Shupe/Darnell book, as well as the Alexander Cockburn article in The Nation and online court records at cesnur.org (some of which, too, were already in the article).

Following Jossi's suggestion, I have transferred the material on the case to Jason Scott case and will include a shortened summary in Rick Ross (consultant). Jayen466 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shortened summary now included in Rick Ross (consultant).
• Para cited to unpublished paper removed. Jayen466 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • • That summary is nearly as long as the spun-off article, which makes that article the equivalent to a POV fork. I suggest it should be more like a paragraph or two in length. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • For reference, the spun-off article is 1767 words in length; the summary section in Rick Ross (consultant) is 740 words, around 40% of that total. Perhaps another alternative that we could look at would be to incorporate the material in the biographical section, at its appropriate place in the timeline, since it obviously was a major event in his life. I don't understand your point about the WP:POV fork; would it not, rather, be a POV fork to gloss over the case – and the attendant criticism of the subject's behaviour – in Rick Ross (consultant), but cover it in detail in another article? Note that the article presently devotes 592 words to the Waco case, where Ross's involvement was not as central as it was in the Jason Scott case, where he was the main defendant. Jayen466 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Since we have almost 1800 words on the topic, having 740 on the exact same topic in another tarticle is unnecessary. The material in the Ross bio should be limited to a short summary of the facts, mostly concerned with his own involvement. There's no need for so much duplication, which is what leads to POV forks. This version [10], from earlier this month before the big expansion, looks sufficient. It's about 330 words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • That version spent more words on criticising Moxon than it did on reflecting the criticism that Ross received from the judge and jury. Do you think that is appropriate? Jayen466 19:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • In that case removing the Moxon material will result in an even more compact summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
              • It also makes no reference whatsoever to the violent nature of the kidnapping and deprogramming (gagging with duct tape etc.), conduct which the jury considered an outrage. Do you really think that is appropriate as well? Jayen466 19:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
                • If Ross did the gagging then it probably belongs. But if others did it then it probably doesn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Ross and his associates (all from Arizona) were all held to have been parties to the conspiracy to deprive Scott of his civil liberty. IIRC, Ross's liability was set at 70%, with 10% each for his two associates, and 10% for CAN. Descriptions in RS unanimously name Ross as the deprogrammer and describe these circumstances as part of the case. Jayen466 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
                    • Fine, then let's say that Ross was found civilly liable for depriving Scott of his civil rights. But since we have a standalone, full-length article on the topic we don't need to go into the actions of other people on Ross's bio. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Will, please reconsider your position. To give an example, we have worked together, off and on, on a BLP article mentioning that a journalist was brutally attacked by associates of the BLP subject. Should we, then, remove all mention of that notable attack from the BLP in question? Or would you support such removal as soon as I created a separate article on that notable attack? I personally would not be in favour of that, since multiple sources bring the attack up in the context of discussing our BLP subject – even though there is no evidence whatsoever of the BLP subject having ordered or had foreknowledge of that attack. Here, on the other hand, in Ross's case, we have multiple sources describing the perpetrators as "Ross's associates" [11], a "security team put together by Ross", and so forth, and have a jury assigning 70% of the responsibility for what occurred to Ross personally. There is no shortage of articles mentioning that Scott was handcuffed and gagged in the course of the deprogramming attempt performed by Ross. Jayen466 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't exclude biased sources in Wikipedia articles. On the contrary, we openly aim to include all prominent viewpoints. That said, the Scott case is unquestionably related to Ross' notability and is even a milestone in the history of the countercult movement in the United States (which affected other Western nations as well). During the 80s, deprogramming was very much in vogue in the countercult movement. The Scott case lead to a sharp decline in the popularity of the deprogramming approach and coincided with the drastic decline in the popularity of anticult literature and thought occurring during the early 90s. It (relatively) catapulted Ross and the broader countercult movement into the broader public consciousness and simultaneously marked the end of an age for both Ross' activities and the 80s era countercult movement. While the case could use a broader variety in sources and Ross' article is in poor shape (for example, there is little commentary about his iconic role in the 80s era countercult movement or about his revival on the internet), this particular case is integral to the subject's notability and the broader movement he represents. Vassyana (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not simply a matter of a biased source. The Shupe source is written in a narrative which is basically a novella format in which Shupe takes literary/dramatic license to write his piece and construct it as he sees fit. We would not want to write the article about a biography of a living person solely using a source based on an attorney that actively litigated against him and the academic the attorney paid to testify against him - this represents not simply a one-sided view of the issue - but a factually inaccurate view as well. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From Shupe/Darnell, p. 180: "Our description below should not be construed as a product of literary license for purely dramatic purposes. Of course, the narrative is intrinsically dramatic, with themes of conspiracy, violence, confinement and bold escape. But it is based closely on court documents and testimonies, including Scott's own under-oath account of his deprogramming experience." [12] Jayen466 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All "prominent" viewpoints? Anson Shupe's "viewpoint" is not only not "prominent" - it is a reflection of Church of Scientology lead attorney Kendrick Moxon and his assistance to Moxon in the legal case against Ross. It is like using as a sole source for a a biography of a living person an individual that has litigated against that person and another individual that has assisted in civil litigation against that person. As stated above there is bias, there is a financial conflict of interest, and the use of this source as pretty much the sole predominant source above all other sources is extremely inappropriate and the source should not be used. Cirt (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Even Stephen A. Kent, who disagrees with Shupe on many things, has referred to him as "one very prominent sociologist, Dr. Anson Shupe, Jr.", adding that "Shupe deservedly is one of the most respected sociologists of religion today, having published widely cited articles on the Unification Church, new religions, Mormon business activities, family violence, and religious malfeasance." [13] Massimo Introvigne has written that "characterizing Anson Shupe as a 'well-known sociologist' verges on the obvious for anybody familiar with sociology of religion in general." [14] Shupe's CV is here. Jayen466 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone in the "countercult" movement since 1979 Moreover he had never subscribed to CAN's newsletter, although he "was able to obtain copies now and then from various people around the country" (Scott v. Ross, et al., 1995a, 83-87).

Although Shupe's testimony may have provided information beyond the general knowledge of jurors, Shupe did not read the full statements of the plaintiffs and defendants when formulating his opinions for deposition about the events in the case. Instead, he read excerpts from them supplied by the prosecuting lawyer, Kendrick Moxon. When asked if he had considered whether the depositions "may have been taken out of contexts" Shupe answered that he "trusted Mr. Moxon" to provide a "pretty good sample of the depositions" (Scott v. Ross, et al., 1995a, 109).

• Theresa Krebs, Stephen A. Kent and (1998). "When Scholars Know Sin: Alternative Religions and Their Academic Supporters". Skeptic Magazine. 6 (3). Retrieved 2008-10-16.

Essentially Anson Shupe relied pretty much solely on Kendrick Moxon, lead attorney for the Church of Scientology and member of Scientology's intelligence agency the Guardian's Office, for the bulk of his information. Not the best source, to say the least. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be completely up to speed on the above, but two things: one I removed a chunk of criticism from Anson Shupe's biography that I don't believe was adequately sourced for a BLP on an academic, and two, if an academic or professional is paid to give expert testimony in a case that does not in itself invalidate their works as a reliable sources in WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We must be wary of conflating two issues here. On the one hand, CAN – unsuccessfully – challenged the appropriateness of Shupe's testimony in its appeal. This reasoning, and the appeal, were rejected three times. First, a three-judge panel rejected CAN's reasoning (2:1), then the full 9th Circuit court rejected it (14:7, it appears), and finally the U.S. Supreme Court rejected it (sources in Jason Scott case#The trials, copyright-infringing copies of documents for which no URL is given can be found online by googling for the titles). But at any rate, this concerns Shupe's expert testimony in the case, and the basis on which he made it. Shupe's book, on the other hand, is explicitly based on court records and testimonies made in the trial, with citations given. A scholar of Shupe's standing and experience is a reliable source for a summary of such records, for WP purposes. And while his account is more detailed than other sources, there is considerable corroboration of details he describes to be found in Kent, the scanned court records on cesnur.org, as well as the contemporaneous Seattle Times and AP coverage. Jayen466 00:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) used the Anson Shupe source to write that the criminal trial of Rick Ross (consultant) in the Jason Scott case resulted in a "hung jury" [15], [16]. This is a false statement. See this source (cited by Jayen466 himself for other info in the article and yet neglected in this instance) where it states: "On January 18, 1994, after just two hours of deliberations, a Greys Harbor jury acquitted Rick Ross of unlawful detainment." This is corroborated in other secondary sources as well:

• Perkes, Kim Sue Lia (January 21, 1994). "Cult deprogrammer acquitted: Had been charged with unlawful imprisonment". The Arizona Republic. Nationally known cult deprogrammer Rick Ross of Phoenix has been acquitted of unlawful-imprisonment charges in Grays Harbor County Superior Court in Montesano, Washington. ... Ross also credited the eight-woman, four-man jury, which deliberated only two hours, for being able to see through the prosecution's attempts to paint him as a criminal. ... Jeff Ranes, Ross' attorney said several jury members hugged Ross after the verdict "and told him, 'We thought you did the right thing,' and, 'Keep up the good work.'

Again, Anson Shupe as a source is unreliable, and should not be used. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that discussion be at the WP:RSN and not here? Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article, and as such this should be discussed here. This unreliable source is being used to denigrate this living person, and a strict standard should be upheld. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a book by an academic sociologist published by an academic press, so there is no question about it being RS. Having said that there may not be much in it that is useful for this BLP. I reduced the section specifically on it to a short stub but it is still referred to umpteen times more. Both sides in this dispute need to remember that WP is not the place for pushing a point. I know feelings run high but it should be possible to end up with entirely neutral encyclopedic articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a book published by an individual hired by the lead attorney for the Church of Scientology, Kendrick Moxon - and it is a book that contains factual inaccuracies. It is a book with a conflict of interest and inaccurate information that should not be used as a source. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Cirt, you should consider the irony of repeatedly smearing Anson Shupe's academic credibility here on this board. We trust scholars and the reliable publications that publish their work to uphold standards of the highest degree despite the type of circumstance that you describe as a "conflict of interest". All you are doing is repeatedly suggesting that Shupe's integrity as a scholar is undermined by this circumstance, something which I don't see any verifiable evidence of despite your assertions. It isn't helping your cause in the least and I suggest you let this particular line of argument drop.PelleSmith (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, I have already demonstrated how the source contains factually inaccurate information. I hope we are not in the practice of using sources that contain factually inaccurate information in biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate information is not the same as repeated insinuations of impropriety. Factual inaccuracies can be dealt with easily by providing reliable sources that refute them. Also, one inaccuracy does not make a source completely unreliable, and you know that very well, which is why you keep on repeating these connections between Shupe and Scientology. Give us all a break here.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated that the Anson Shupe source makes false statements about this notion of a "hung jury". On Wikipedia we should not allow sources that contain such factual inaccuracies to be used in WP:BLP articles. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all we don't even know if it does contain this factual inaccuracy. We only know that Jayen sourced the entry content to said source. I don't have the book, and the two pages available on Google books do not contain any information about the trial outcome. Can you verify that the source is inaccurate in this regard? Also, most reliable sources have a limited number of inaccuracies in them, that's nothing new and clearly not grounds for declaring a source unreliable.PelleSmith (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Shupe book does claim the criminal trial ended in a "hung jury" on pg. 183. As I stated already, one error does not disqualify a source, if it did we'd have no sources to use at all.PelleSmith (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The Seattle Times here claims Scott was held in a "motel room". Most other sources I have seen say it was a rented beach cottage. Does that mean all Seattle Times reports are unreliable? Of course not. Jayen466 20:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As per [17],

"The victim does not want us to charge his mother," said Joe Wheeler, deputy Grays Harbor County prosecutor. "In a week or so, we'll sit down and figure out whether to do so." Wheeler said he was surprised by the jury's verdict on Rick Ross after two hours of deliberation. "I'm certainly glad this case is done," he said. Jurors in the case against Ross, in which he was accused of keeping Jason Scott for several days in 1991 against his will in a Grays Harbor house to dissuade him from his membership in Bellevue's Life Tabernacle Church, said prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott. Two other men in the case, Mark Workman and Charles Simpson, like Ross, of Arizona, were sentenced Tuesday to 30 days in jail after pleading guilty last week to reduced charges of coercion.

I suggest pending further clarification (I'm looking into it), we go with that, and the source Cirt quoted above. Jayen466 18:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RS/N

I started this thread at the RS/N in order to get input on this reliability issue: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Anson_Shupe_and_sources_with_known_inaccuracies.PelleSmith (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

COI/N

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Jayen466 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusation about Sarah Palin

In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_12#Category:People_by_race_or_ethnicity_et._al., an editor made a pop reference to a claim (now debunked) that a cry of "kill him" was made about Obama at a Palin rally. I asterisked out the claim, which the editor didn't like and has since reverted. Should I pursue the matter, or let it rest? Andjam (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah, more Palin-drama. Is she likely to sue? Is it likely to tip the election? Does it matter? No, but I'm guessing that'll not stop the drama. I do have a solution though:

Arbcom motion: The arbitration committee prohibit the editing of all US political articles by any editor using a US ISP. This order shall expire on November 5th 2008.

Thoughts?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit on a US political article. But honestly, it barely referenced the issue, and I agree with the poster, the proper course of action would be to approach the poster. It's hardly a WP:BLP violation, nor would it have been if it were true - unless it was something that was claimed Palin herself said. It doesn't defame Sarah Palin in anyway. I wouldn't like it either if someone altered or removed my comment on a discussion such as that. My opinion is to let it go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Debunked? Where was it debunked? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment (user whose comments were edited). I find it unacceptable that I was not at least be approached before or after my comments were edited in this instance. I would think that an ex post facto notification to the user in question would have been a minimum courtesy, but I was left to discover the edit on my own. Andjam has explicitly stated that s/he has taken a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach. In my opinion, this is not a good approach to take with all but the most obvious examples of BLP violations. Here, had I been courteously approached with the concern that my comment might be problematic, I would have been more than willing to adjust the comment. But when someone changes your comments without even letting you know after the fact, well—that's just unacceptable and it does not tend to make one want to adjust the comment. The editor shot, but then no questions were asked. Incidentally, there was no "accusation about Sarah Palin" made, as the header for this section suggests. I still don't see the BLP issue; I didn't defame anyone. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Debunked or not, why on earth would this claim go into the article to begin with? I thought we kept poorly-sourced guilt-by-association crap out of articles. E.g., Ayers-Obama. Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was ever in the article, or proposed to be added. As best I can tell, this is a dispute about refactoring someone's offhand comment in a CfD discussion. Of course this doesn't belong in Sarah Palin's article, but I'm not sure what we're even talking about here - it appears to be something different. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Good grief, do users look at the links above before commenting? It wasn't in an article, as MastCell states. It was a passing comment in a CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, before triple edit-conflicting, I was going to revise to: "Debunked or not, why on earth would this need to be discussed on a tangent deletion debate?" It's a stronger case for refactoring, I think. Cool Hand Luke 21:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure; maybe someone could have approached me about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
          • They could have, or they could have behaved cautiously and just removed the stray remark. Maybe not the right choice, but not clearly wrong. You could also now remove it yourself, except you don't "tend to" want to because you weren't asked. Now that it's been brought to your attention, do you suppose you could edit it? Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Sure; and then courteously notified the commenter that the change has been made. Neither a pre- nor a post-edit notification was done. I don't understand why "caution" would preclude talking to the user in question. No, I'm not going to edit it because I don't want to encourage this type of behavior when these types of issues arise. Users may discover that things are a lot easier if everyday rules of courtesy are adhered to. If users who are worried about BLP want to try to find a consensus to change it, be my guest. But I personally don't see a BLP violation, and so see no need to edit my comment unless I was doing so strictly as a return courtesy to a worried user. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Olfactory refuses to remove it, I vote that someone else remove it. Think of it this way: it's not a critical issue, but is making a cute remark on a discussion page worth propagating an unsubstantiated rumor? This isn't a political blog. ATren (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The dropping a "cute" remark about current events in a relatively obscure CfD discussion should probably be less of a concern that the "unsubstantiated rumor" being propagated by quotes included within actual WP articles, like Frank Schaeffer, should it not? In other words, are we going to censor all cultural references to a prominent-in-time event just because the supposed details of the event have been "debunked"? If not, I see no reason to delete mine unless BLP violation can be demonstrated or explained more clearly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in BLPs, the burden of proof lies with whoever wants to keep the material. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah—but before we get along to placing the onus on someone, first we need a living person that "BLP" applies to. No one's said who that is yet. I made no allegation against Sarah Palin. Is it the person in the crowd? If no one actually said it, then who is the living person I'm defaming? Can I defame all the participants of the rally as a whole? Is it defamatory to anyone who has ever attended a Palin rally? If a tree falls in a forest, etc., etc., etc. Seems like much ado about nothing or just a case of an overzealous BLP patroller. (If it does get deleted, though, I'd like to see the same sort of action taken on the Frank Schaeffer article.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's connected to Palin. If I were to say, in a passing lighthearted remark, that we shouldn't worry about Good Ol’factory because he's not like the terrorists who attend John Smith's rallies, it would be grossly inappropriate. It's irrelevant to our project, and at best somewhat negative toward the people John Smith associates with. It's no defense that no terrorists attend John Smith's rallies; the fact that they don't is what makes the remark unfairly negative. This isn't hard to see.

The Frank Schaeffer remark needs an inline cite, but it appears to be the words from his Baltimore Sun column, and it's his opinion. Notable living people often have notable opinions about other living people, and it's fine to quote these when it's clearly their words. I'll try to make that more clear in the Schaeffer article. In the meantime, please consider editing your comment. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, it is "connected to" Palin, in the sense that her name was mentioned, but you still haven't answered who it libels/defames. Palin, then? This is a fairly strained interpretations of what I said–your examples are not wholly applicable and involve a twisting of my words if they are to suit your example. I didn't refer to anyone as a terrorist, nor did I say the commenter wasn't like people at a Palin rally. It wasn't even negative towards people who attend Palin rallies or towards Palin. If anything, it was more of an indictment on the media frenzy of outrage that surrounded the making of the comment. I was drawing a parallel between the commenter's outrage at the "off with their heads" comment in the CfD and the outrage about the supposed incident at the Palin rally. This isn't hard to see, either; this confusion, combined with the fact that you initially assumed we were talking about an article, does make me wonder how carefully you've examined the interaction that actually led to my comments.

My mentioning of the Frank Schaeffer article was not a serious concern—it was an attempt to demonstrate why the concern with what I said is, well, "silly", for lack of a better word. Of course the quote in the Schaeffer article is OK.

And no, as I stated above, I have considered it and I'm not editing the comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I took your unserious concern in good faith, because that's what I do. It's polite, after all, not to toss out spurious arguments. I took it seriously because the distinction is often missed. Ann Coulter might reportedly say John Edwards is gay, but such a claim is appropriate in her biography because she is the subject, and it's clear that her words are her own. We are not subjects here, and we're engaged in building the encyclopedia, as opposed to making evidently contentious claims. Do you mind then, if I redact your comment? Or do you think it's still important to discourage Andjam for his impoliteness and his audacity to remove comments "immediately and without waiting for discussion" ("shoot first," in your parlance)? Cool Hand Luke 07:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My final remark: this thread only caught my eye because of your indignation that one should "shoot first," even though that's precisely what we're supposed to do on BLP issues. It's unfortunate that they didn't tell you afterwards, but their misapprehension of your comment was understandable. I think that it would be real big of you to just change it. I'm not going to touch it though. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do really begin to wonder if anyone has actually read my comments above. As I suggested in my initial comment and have clarified a number of times, it's not so much the "shoot first" that bothered me; it's more that no one bothered to ask any questions or to inform me, either pre- or post-"shooting". If you're gonna redact anyone's comments, at least tell them.

Not to mention the fact that no one has yet to have demonstrated any valid BLP concern. Where is the evidently contentious claim regarding a living person? If there is no BLP violation, then there's no need to "shoot" at all, which is really the crux of my point. Here, from my POV, there was no violation—just an oversensitive or overzealous editor. I'm still anxiously awaiting an explanation of what the BLP violation was by someone without the use of a comparison that grossly mischaracterizes the language I used. (I don't think the comparison with Coulter saying Edwards is gay is even remotely close.)

I'm not going to edit my comment. You asked me if you could change it but then said you're not gonna touch it—I'm getting mixed messages on what your intent is. I assume your last statement constitutes your latest thoughts on the matter. I think doing so would be fairly petty, as I've suggested above. I would at least hope for a notification that you've done so if you choose to do so, but since you've suggested you're not going to the point is moot, I suppose.

As far as I am concerned, I too have said what I've wanted to say and so am considering the matter closed (i.e., as far as my involvement is concerned—anyone else is of course welcome to moot the point for as long as desired). I can be contacted via my talk page if anyone needs any clarification or further input from me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you seem to indicate that you would be OK with someone redacting your text as long as they notify first, I am hereby notifying you that I will redact if you do not. I'd prefer if you did it, but if you don't I'll do it. It is a throwaway line that adds absolutely nothing to the project, but which repeates an unsubstantiated rumor associating a VP candidate with fringe elements three weeks before an election. There is no upside and plenty of downside. So this is a polite request: please reword, or I will redact it later. I have not been involved previously (and indeed, I'm only on this page because of an unrelated BLP issue) so there is no reason for you to suspect my motives. If it's still there later, I will remove it. ATren (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not be OK with that. Thanks for asking, though. That it "adds nothing" is your opinion and simply not true; on the contrary, it is part of a rhetorical point that was made in a discussion about assumptions of good faith in a CfD, and the point would not be as effective if removed. Maybe that's "nothing" to you, but it's an insufficient reason to remove it.

By the way—as I suggested above, I'm not checking this discussion, so if you really want to let me know anything re:this from this point on, you should use my talk page. (I only found out about the latest comment b/c Cool Hand Luke let me know there. Thanks for that, CHL.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it alone was not an option. I am removing it. ATren (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was. I'm not sure which discussion you've reviewed, but from the very start there were two options: (1) redact it; or (2) leave it. I'm not the only user on the page who has suggested it can be left alone, and you've hardly demonstrated a consensus to remove it. If it's not a BLP violation, it shouldn't be removed, and there hasn't even been a convincing argument presented that it is, let alone a consensus that it is. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, CHL had concerns and so did I, plus there was the original poster, Andjam - that's 3. One endorsed your view, so 3-2 seemed like enough consensus for a BLP issue so I boldly removed it. I find it curious that earlier you made the comment "Here, had I been courteously approached with the concern that my comment might be problematic, I would have been more than willing to adjust the comment." But when I did exactly that, you still refused. I think it's clear you never had any intention of addressing anyone's concern, and the fact that you've now reverted twice indicates that you really want that line in there. Why is it so important to keep that remark when removing it does not harm your point whatsoever, and keeping it is inappropriate in the opinion of 3 other editors? It seems soapy to me, but that's just my opinion. In any case, I generally adhere to 1RR so I'm done with it unless someone else chimes in here. ATren (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement you quote is past tense. Andjam's behavior changed my mind. In my view, my point is not as rhetorically sound without it in there, which is the main reason I'd like it to remain. I think I mentioned all of these points above. 3–2 is not very convincing when no one has even established a BLP violation, despite my repeated inquiry as to their details. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we all just drop it? The comment made was not about Palin. To say that it is a BLP vio is beyond ridiculous. I agree with the two posters at the beginning of the thread: Let it go already, this is not a BLP vio. You're arguing over a CFD discussion that has been closed for quite a while now. Go do something constructive, please. --Kbdank71 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read a single word CHL or I wrote above? I guess arguments don't matter when you're on a soapbox. In any case, I did drop it even before you got the urge to post that supercilious response. ATren (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Ol'factory asked "who it libels/defames. Palin, then?". For the record, yes, Palin, not people who attend Palin rallies. People have criticised Palin, arguing that she should have condemned that alleged comment. Also, the Sydney branch of Wikipedia Australia is unanimous in its support for banning US-based editors from editing election-related articles until the race is over. :) Andjam (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read more into the comment than was actually said, it's still a stretch. Because what was said had nothing to do with what Palin did or didn't do, or even criticism of what Palin did or didn't do. It had to do with what someone else said (or may have said) at one of her rallys. This is like saying "ZOMG, that's a BLP vio against ME, because I watched it!" --Kbdank71 12:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A side point: "the Sydney branch of Wikipedia Australia is unanimous in its support for banning US-based editors from editing election-related articles until the race is over. :)" Since I'm not a U.S.-based editor I'm not sure what relevance this issue has to the discussion, unless you are just replying to the comment by the user waaaay at the top. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Texas Presley

Should this article be deleted? Soulcityrebel (talk · contribs) blanked the page writing, "Please do not add this again." This user might be the subject of this article. Should it be brought to AfD as had happened with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie? Cunard (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be anyone. If the subject wants to communicate she'll need to try harder. As to whether this is notable......?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Two times AVN nominee gives her borderline notability. Exxolon (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Greg Coffey

Greg Coffey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the article is terrible, but he's undoubtedly a notable fellow - big money hedge fund manager who gets press coverage and is an important market player. The problem at present is allegations of interference in the Hungarian money markets that keep being re-added but just don't have a good source (a single Hungarian website that took the allegation down when Mr Coffey's people contacted them asking what the heck this rubbish was). Unless/until the allegations are in a good source, they need to be kept out. The article could do with a rewrite if anyone's got some copious free time. I've added a talk page note too - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And Mazarin07, who added it several times before, promptly re-added it with a note on my talk page calling me a "subversive editor." I've blocked him 24 hours for wilful BLP violations - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And he was blocked on hu:wp for edit-warring there - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, he was not and he is not although he certainly more than deserves it. Kope (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I was told he was (I didn't look myself) - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Adams

Valleywag reports that the subject of the article is unhappy with it, and it has the potential to get us bad press, so a little fisking would not go amiss. the skomorokh 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of personal and family information here, on the grounds that, although sourced from an interview with the subject, the subject's complaint of inaccuracy makes that source somewhat questionable. I've given full reasons on the talk page, but given the media attention here, I'd appreciate anyone reviewing what I've done and supporting (or not). Please comment on the talk page.;--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

• Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - there is no agreement as to whether information on this individual's taxation debts should be included in the article or otherwise.

I am of the view that they should not - the information is beyond what is necessary for an encyclopaedic article on this individual. not a public figure applies - ie editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability - this policy applies regardless of whether the information is supported by reliable sources. Others believe that since Joe the Plumber has commented on taxation matters and has subsequently become a public figure, his taxation debts are suitable matter for inclusion. There have also been attempts to include his income details (based on a divorce filing) and driving violations in the article. The talk page is archived and discussions are in the archive as well as on the current page. Note a variety of views have been expressed at Talk:Joe the Plumber#His views on taxation . --Matilda ^talk 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Matilda but I would also add that removing this kind of sleazy low-rent journalism may be exempt from the three revert-rule. Of course, the same logic would probably apply to deleting the article. CIreland (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, as for deleting the article, Joe the Plummer is currently at DVR, so I wouldn't recommend deleting it outright. In fact, the DVR looks as if it will support keeping the article. Which it should as Joe the Plummer has entered the American Lexicon... I mean, if you watched football today you couldn't help but hear references to "Joe the Plummer." My favorite, "He was so open that even Joe the Plummer could have caught it."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said at DRV, I have no real issue with the subject's notability; it's borderline, maybe he should have and article, maybe not. The point is should he have this article? Being notable doesn't mean we keep an article built from whatever scurrilous claptrap we have scraped from the tabloid sewer. CIreland (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a poll on whether this tax information should be kept on the talk page, Talk:Joe the Plumber#His views on taxation 12-5 said that the tax information should be on the page.

The delete editors argued more time was needed before we re-added this information. Now three days later, after a 12-5 poll, these editors still refuse to have this tax information on the page. They continue to delete even one sentence which mentions the tax information.

Joe the Plumber didn't seek the national spot light, but he now embraces it, holding a press conference, and being on several talk shows recently with Katie Couric, Your World with Neil Cavuto, and Diane Sawyer making him a willing and eager public figure.

WP:NPF and BLP was created because someone inaccurately wrote something about a public figure. Joe the Plumber's tax records are public records, and what is written on his page is factually correct, backed up by Hundreds of articles[18], which continue to bring up this tax lien fact, making it public knowledge. Every major newspaper in the English speaking world has mentioned the tax lien. Yet less than a half dozen wikipedians hold this article hostage.

As hundreds of journalists have realized, but these half dozen wikipedians won't, is his tax liens are relevant because Joe the Plumber was made it relevant, with his public views on taxes. Inclusionist (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing with a straw man: I don't think anyone disputes that the information is true and verifiable. The material previously inserted about his driving/parking offences was also likely true and verifiable. And I would venture to say that we can find true and verifiable material about all manner of trivia concerning this individual. The point is that verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inclusion of material. CIreland (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted at the talk page and at the (probably soon to be rejected) RfAr, I feel that this is the proper venue for discussion; that I'm neutral on his views on taxes (other than the question he asked Obama) being included, but that if his views on taxes are included, then the tax lien should "attack" to that statement for necessary, accurate, and adequately sourced, context. The hospital lien and drivers license problem are probably not relevant unless a reliable source notes the relevance, but a tax lien's relevance to a person's views on taxes is obvious. (Now, the source that he may not be aware of lien may not be appropriate for inclusion, as a deputy clerk at a courthouse may not be a reliable source. If she were a Deputy Clerk of the Court, that might be different.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I concur with CIreland that the arguments I ahve raised concerning WP:NPF - not a public figure ahve not been addressed by Inclusionist. Inclusionist states the straw polli sat 12:5 - I disagree as I count 7 against inclusion in the strawpoll: as well as myself, the following editors expressed a view to exclude: betsythedevine, Dp76764, Arzel, Amwestover, Collect, Anomalocaris and I was not sure what position Timhowardriley was expressing though he was probably against - hence I have modified my count from 8 to exclude to 7 to exclude in that strawpoll. More than 5 expressed a view to exclude the information. I note the guideline at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and the policy at WP:Not#Wikipedia is not a democracy --Matilda ^talk 06:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I had counted 10 include (although 3 didn't specify exactly what to include, so I have to assume it's both the tax lien and tax quote), 2 conditional include lien given the tax quote, and 6 exclude (including 2 who didn't specify what they wanted to exclude). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• And I no longer believe him to be a non-public figure, even in the more limited (as to "public figure") Wikipedia sense, as he seems to be seeking interviews. That's not the actions of a non-public figure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• The comment that he was probably unaware of the lien was quoted in a reliable source, but not quoting someone who had reasonable expertice. If she were a Deputy Clerk of the Court or of the County, it might be appropriate, but a "deputy clerk" at the courthouse? That's the person you talk to at the counter when you file something, or possibly her assistant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• He is a private citizen. The issue of the Tax Lien is only relevant by making the WP:SYNTH connection that it some how corresponds to his views on taxes, which some editors have determined to be that of a tax protester. However, there is no evidence that he is a tax protester there is also significant evidence that he may not even have been aware of the lien against him. Per BLP, articles should not serve to denegrate the individual, and all individuals deserve some basic human dignity. The only purpose of this issue to to invalidate his question of Obama and as such denegrate the person. It is people like Joe for which WP:BLP is expressly created to protect. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The very change of title argues that this is no longer a biographical article, but an article on a campaign term, a personna associated with specific events, and specific issues. Hence, JW biographical material is improperly contained in this article. Just as Cowardly Lion has virtually no bio of Bert Lahr contained within it. Collect (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense. If his individual views on taxation, other than that of his statements made specifically to the Presidential candidates, are relevant, then so are his individual tax problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As for Arzel's comment, a majority of those supporting the title change at Talk:Joe the Plumber specifically said that it's still a biographical article, so that argument has no relevance to the article as written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Include the tax lien info. He is a private citizen, but tax information is already public record. It is already a public matter. There is no reason to assume public records are in any way private. When taxes are the topic, whether or not the person presenting the topic isn't paying taxes becomes part of the topic. We're not judging here. It's not presenting a personal perspective or opinion of the person, it's information as to the public record of the person. The suggestion that it's a form of tax protest or not is irrelevant. As far as a Wikipedia article is concerned, the tax lien info is pertinent, and public (not private) record. --VictorC (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Exactly why is the information pertinent, and for that matter why is it not undue weight? Arzel (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How can a tax lien not be relevant to one's view of taxes. (As a question of FACT, which shouldn't be in the article, but can be discussed, it is highly improbably that Joe is unaware that he owes back taxes, whether or not he's aware of the lien. I find it difficult to believe he wasn't aware of the lien, as a copy of the document is supposed to be sent to the address the tax agency has on file for him, but I believe it possible.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet some appear to editwar even while people try to discuss the issue. Sigh. When the clerk says there is a 99% chance Joe did not know -- that seems to me to indicate that he was unlikely to know of the lien. To posit that the ckerk is wrong boggles the mond. Therefore, we ought to take the clerk at his word. And for FL, at least, property tax liens are filed automatically -- so many people do not know of them. We have also seen people try inserting stuff like driving records. Public record? Yes. Proper in a BLP? No. Just because a record is "public" does not mean it is perforce properly in a BLP. Collect (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The clerk is not an expert in this context, and I seriously doubt her statements. I'll check with some of my friends who are expert in tax collections to determine if there is any credible belief for that statement. I'll report back, whether or not they agree with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a property tax lien, although some clerk was quoted as saying it was. This is an income tax lien, which cannot be filed automatically, and (at least for Federal liens and California income tax liens), the person whose taxes are being collected is notified by mail and certified mail, or by personal service. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend for my words to indicate I thought it was a property tax lien. It is, however, a lien on property for which no suit has to be filed. As for IRS practices -- they are not required to notify lienees by certified mail to the best of my knowledge until after the lien is filed. Neither you nor I know the Ohio rules. The amount is relatively small, which means one can not be sure of the nature of the tax problem. I suppose this is part of the issue -- the taxing authorities can publicly embarrass a person without him being able to contest it in public. Catch-22, which would be totally illegal in Europe. Collect (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to How can a tax lien not be relevant to one's view of taxes - there may be some cross-cultural differences here. In Australia (and perhaps the UK) one's tax affairs are a private matter between oneself and the tax office and privacy is strictly observed. While information about debts can perhaps be sniffed out from the courts - if it gets to that stage, it would rarely if ever be published by the press unless it became a notable case and the tax office released a press release. That this information relating to Joe the Plumber has been published by the press in the US perhaps indicates a different privacy standard. I remain concerned though of the violation of privacy of publishing information about a debt on wikipedia which is less ephemeral than a media report. Eventually everything is relevant to one's view of tax, including one's ability to pay them, one's perception as to whether others pay their debts, ... I would feel more reasured if somebody said it was normal in the US to have one's financial affairs, including one's debts, made public. --Matilda ^talk 02:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The lien information is petty, but relevant in the context that "Joe the plumber" has become a symbol of the hyperbole used in the campaign around tax policy and its impact on small businesses and individuals. While Matilda's concerns about privacy are commendable in general, Joe in particular has volunteered a lot of information to the media, and actively participated in making himself, and his views on taxes, publicly known. I watched the Fox news interview and he was not shy about sharing aspects of his personal finances. And frankly, broader knowledge of a small unpaid tax lien is hardly the stuff that causes scars. It's a minor infraction given the amounts and I'm not sure why BLP issues are at play here. There may be other agendas. Mattnad (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

He has stated publically that he did not know about the tax lien against him until this event. Therefore it has NO relevance to his notability at all. Unless it can be proven that he did know and is a tax protester is must be removed from his bio (which is currently protected). This is seriously getting a little ridiculous that some are so upset with the guy that they continue to try and drag this guy through the mud. Arzel (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying that the subject of a topic's ignorance of a fact has anything to do with the relevance of the fact isn't applicable. What's applicable is that the topic has a lot to do with taxation. Taxation is the relevant issue here, and a tax lien also has to do with taxation. Additionally if hypothetically Joe were in the news because of his views on driver's safety or vehicle standards, then I'd say that vehicle and driving were the topic here, making his driving record relevant (his driving record is irrelevant). So Joe was ignorant of the lien? All this means is nothing (with respect to this article). Since taxation is the focus, I reiterate, the tax lien is relevant. It's in no way a personal agenda, in no way trying to drag a "guy through the mud." Keep the focus. Taxation. --VictorC (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the $1K was a small fraction of his taxes, then the lien is irrelevant. If he were a "tax protestor" (and seeing how much I pay in taxes,) the amount would be way higher. You can get a $1K parking ticket with towing in NYC. Collect (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I disagree. I don't (personally) think that Joe's a tax protestor. Also, I think that the specifics of the tax lien are totally irrelevant. The dollar amount of the tax lien has no bearing on its relevance. The fact that a tax lien exists at all is what's relevant. Since there is a tax lien, it is covered by the topic of taxation. It's a minor note, but I find it relevant to put out there for anyone to draw their own conclusions from. I have a neutral position on this. --VictorC (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just "sleazy tabloids" that are metnioning, the lien is mentioned in this British "broadsheet" newspaper, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-johnmccain (technically The Guardian is no longer a broadsheet as it uses the Berliner format, but it certainly isn't a tabloid, although it's editorial line is to the left of centre even by British standards) David Underdown (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I personally endorse inclusion. It may be one of those things we should handle with care, but Joe doesn't seem to mind the attention, from what I can tell. Since it's mentioned in other venues (thus we hardly need to worry about BLP - even though he may not have known of it, by now he does, and I strongly doubt Wikipedia would suffer for publishing what others have verifiably said) and seems to be solid verification of Joe's stance on taxation (which is the biggest reason he's such an important person in the election), it should be included. Just my $0.02. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • One a further note, I don't believe it would serve to attack someone by being completely honest about their stance on something - a stance in which is significantly important to his fame. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the inclusion of Joe the Plumber's tax liens either serves two purposes:

• to attack him, or
• to doubt his credibility to give opinions on and question tax policy.

As to the first purpose, I think most level-headed editors can spot another editor's intentions in regard to that easily. These editors vehemently repeat that it's a sourced fact so it should be included, often ignoring multiple Wikipedia policies in the process.

More often, however, that purpose I usually see for inclusion of his tax lien information is related to his qualification to question tax policy. But since when do you have to meet certain qualifications to simply ask a question? If Joe the Plumber were Joe the Janitor, the question he asked and Obama's response would be no different. Why do you have to be a small business owner to ask questions about small businesses? Why do you have to be a small business owner to be concerned about taxes for small businesses? The argument that someone needs to meet certain qualifications to question something is, quite frankly, bullshit. Do you have to be a teacher to question education? Do you have to be a woman to question abortion? Do you have to be a veteran to question war policy? Do you have to be heterosexual to question marriage? Do you have to be rich to question tax policy for the upper class? The answer to all those questions is "No", and the answers you get are no less valid.

To give opinion on the matter is a different story. And more recently, editors have been using his tax lien to discredit his taxation quote (sometimes also linking this to tax protesting without any sources, which is just plain ridiculous). However, I don't think that his taxation quote should be included because he's hardly an expert on the matter. If we were to include every opinion that someone's ever uttered then Charles Barkley's Wikipedia article would fill up a hard drive on its own.

If you don't think the purpose of the tax information is to attack him or to question his credibility, then what is the purpose? Because it's on the same general topic of taxes? If Joe the Plumber paid his federal taxes entirely in pennies, I don't think you'd see that mentioned in his Wikipedia article. Personal tax lien information is just about as relevant. In addition to that, even if he was a very notable individual, this information would be considered irrelevant. In fact, nearly all politicians serving in office make their tax records public, but you don't see links to those records in their respective Wikipedia articles. --Amwestover (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this entirely the purpose. His taxes (which he did not know about) his license status and other apsects about him were dug up to invalidate his question. What ever happened to the basic tenent of "Due no harm"? It appears that for this person the intent is "To Harm". WP - The perfect place to trash your enemies and praise your friends. Arzel (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose is attacking his credibility (even if the quote weren't so incredible.) The tax lien indicates (but does not prove) he:

1. is a tax protester,
2. didn't pay the taxes he believed were due,
3. has no permanent mailing address, or
4. filed his taxes so badly the the government prepared a substitute return.

Any of those is relevant to the basis of his opinions on taxes, but not necessarily to the question he asked Obama. We're not allowed, in articles, to speculate which it might be, but as any of them attacks his credibility, we should allow the reader to see the information.

Besides, he is a "public figure"; not necessarily well-known, but he's seeking publicity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you may have missed my original point: you don't need credibility to ask a question. Instead of admittedly attacking his credibility -- which is not exhibiting neutrality or good faith and has no place in Wikipedia -- you should remove his opinions if you don't think he's qualified to make them. Regardless, all of your admitted attacks on his credibility are original research (most attacks are) and I strongly suggest you read or re-read Wikipedia's policy on the matter. Wikipedia is not the forum for you to post your speculations; get a blog. --Amwestover (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One final comment (by me anyway) - editors from mainstream and highly respected publications like the NY Times, Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine felt that the lien information was fit enough to print. If these professionals think it's relevant, then why are we so concerned about it?

Furthermore, even it the the lien information was revealed by people wanting to attack him (a plausible theory), that makes it all the more relevant as part of a political counter punch. Shouldn't wikipedia include information on the political response to this "character" of "Joe the Plumber".

Finally, I have one other clarifying query which was partly suggested by Arthur Rubin - many editors on this page assume that because he didn't know about the lien, he was equally unaware that he owed taxes. I have read nothing that supports the latter conclusion. What is the source for that claim? Mattnad (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point, agreed 100%. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He claimed to not know. There is a source that stated that he was 99% unlikely to have known. There is a lot of conjecture here that he must have known. There are no sources that claim he must have known. Not only is this a BLP violation, but the implications being leveled here against him are very close to libel. Arthur Rubin has indicated in no small terms that Joe is either a liar or stupid. And is claiming that he is seeking publicity. There is no evidence to support these allegations. One of the biggest problems regarding this is that there is no context for the lien statement, only that it exists, and I have yet to hear one rational reason as to why it is important. You can all claim ignorance if you want, but it is clear what is trying to be done here. Drag the guys life through the mud for political purposes. I thought WP was better than that. I thought wrong. Arzel (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. Not all information printed by the news is appropriate for Wikipedia. Furthermore, attacks have no place on Wikipedia. If you don't believe that someone is qualified to state an opinion then remove the opinion instead of trashing the person. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we're not all qualified to give opinions that should be in Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Include the tax lien item: It is not "dragging a guy through the mud." It is not "to attack" him. It is not to "doubt his credibility" on his stance regarding tax policy. It is to the contrary. Including the tax lien information will keep Joe out of the mud, promote and reinforce the veracity of his ideological position, and ensure his credibility. To make it clear:

a) He is against paying taxes.

b) If anything the fact that he has a tax lien, this shows integrity, that he courageously sticks to his beliefs - even though they are an affrontation to current law.

c) Even if he's not a "tax protester" he's (either wittingly or unwittingly) showing that the fact that he's not for taxation is for him, serious enough to jeopardize his standing with the state of Ohio, thus the lien.

d) Wikipedia is embarrassing Joe the Plumber to omit the tax lien information, and it's disrespectful to him. The fact that it has now become a nationally reported news item, as well as part of the state of Ohio public record makes it so. He has risked his reputation with the state of Ohio. He is against taxes and the Wikipedia article should reflect this by including at least one sentence on the simple fact of this tax lien. --VictorC (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This long discussion strikes me as forum shopping for those that don't like the result on the article's talk page because it's debating the exact same issue as the talk page. Interested editors have seen it, and have been put on notice already. I don't see what else this this long thread is going to achieve. It's time to close it. VG ☎ 19:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I originally typed like a paragraph-long response, but I think this sums it up: No. --Amwestover (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• One quick note for VictorC, in regards to his point a): "Not that I don't want to be taxed," Wurzelbacher told GMA. "You have to be taxed."[19] Dp76764 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for temporarily diverting from the main discussion, but this is a pertinent point that affects all participants in this discussion. I noticed that while this discussion is still ongoing, several editors who actually have been abstaining from (and a few who've been participating in) the BLP noticeboard discussion both ADDED and subsequently DELETED the tax lien item (several times within a one day time frame). What is the use of having the BLP noticeboard discussion while these editors are running roughshod and going half cocked through this issue? Please. Let's be civil about this. If there is a BLP noticeboard discussion that isn't resolved yet on this issue - these editors (who have been posting here and should be fully aware of the fact they are IGNORING the BLP noticeboard discussion) need to be directly dealt with, either here or by some other method of communication. This is especially frustrating to me, since I have been patiently participating in the BLP noticeboard discussion. I know that more than a few editors like myself could have just as easily swooped in and added or deleted the tax lien sentence instead. But we didn't. --VictorC (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, your patience is greatly appreciated. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hey all. I have been thinking over this issue for the past little while, trying to consider some way to write this article in an accurate and verifiable way, but without directly implying libelous information. After re-reading the section and reading over the relevant policy, I think I have an idea.

Instead of directly mentioning his tax lien in the article, I suggest we mention his stance on Obama's ideas on flat taxes, with references to sites that make note of the tax lien. That way, the tax lien isn't directly mentioned in the article, so we don't have to worry about BLP - therefore achieving maximum reliability with minimum libel. Note that the refs must be from a fully reliable source per the external links section - by that I mean we need more than one, all unbiased and reliable, and all encyclopedic.

Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note One likely argument against my above suggestion is that it still does not comply with BLP's spirit. From relevant section "Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links." Therefore, having a link to the same information that many oppose having in this particular article could be viewed as simply retaining it in a way that isn't obvious at first glance - it might even be called "gaming the system". However, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prides itself on being a reliable, unbiased source of information - and one that uses references to verify factuality. Using reliable sources that mention the lien would verify his stance regarding Obama's opposition to flat taxes, while not mentioning the tax lien itself in the article would help to avoid violating the spirit of BLP, even the external link section (assuming the citations are to reliable publications). Master&Expert (Talk) 05:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Further note I recognize this suggestion does not make direct note of the central discussion - should this article include his views in taxation? Well, quite frankly, the answer is yes it should. His views on the taxation - particularly to how they pertain to his opinion on Obama's opposition to flat taxes - are of paramount importance and fully relevant to the article. However, they should only be mentioned to the the extent where what we're presenting is fully accurate, 100% neutral, and fully referenced - and following closely to BLP. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For information to be libelous it has to be false not just negative. If a bunch of newspapers and TV stations publish/air it, you can rest assured that the subject will sue them long before he sues Wikipedia, which has statutory protection anyway. So your proposal is without merit. VG ☎ 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Libel doesn't just include things that are patently false; libel itself is defined as something written or implied that defames the subject. Mentioning the tax lien directly might imply things that cast Joe in a negative light, imply that his opinion is less valid due to his dislike of taxes (see ad hominem), and could therefore be classified as libel. However, I fail to see how using external sources that make note of the lien to verify his disagreement with Obama's opinion on a flat tax plan would be a BLP violation. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Standards for "libel" are far different in the US where a "public person" has little recourse to the courts, v. the UK which is more apt to consider something libel. Most lawyers in the US will not take libel cases as a result. The fact that it is libel remains. Collect (talk) 12

20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Libel" is a legal term, and he is the US, so using UK standards to create an "allegation" of libel is false, and quite possibly libelous by UK standards. Nonetheless, Wikipedia standards are even stricter than UK legal standards, and we have to decide here whether the information meets Wikipedia standards.

And I've repeated made the point that, if his views on taxation are to be included in the article, then reliably sourced information as to any tax problems he's having must also be included in the article, to provide context for his quotes. Otherwise, the quotes put him in a false light, yet another ground for suit in the US, and also violate WP:undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Master&Expert, I appreciate your good faith in suggesting a resolution to the matter, but I disagree with it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prides itself on being a reliable, unbiased source of information as you stated, but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; so even if information is verifiable that doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia. Even though this article is about a popular news item, Wikipedia is not the news.

I still oppose the inclusion of the tax lien information, regardless of BLP policy, because it gives credence to the notion that someone must meet certain qualifications or requirements to ask questions and have concerns about certain issues, and that is wrong. Joe the Plumber's notability pertains to the question he ask and Obama's response. --Amwestover (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What I suggested was more or less a compromise to avoid Wikipedia getting any perceived bias. I wasn't suggesting we simply add the tax lien as it is - rather, I suggested we linked to sites that made note of them. I wouldn't disagree 100% with including the tax lien; it's already public knowledge, and entirely relevant to his stance on taxation; which in turn is exactly what makes him notable. But the problem is that Wikipedia's quite possibly the most popular source of information on the internet in the English-speaking world; when people want to get access to knowledge, oftentimes they'll look to Wikipedia before any other site. It's our job to provide the best information possible, all the while without adding something that could be perceived as bias or libel.

Wikipedia may not be the news, but it includes particularly notable news items so that people who are looking for information on the topic will be satisfied. This article may or may not be permanent, but at the moment, we need to provide readers with a good source of information on the campaign. So what to do with Joe the Plumber for the time being? We give him his own article that will avoid cluttering other relevant articles (specifically, anything else to do with the 2008 presidential elections), and will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of Joe the Plumber. And his stance on taxation is relevant, therefore it should be included, but we have no make sure it is very specific - "Joe doesn't agree with Obama's stance on flat taxes" (not using that wording, but rather what it's saying) is much more in-depth, more factual, more relevant, and ultimately sounds far less biased in context than something to the likes of "Joe doesn't like to pay his taxes". People can add and verify the lien in defence of his resentment to taxing, but the thing is - like you said - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this fact should be taken in especially good care when handling BLP concerns. And I happen to agree with your point regarding the validity of one's opinion being disaffirmed due to credentials or circumstances that would naturally bring about bias - which is another reason why this could be viewed as a BLP violation. It could be viewed as a sort of ad hominem bias against Joe. However, I don't see how including citations from external sources that make note of his tax lien in order to verify his disagreement with Obama could be viewed as such. And if I'm wrong, then feel free to correct me. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Let's just state this for what it is. Obama supporters are out in force to attack this person, there is absolutely no other reason to try and make this libelous link between his tax lien (which has apparently been paid) with an off quote about taxes. Arzel (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, what makes you think it's libel? Do you know something we don't? Mattnad (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to Arzel's suggestion that Obama supporters are "out in force to attack Joe": I, for one, am an Obama supporter and do not think that the lein information is pertinent to the article (unless it can be shown that Joe intentionally didn't pay his taxes in some sort of 'protest', which it doesn't look to be the case). So can we please stop suggesting that this is some sort of witch hunt on Joe and get back to arguing the pertinence of the item instead? Dp76764 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Blake (pornographer)

I have renamed the article on adult film director Andrew Blake (pornographer) to Andrew Blake (director). I believe that "pornographer" is generally considered a negative term, and the new title more in keeping with similar articles. I was unable to find another instance where "(pornographer)" was used as a disambiguation term. Should the original title (now a redirect) be deleted on BLP grounds? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good rename. I'd say delete (but fix broken links to new target). No one is likely to search for "Andrew Blake (pornographer)" and "Andrew Blake" is a dab, which means anyone searching for the guy will find him. If you change the broken links, I'd say delete the redirect as housekeeping.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Now at RFD here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And now deleted, so never mind. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And now recreated. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Ganguli

Sidisidi23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest incarnation of Gloriothebould (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); the second instance was Mishmish22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All have added negative, unsourced information to the article, despite explanations on their user talk pages (in the first two cases) of Wikipedia requirements per WP:BLP. Request the newest sock puppet be blocked indefinitely. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And the block on Gloriothebould (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has expired; the account has again added unsupported derogatory text to the article. Request indefinite block. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary Winnick

Gary Winnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - As a representative of the subject of the article, I want to proceed with utmost caution to mitigate any possible conflict of interest. A certain user continues to revert all edits and then reposts the same false unsourced content. This user received a blatant vandal warning stemming from similar practices performed on another BLP. I first tried the Discussion page, but received no feedback - would an editor kindly weigh in on this issue? // Brycetom (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations and irrelevant facts have been removed. BLP policy is 'brightline' - if the allegations are re-inserted without following our BLP and WP:RS policies go ahead and remove them. I've warned the last user who re-added them. If you need urgent assistance post on WP:ANI. Exxolon (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Info was readded with sources. I've cut down non-directly related stuff and implications and just left the neutrally worded facts. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Papa Dee

Papa Dee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In this article a paragraph about the artist getting arrested and convicted of domestic disturbance has caused an edit war. Now hopefully the issue can be settle at the discussion page. It has been claimed that this section violates WP:BLP, but I can't see it (it's well sourced and even the artist himself has gone public with the information about the case). Nsaa (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP is more than just sourcing or "Verifiability".

In this case I agree with Nsaa that most contributors of the PD article at the moment seems to abide that cornerstone.

"Neutrality" - "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

This has in the case of the PD article, expanded into some less central facts for the understanding of the PD bio, just to balance and then counter balance the other balance and so on. I would like to encourage a discussion on how to handle this for the future as this PD article is nothing more than a testcase. These questions will come back in force if there are no better guidelines. In this case there are defenders/fans of PD, on one side and a few just arguing to better wiki, on the other side (non of us anti-PD in any sense as I see it) - Now think about something more inflamed, like an article about a football team, with fans and anti-fans (like AIK/Djurgården in swedish football) bombarding the pages about each others teams with all sorts of material, edit warring etc, Or worse politicalparties or religion....this might end in total chaos and utter destruction of wikis trust in the worldcommunity in certain articleareas....

Wikipedia does not publish "original research" or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

It seems that there is a strong drive by some contributors to argue that "to save PD:s reputation for the future" facts that fullfill the wiki cornerstones should be disregarded anyhow.

Even worse than writing opinions and arguing for his innocense, however sentenced by a court of law, is the removal of what others have written, emerging into an edit war. Therefore I argue a more specialized mechanism than just editors/admins/superadmins is needed (in this specific case I have even seen admins arguing against each other) this has been proposed as "BLP_admin" but has so far not reached consensus. Time to reactivate this discussion perhaps?Nisken (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Kelly O'Dell

• Kelly O'Dell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does purported birth name belong among aliases if it cannot be sourced as birthname? I don't think so. Would others interested in this topic review the recent edit history of Kelly O'Dell and weigh in, here or on the article's talk page? David in DC (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If others are interested, I need some help explaining why slipping an alias in to out a birth name isn't wiki-kosher. My explanation in edit summaries and on the talk page are not getting through. David in DC (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is it should certainly not be listed as a birth name at all. If it's a notable alias then maybe although BLP would favor leaving it off as it doesn't help the article or the reader's understanding of the subject. -- Banjeboi 04:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Share

• Catherine Share (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Completely unsourced article about a WP:BLP that makes lots of various claims. Could use some eyes. // Cirt (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"eyes"? Needs nuclear war head :) --Tom 13:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Graham Fitch

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graham_Fitch&diff=247492257&oldid=247463014 (This is the repeatedly removed information being removed for about the tenth time.)

These people keep deleting mention of the fact that Graham Fitch was the subject of a televised TV report, in which he was accused of being a child molester. If they want to say that he has not been indicted on charges related to this televised investigation, that would be ok with me, but to insist that the fact that SABC claimed that he was a child molester is "unsourced", which is what they have been claiming, is ridiculous. Instead of making the article balanced or accurate, they have been deleting any mention of the TV special. TPaineTX (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The key point there is that he was accused not convicted or even arrested. Sorry, TPaineTX, but that's a no-go here. Risker (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, a conviction, a trial, or formal legal charges are not required in order to justify being mentioned on wikipedia. If you can find such a requirement in the rules, let me know.

Other examples where the allegations do not appear to have ended in formal charges:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hyles#Allegations_by_Nischik.2C_Sumner.2C_and_Glover

In May 1993, WJBK, a Detroit, Michigan area news team, did a six-part story called Preying from the Pulpit where it followed up on allegations of child molestation at area churches.[31] The news report said that seven U.S. churches with ongoing molestation controversies all had preachers that attended Hyles-Anderson College.[32] The WJBK report linked the abuse cases to Jack Hyles and it also accused him of running a cult. The news station "recapped a sermon in 1990 in which Hyles pretended to pour poison into a glass and asked an associate pastor, Johnny Colsten, to drink from it. Colsten said he would."[33] Furthermore, "The WJBK report said the sermon has the "ring of Jonestown to it - the mass suicide in Guyana in 1978 by followers of cult leader Jim Jones."[33] The mini-series also "showed footage during its report of" Hyles "brandishing a rifle from the pulpit, along with "people with guns and walkie-talkies patrolling the outside of the church at times."[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hyles#Sexual_molestation_at_First_Baptist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raz-B#Chris_Stokes_allegations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Donald#1997_racism_allegations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_First_Party#Racism_allegations

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

Furthermore, the SABC reporter who was in charge of the report, Hazel Friedman, is an award-winning journalist.

And for those who do not know, Risker is one of the people deleting the information. He and a few others have been following me to other articles, so that's why he is here so quickly. He is not someone who addressed this issue in an unbiased manner -- his mind was already made up prior to me posting this petition. TPaineTX (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The ball is in your court. Since it is well-documented that SABC accused him of being a child molester, you must produce proof that filed legal charges are a prerequisite for the chronicle of allegations made by respected sources. TPaineTX (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as the ball is in any court, you will refrain from reposting these allegations in Talk:Graham Fitch. If you go ahead and repost anyway, expect to be blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So are you now admitting that you cannot find any reason to remove the information? Your first excuse was that it was unsourced, and now that it has been proven again and again to be sourced, you threaten to block my ability to edit if I post important information that adheres to wikipedia guidelines? TPaineTX (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No I am not admitting that I cannot find any reason to remove this stuff.

Yes, sources indeed exist for a claim that you want to make: that there have been certain serious allegations against Fitch.

Yes, I threaten to block your ability to edit. I'm glad that you seem to have taken this seriously.

Yes, some of the links that you post above are interesting, and they do indeed show that there is no absolute rule against posting serious allegations against living people. This is all good grist for an argument; good work digging it up. A quick look through the list suggests to me that the allegations are all either (a) of much less serious matters than the one you want to add, or (b) already resolved more or less to the satisfaction of the person who was alleged to have done something and the person who did the alleging.

In Wikipedia's sometimes legalistic terminology, what you're up against is not a mere "guideline" but instead a "policy". Bluntly, it's not a nudge but a decree. It's imaginable that you have read it and interpreted its relevance to these accusations correctly and that Risker, I and others have done so wrongly. I leave that for others more expert in this sort of stuff to determine. Until there's a well informed determination that the material may go in, it stays out. Meanwhile, you're welcome to argue your case here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

>>Yes, sources indeed exist for a claim that you want to make: that there have been certain serious allegations against Fitch.

How nice of you to finally admit that.

>>No I am not admitting that I cannot find any reason to remove this stuff.

You've had almost a week now, and you've not cited any wikipedia rule other than the one that was obviously not violated, which you've finally admitted.

>>Yes, I threaten to block your ability to edit. I'm glad that you seem to have taken this seriously.

Only thing I take seriously is your egregious abuse of your authority. If you cannot cite what wikipedia rule the material violates or guideline that suggests it should not be used, then it is perfectly fine to post the material on his article.

>>Yes, some of the links that you post above are interesting, and they do indeed show that there is no absolute rule against posting serious allegations against living people. This is all good grist for an argument; good work digging it up. A quick look through the list suggests to me that the allegations are all either (a) of much less serious matters than the one you want to add, or (b) already resolved more or less to the satisfaction of the person who was alleged to have done something and the person who did the alleging.

(1) What "suggests to [you]" that the allegations are either (a) or (b)?

(2) If either (a) or (b) is true, why don't you find some sources to prove it, thus exonerating Mr. Fitch?

>>Until there's a well informed determination that the material may go in, it stays out. Meanwhile, you're welcome to argue your case here.

What "case"? Is there any "case" here? How can there be a case if there is no violation or rule that suggests it should not be in the article? ........... added at 07:08, 25 October 2008 by User:TPaineTX

[Bouncing left] Only thing I take seriously is your egregious abuse of your authority. You are of course free to make a complaint; take a look here. ¶ If either (a) or (b) is true, why don't you find some sources to prove it, thus exonerating Mr. Fitch? (1) Either you haven't understood my comment or I haven't understood yours. (2) "Exonerating"? I'm not (and Wikipedia is not) in the business of evaluating the truth to allegations of criminal behavior. That's for whichever legal system has jurisdiction. ¶ Please try to be concise here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Wikipedia is mostly in the business of reporting the news and the facts. It is a fact that Mr. Fitch was accused by a major TV network of being a child molester, and it is certainly news. Ergo, it should be in his wikipedia article. TPaineTX (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

as I see it, the qy is whether he is such a publicly famous figure that even criminal accusations are significant in the overall bio--otherwise at this point it goes under one event. As for the sources, I think the capetimes one is acceptable & fair reporting; I have my doubts of the sabcnews, which mainly reports on anonymous accusations. I think in this case we would normally wait for official charges, or another story from a RS. If either occurs, I think it would then be appropriate content. He is famous enough that official charges would not come under oneevent. DGG (talk)

Gilad Atzmon

Welcome opinion if we have some undue piling on of the various opinions and accusations that this Jewish former Israeli anti-Zionist is an antisemite in the "political views" section. I spend a lot of time getting rid of the worst unsourced and/or pot shot entries, so hard for me to know if the better sourced entries are just over doing it. Also there are a lot of Atzmon articles about Palestine and other topics that could be mentioned which would make the whole article unduly long. So is it acceptable to replace a couple of the allegations with descriptions of other of his "political views"? Also, whether to have a separate shorter section on "Allegations of antisemitism" separate from "political views." Thanks! Carol Moore 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Individuals (at first anon IPs, now registered users, including one with long record of abusive edit summaries) keep reverting back to material that violates WP:BLP in a variety of ways. (See this diff. I reverted it twice today and someone else reverted it once. Now someone else - User:Avraham - has threatened to get me blocked if I revert a third time today. But he has yet to explain his views on the article talk page. So anyway, per WP:BLP reporting it here. Carol Moore 01:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Y. Josephine De Ridder / Y. Josephine

Could someone please take a look at Y. Josephine De Ridder / Y. Josephine? This edit reveals that Stumblin (talk · contribs) is the writer of her own page. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Barney Frank

• Barney Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This politician BLP has been targeted repeatedly in relation to the recent US economic troubles but the entire bio, especially the "Quips and controversies" section seems a bit undue in spots - I'd appreciate other eyes on this. -- Banjeboi 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. I've done a re-organizing and clean-up of POV and BLP problematic issues - we'll see if it takes. -- Banjeboi 19:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Teri Weigel

User:Hondo77 and myself are currently having a dispute at Teri Weigel over material I removed for BLP reasons. Could someone take a look at the article and its history page, and let me know whether the disputed material should be removed or whether I'm applying BLP too strictly? Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Em no. You are right, the article was terrible. I've removed the material and warned the user. More eyes please.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced potentially libellous material in edit summaries

ZapThunderstrike (talk · contribs) has clearly been letting off some steam; these edit summaries are clearly potentially libellous; can an administrator remove them please? Also, use of Twinkle and actual edits suggest this may be a sock of an experienced editor. --Rogerb67 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The user was indefinitely blocked for vandalism in August. CIreland (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the work of the Avril troll/vandal (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Avril Vandal) an extremely active vandal (and former troll), who has had run-ins with Zain, and others. While I don't see any harm in deleting these edits I don't know if it's a great deal. Editors unfortunately are often the victim of a lot of insane stuff and I think most just ignore it. I've informed User talk:Zain Ebrahim111 in any case Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been death threats too! :) But like Nil said, it's really not a big deal to me. No real need to bother with deleting them imo. But if other editors are offended, maybe an admin should look. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Rowan

• Kelly Rowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

People have been repeatedly adding "Braydon" as Rowan's daughter's name in her Wikipedia page, when this information only came from someone on Facebook claiming to be Rowan's cousin and not a reliable source such as an article or stated by Rowan herself. Therefore, this information isn't up to Wikipedia's standards and should not be included at all.

As a side note, there's also been a number of instances "Jill Emily" was added as Rowan's middle name and without citation. There is nothing online that proves these are her middle names and should also not be added into her page without confirmation. 122.2.29.70 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Material being added is not controversial and the rate of editing is very low, so no need for admin attention. Remove it unless sourced and leave something on the talk page of the offender. Trebor (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick Oliveri

Edit-war afoot over whether he was kicked out of Queens of the Stone Age for doing too many drugs (unsourced), beating his girlfriend (unsourced) or for being a pimp (unsourced). the skomorokh 12:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam Huff

His name is "Robert Lee Huff" with no Samuel. "Sam" is a family nickname given to him during childhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchuff117 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is best raised on the talk page of the article. However, the article is usually named for the "known" name, rather than the legal name, and it appears that the external sources call him "Sam". Anyway, as I say, feel free to raise the concern on the discussion page, where those working on the article can consider it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Smith

• Paul Smith (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography of this living designer is experiencing the repeated insertion (with external links) of a potentially libellous accusation that he has stolen another artist's work. "ExLibre (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

Larry Flynt

The Larry Flynt wiki is a mess and needs attention.

The page is filled with innuendo, poor sourcing and biased statements that are being added after being removed.

There was a criticism section that referenced the cartoonist Tinsey being convicted of child molestation and a refusal to include the fact that the conviction was overturned on appeal. I removed the section and it was re-added almost immediately without comment even though I expressed these concerns. I removed it again today.

Many sources cite unauthorized biographies with facts in dispute.

We all know that someone like Larry Flynt is controversial and his page should be handled with particular care for that very reason. Slarabee (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This page needs attention badly the same person keeps re-adding inflammatory critisms. Slarabee (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Time Cube

Seems an attack page, I know the proponent has made himself an easy target, but even so.:) Don't know what can be done about this article. Sticky Parkin

ROFL. An ignorant Time Cube virgin you seem, educated stupid and evil. See [[20]], specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience. The article could use a few more citations, though I'm not sure how to properly cite Mr. Ray's stream of consciousness webpage. Skinwalker (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is not so bad, considering.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooper Firearms of Montana

Article seems to be taken over with a story about one individual's political donations. Not really my subject, so does anyone else fancy checking it complies with BLP? ϢereSpielChequers 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The article really should be deleted. It is a non-notable company which only came to public attention when its owner made a controversial political donation. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Elias James Corey

Could someone have a look at Elias James Corey? Some controversy over graduate suicides on the page of an 80-year-old Nobel Laureate. From the talk page, it looks like efforts were made in the past to improve this article, but it doesn't look quite right to me. After that, if anyone wants something more tricky, the scientific priority disputes involving Robert Burns Woodward (no longer alive). See Robert Burns Woodward#Idiosyncracies for more. If people can't find the controversies, ping me on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a look. Like it or not, the story about grad student suicides in his group was published by The New York Times, and the connection between repeated suicides at Harvard and Corey's group is made explicitly in NYT's article citing the dead student's indictment of Corey's management practices, so I see no reason to remove it. VG ☎ 20:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yah. I still think it could be improved. At the very least, the article is unbalanced because there is not enough on the scientific work done by Corey. I don't think the graduate suicide story should have the amount of coverage it does in Corey's article. In the article on Harvard, maybe? Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also read this article (one of the sources), and it presents a far more balanced view of what happened that we do. I think that is a problem. I haven't read the other two sources yet (one is about MIT, the other is the NYT piece on Altom), but I suspect it will be a similar story, with our article only telling part of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Altom suicide was a highly important issue in student mental health fields, and led to significant changes into research advisor-student relationships.[21] Although, I hear that Harvard Chem has sadly rolled back most, if not all, of the reforms implemented after the incident. Mentions of this are certainly germane to the article on E.J. Corey as it severely impacted his reputation among academic chemists. I believe some of Corey's former students published rebuttals to Altom's claims, but I am at present unable to locate them through Google. If someone could find these rebuttals they can be included to "balance" the article, as you say. Also, there is a tremendous amount of material that can be added about Corey's research - he was very prolific, and his page at present is a crude summary of his research.

As for the priority dispute, it was actually between Corey and Roald Hoffmann - Woodward was tangentially involved and in any case had been dead for 20+ years when the dispute surfaced. Woodward's known eccentricity had nothing to do with the problem. As far as I know, Corey claimed priority for the Woodward–Hoffmann rules in a single, unsupported sentence in his memoir. Hoffmann published a detailed counterclaim[22] within a year of this statement, and I know of no response by Corey. There is more detail at Woodward–Hoffmann rules, FWIW, though you'd need to know some organic chemistry to get a good grasp of it. Skinwalker (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that Harvard Chem had rolled back the reforms. Would be good to get a source for that. The article I linked to has some of the rebuttals of Altom's claims. Really, though, the level of detail that the newspaper articles go into would be appropriate for an article on the high-pressure cooker nature of graduate studies in some of the top university departments (dunno what title could be thought up for that!). I pointed out that a suicide at MIT was covered in another article. There isn't really room to go into a great deal of detail in Corey's article, so there should be a way to sensibly reorganise and balance this material. As for Corey's reputation, I think he is still regarded as "the greatest living chemist", and I suspect that in years to come he will be judged on his lifetime's work, not these reports. If the later histories don't give the level of detail we are giving, then we are not getting the balance right. Thanks for the correction regarding Woodward (I found an article here) - I was thinking of Woodward's letter to the Nobel Foundation where he said that he should have shared the Nobel that Fischer and Wilkinson got in 1973. At least that is what our article says, but I can't find a source for it right now. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to add a lot more about his life & work. I added a bit a while back, you can see why, and User:~K added a lot more, but to be quite honest, this article still needs a lot of work before it looks like that of his old rival. Corey isn't always well-liked, but no one disputes his stature as a giant of organic chemistry; Corey and Woodward are probably the two biggest names in organic chemistry for the 20th century. The article should describe all of these great achievements, not merely list a few then discuss controversies at length. It's been on my ToDo list for years now, but I've never got around to adding much! BTW: The Biography project rated this as B-Class a while back, but I strongly recommend reducing this to C, bearing in mind the content imbalance and the fact that the content is very sparse. Walkerma (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a small, listy section on his books, another neglected part of his contributions. It needs cleanup and expansion, of course. The logic of chemical synthesis is very notable and there should be no problem finding reviews and independent information about it. Molecules and Medicine is very new but it is notable for being targeted at a more general audience. The other books are much more technical and I think he was an editor there rather that the main author. --Itub (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)