• Michael_O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A prominent person my my industry came to me about the lack of wiki page on myself, and offered to put it together. I agreed, edited it, and posted it. If this is not acceptable can you please let me know the right way to go about it. //

"Michael O'Malley"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzitup (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 August 2009

Article can be found here

User:Rzitup/Michael O'Malley (edit | [[Talk:User:Rzitup/Michael O'Malley|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Martin451 (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article has recently had a number of new and IP users removing significant portions of the article claiming that it is upsetting the subject. I have tried going over much of the material and removing the less credible information. However the removals continue. Myself and others have noted that if there is a problem to follow the steps in WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you. However they seem to want nothing less than the removal of the entire article. I have protected the page for the next 4 hours. I would like some other eyes to take a look at it. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor changes- I explained it all on the Talk page and edit summaries there. Generally, looks pretty good though.MStoke (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your vandal is back again, only created an account this time to get around the IP blocking. MStoke (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new user (started 24 August) is making a tremendous amount of posts, but I noticed her/him due to categorizing John Mearsheimer as anti-Israel. Went to that page and discovered only five articles in the category, one of which was Jimmy Carter. Given the subjective nature of this category, I suspect this must be a violation of BLP. Can someone look into this? Thanks in advance. Academic38 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Israel is now unpopulated apart from Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. Possibly could be nominated for deletion - I'm not sure what else would be acceptable in the category. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is nominating a category for deletion any different than nominating an article for deletion? Academic38 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is to log complain for defamation against user Pemperous who inserted a libellous text in the article on august 24 2009. The article has been corrected. User:74.233.139.156 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (signing unsigned)[reply]
• The affected article is Hervé Jaubert (with acute accent). There is relevant old matter in page Herve Jaubert (without acute accent). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

WMUK's just had an email from Sally Boazman saying "Basically, I do traffic news for BBC Radio Two across the afternoons, and have never authorised, or sought, an entry on Wikipedia, although there is one. However, it's full of inaccuracies and ideally I would like it completely removed. I'm hardly famous enough to warrant it!" The article only has one reference (and possibly not a reliable one). Could someone look into this, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I speedied it as a patent CSD#A7, the article basically took three paragraphs to say "she reads the traffic news on Radio 2, and before that she had a few other jobs in radio". Black Kite 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information appears to come from both her Radio 2 profile and a biography on Aircheck UK so it's not like much of it isn't in the public domain already. It's interesting that this should happen a few weeks after this, apparently from another Radio Two employee. Perhaps more of them need reviewing. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it's possible that someone might search for her, I recreated Sally Boazman as a protected redirect to BBC Radio 2. Black Kite 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there was also a redirect to the article from Sally Bowsman. I've redirected this to BBC Radio 2. This may also need to be edit protected. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Sally Traffic. wrt Fenella Fudge, I think the ariticle history should be deleted, leaving just the redirect. Martin451 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible idea. Have requested deletion. When it's done I'll recreate the page as a redirect to BBC Radio 2. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually after I did a spot on Chris Evans' Radio 2 show about flagged revisions on BLPs. Sally came up after my spot and asked what to do about her article, because she's really not famous and it was terrible and she didn't like it. I said "email info at wikimedia-with-an-M dot org and a volunteer will hop onto it" and to tell anyone else at the BBC with a crappy article about them, 'cos it does get the right attention at the right time :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has undocumented/unverifiable claim; "In the early 90's, he also briefly studied with Jehovah's Witnesses." Article fails to mention that Salgado was lead vocalist with Room Full Of Blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmaui (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been moved to Nora Wall by the time anyone reads this note. I'd like someone to have a look at this article who's more familiar with the specifics of BLP policy than I -- I think there's the potential for libel action here because there are some strong statements that don't seem to be specifically sourced. There are some general references to a specific Irish criminal trial but I strongly suspect this is not sufficient. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Roxanne Shanté's wikipedia biography (erroneously) states that she is 1) a Ph.D. from Cornell 2) a licensed psychologist practicing in Queens, NY 3) that her Ph.D. was "paid for through an unusual clause in her recording contract by her record label." Attempts to put in wording clarifying that records at Cornell show that she is not an alumna [1], records in New York State show that she is not a licensed psychologist [2], and traditional Ph.D. programs, especially for underprivileged and alternative applicants are fully self funding, thus not requiring any battle with a nefarious record label (even if she were in fact a student at Cornell, which pretty much definitively can be proven to be incorrect) are removed by her or her publicity company as quickly as they are put in. This file needs to be addressed by a Wikipedia reviewer so that Wikipedia is not compromised by this young lady's publicity company's apparent efforts to change the historical record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4nac (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information that you dispute is sourced to a newspaper article which qualifies as a reliable secondary source under Wikipedia policy. Your attempts to disprove the statements made in the article by using primary sources is what we call here "original research", and that research and conclusions drawn from it cannot appear in the article because it is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. There are any number of reasons her name may not appear on the Cornell University website, and we cannot use that omission to "disprove" the work of a professional journalist. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has found her listed under famous alumni on Cornell's website: [3]. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by an IP user 68.39.227.143 posts the home address of one of the talk-show personalities on this radio station (I have no way of knowing if its accurate or not). I reverted the edit, but feel it probably should be removed from the history as well, to protect the privacy of Mr. Bartholomew. -Sme3 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Oversight is the place to go when that type of info is posted. I've fired off an email to the powers that be. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirected to Satanism with the edit summary stating that it's a "BLP violation". Is it really? It's just a listing of people along with all the rest at Lists of people by belief. Granted it's largely unreferenced but so are many others at Lists of people by belief. The question is, why doesn't anyone redirect List of Pagans as a BLP vio? or List of Methodists for that matter.. Is it pushing a POV to say that a list of satanists is contentious but a list of Christians isn't? I'm not advocating satanism at all here, just something to discuss. -- œ^™ 04:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if they publicly espoused it, and it is of more than incidental significance, and they clearly called it that or the equivalent, and there are RS to prove it, it is not a BLP violation. Some, for example, are or were leaders in the Church of Satan. In any case, some of the people on that list are not LP. The move should be reverted, non-notable people removed, and sources checked for the others. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I agree with DGG, but this article is just a massive BLP violation, which if cleaned up would end up nearly a stub, with just Anton LeVey and his relatives/associates and a few arbirtrarily selected musicians. It includes professional wrestlers who are inappropriately treated as though their stage personas are real; George W. Bush (but not, curiously, Dick Cheney); Sammy Davis Jr (not a BLP issue, just loopy); a long "mislabelled" section which is mostly a coatrack for claims that individuals should be seen as Satanists, and various other inappropriate comments. It shouldn't even be kept as a redirect, but BLP-deleted to make the old versions inaccessible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how can it be a BLP vio if it's not even a bio? It's just a list of people. And what about my argument about mislabeled people in other similar lists at Lists of people by belief? Richard Dawkins, for example, certainly wouldn't appreciate being named in a list of Christians, yet no one would ever think to redirect the entire (unreferenced) List of evangelical Christians to Evangelical Christianity. -- œ^™ 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Populating any of these lists with unreferenced data is a clear violation of BLP policy. The policy is that we aggressively delete unverifiable biographical information - positive, negative, or neutral - from any article on WP, not just "biographical" articles. The question, in my mind, is what to do about these lists. I don't care if it's a list of tea drinkers, not one single living person should be included in the list without at least one reference to a reliable source. I agree that the redirect should be reverted and the list trimmed to only those entries which can be verified in reliable sources. If that leaves no one else but Anton LeVey then so be it. As for other such lists, as User:OlEnglish has pointed out above, these should be treated similarly. Again, even if it's a list of tea drinkers, if I don't see a reference to a reliable source, I will delete the entry, right down to the last entry in the list. The only reason I see to redirect would be if there is not one single verifiable entry in the list. Here we have at least a few. Let's revert and fix it, and let's fix the others as well. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a section in the article on Mark Kirk, a Republican congressman from Illinois who has announced his intention to run for the Senate, detailing several somewhat controversial donations. See this edit and the back and forth in the article history. Most of the donations are sourced directly to FEC reports. There is no question that these reports verify that these donations occurred, but is it enough to include in the article without a secondary source making any comment at all about the donation? One of the donations, from Tony Rezko, does have a secondary source (the Chicago Sun-Times) so I do not think there would be any reason to exclude it from the article, but should the rest of the donations have a secondary source commenting on them or should they be removed? nableezy - 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that, absent comment from secondary sources, a list of selected controversial donors would have to be removed. Picking and choosing from the donor list and only reporting those an editor considers controversial is editorializing. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Could somebody please pitch in at Peter Hart? There are definite WP:Coatrack issues. Let's just note that the Controversy section is about 3 times the length of the rest (excluding refs and bibliography). Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 09:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, this BLP has rather similar issues: Emma Brockes. Anyone to pitch in? Rd232 ^talk 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and work on Hart. There are some serious coatracking issues, not to mention a blatant copyright violation. Rockpocket 18:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell. I'll take care of Brockes too. Rockpocket 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Vandalism reverted. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been adding false information to the Britney Spears article including stating that she was a porn star for 3 years and putting the words "fuck me" and "drop your pants" in her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmycat (talk • contribs) 2009-08-28 00:04:26 (UTC)

• So revert the vandalism, just like Prodego just did. You have the tool for doing so. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sbakuria. Uncle G (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also this edit, where Sleuther2 (talk · contribs) expresses similar concerns at Patokh Chodiev. Uncle G (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMUK received an email this morning from David Pleat, as follows:

I am writing to make you aware that information given on myself David Pleat is incorrect and libellous.

I would like to provide you with the revised and correct information and facts.

Once these corrections have been made I do not wish for anyone to be able to change these details.

I've emailed him back (cc'ing info-en_at_wikimedia.org) pointing out that WMUK is not responsible for this content, but that "we'd be happy to forward on your views about any particular points to the community that work on that Wikipedia project, so that they can be dealt with in a suitably rigorous fashion and anything inaccurate can be appropriately corrected". I'll post any information I hear back here.

In the meantime, please could someone take a look at this article, and improve it as appropriate? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I dealt with Mr Pleat's email to Wikimedia when it reached OTRS. I think the main problem, which is a claim that he's Jewish (could be taken as libellous), has been taken care of. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he might have been slightly more worried by this, which was definitely libellous! Black Kite 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but there's more … Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fairly confident that the ethnicity/religion claim is not the problem here, and the major problem is the content that has been brought up on the talk page again and again and removed from the article again and again. It is, as I and others have noted on the talk page, unacceptable and unencyclopaedic personal analysis of the subject's professional abilities, comprising in no small part an entirely unsourced list of errors that this person is supposed to have made in xyr professional career as a sports commentator. Full marks to the editors who have been removing it on sight.

  I looked at the remainder of the article, and it seems that the continued reversion of the major vandalism has blinded editors to some of the (comparatively) minor vandalism and badly sourced or wholly unsourced attack content, of which there is quite a lot. For example, there is an assertion that this person had been convicted for kerb-crawling. The only good source that I can find states that this person was cautioned for kerb-crawling, and immediately goes on to state that the subject contests reports about this for being "misinformed". And then there's an awful lot of content that seems to blame this person for the ill-fortune of every football club he has every come into contact with. And all of this without any sources at all, despite protests about writing without sources on the talk page.

  I am going to consider this, but I am strongly tempted having read through the article and back through its edit history to delete this article in its entirety and start it again from a stub using proper sources. The edit history, current content, and general standard of writing are atrocious, and M. Pleat has my sympathies. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would completely support deleting it and starting it from scratch. I must admit I just scanned it for obvious BLP issues, but the general tone of it is terrible. There's no doubt that Pleat had his critics during his career but that's just ridiculous. Black Kite 15:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've deleted the prior article and edit history and started again as a stub, including no content for which there is no source cited. (I was even strict about adding the player categories until I had a source confirming the information.) I've got as far as 1987 in this person's career. All help from experienced BLP editors welcome. Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New email. He's angry about his religion being included (which to be honest is not something we can help with, [4] is a good source for his Judaism). He does, however, state that "I have been subjected to tabloid allegations about my private life,which were untrue and libellous." - we need to be careful about this, I feel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then he, and you, are both out of date, since the re-created article included nothing about religion. (The subject wasn't in any of the sources that I used. To be frank, it didn't even occur to me to even consider the matter. I spent most of the effort attempting to find a decent source that documents this person's career as a sports commentator in any detail, without success.) Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that on a BLP if a person has not declared his leaning towards his religion then even if we have a cite that he is a cristian then unless he himself has identified with it in public then we leave it out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit of an attack piece, yes the rubbish allegations are there, awful read. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the picture of what is supposedly him is worthless, it could be anyone.Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what it is, he was allegedly cautioned 3times for curb crawling and wright called him a pervert. He was never charged and I would say it's not worth inclusion. Or if you want to keep it, it needs to be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes would be welcome on this page. A new IP has been making subtle weasel edits, but their edit summaries and latest effort raise some red flags. I know fixing BLP issues circumvents edit warring, but I'd feel more comfortable if others in the community could help out too. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Marc Nelson is receiving continuous vandalism edits from an anon IP. I would a appreciate an admin looking into it. MStoke (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The vandalism, yet again, comes from Marine Corps Base Quantico, which I have blocked for a longer time this time. Black Kite 14:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated the article Ilisha Jarret, what do you think ? It`s kind of strange information, but news source says is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyisthisnotme (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant in a biography though, hence I have removed it. Kevin (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion would be useful here. My removal was reverted, and I don't want to get into an edit war over it. Kevin (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is she even notable enough for a bio? I agree there could be BLP issues, and it is better left out, personally I would nominate it for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thejet2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who identifies himself as being the subject of the article Tyler Ebell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and would also be 99.229.166.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeated removed the section on the 2009 season, first without explanation, but finally saying it's inaccurate but, in my opinion, it is completely sourced and pretty brief. I've now tried a re-write to see if that if more satisfactory and NPOV but some more editor's eyes would appreciated.

• More interesting is the user's concern with the article Richard Seigler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has a Controversy section that outlines an incident where the subject was briefly charged with a crime, apparently on the testimony of a jilted girlfriend, and then had charges eventually dismissed. It might normally be of such little consequence that it could be removed from the article except that the incident appears to have had an impact on his career; he was released from an NFL team's practice squad on the day he was arrested. Again, I have tried to re-write by adding the context of the jilted girlfriend being the source of the charges but some more editor's input here would be good. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 173.35.189.227 found {{prod}} some minutes after writing this. Uncle G (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is unverifiable, and contains information that is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.189.227 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy per WP:CSD#A7 - no indication of importance or significance. – ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Aleksandar Kolarov contained some vague and barely sourced accusations of criminal and illegal activities. I raised this on this Noticeboard back in May and Skomorokh (talk · contribs) removed the disputed content. 65.95.238.5 (talk · contribs) put the BLP violations back in, verbatim, without addressing any of the concerns. I removed this a few weeks ago, but it has been restored again. The edit accuses several people within the Serbian Football Association, Zvezdan Terzić in particular, of breaking their own rules to favour one club over the other. The sourcing is scant at best. There are some vague and passing references to one report. The report covers only one or two of the assertions. Please keep an eye on this. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Please use some nous next time, Skpadhi. It took you far more effort to come here and write the text below than it would have taken you just to do this, reverting the vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what made the writer of this article call Mr.Manoj Das AN STUPID INDIAN AWARD WINNING AUTHOR ?? MY OBJECTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CALLING SUCH AN EMMINET PERSON STUPID IN THE OPENING LINE OF THIS ARTICLE. THE LINK TO THIS ARTICLE IS AS FOLLOWS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Das. PLEASE RESOLVE THSI MATTER URGENTLY OR MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpadhi (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second request for assistance regarding this article. My first request was ignored. The article now has two different IP editors who are dedicated to filling the article with negative, cherrypicked quotes to make the subject of the article look bad, but have no interest in editing any other part of the article of a journalist with a 30+ year career. So the article is rapidly becoming a list of out of context Totenberg quotes and complaints from the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, with relatively little in the article to indicate that this is one of the most respected journalists in the US. I have no interest in this article being a hagiography, of course, and naturally criticism is appropriate, but I feel the IP editors have no interest in "appropriate", nor any interest in the relevant policies, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Third party assistance is badly needed here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are not out of context and all include verifiable references. Speaking of trying to make subjects of BLPs look bad, your edit history is filled with examples of you trying to make conservatives look bad, along with justifications in talk pages for other peoples' poorly sourced materials--see the Mark Levin discussion. While you seek to make conservatives look bad, you work very hard at keeping negative material from articles on liberals like Totenberg. On your user page you actually identify yourself as a partisan--a Democrat. There is plenty of material In the Totenberg article about respect for Totenberg--you have added numerous awards to the article in addition to the ones that were already there (see also the number of positive references in the article). You have also worked to blunt criticisms of Totenberg. Most of my additions to the article have been summarily removed by you and then edit warred when I try to restore the addition. You usually avoid trying to come to an agreement in Talk pages about how additions should be added--you just delete the additions. On the other hand, I usually let your additions stay.--67.232.93.56 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, moved some things around a little, but I don't really see a big issue in the article's current form, at least from a BLP perspective. I have commented on the talk page there. - Crockspot (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think the most recent cherry-picked WSJ quote is appropriate? Why? Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking my work on other articles is not a response to the issues raised here. The fact remains that you and the other IP editor have worked exclusively to introduce negative elements regarding the subject of the article, mostly in the form of out of context quotes. This is not balanced or BLP appropriate editing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem here, but it looks more multiparty edit brawl in nature than an intractable BLP problem. There are two seperate criticism sections and they are poorly cited and phrased. "Some have...." is always a bad contruction."--Tznkai (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that a long time editor (since 2005) has been driven off in frustration thanks to the IP editors. Even if you don't take my word for what is happening on the article, obviously something is going on there that requires intervention. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of editors have been adding to the Jonathan Cook article things about Cook's articles appearing in some less than reputable places. See here and here and here. Cook wrote an article that as far as I can tell first appeared on the al-Ahram website on 8/2/2007 and here on 8/9/2007. David Duke publishes the article on on 8/21/2007. That Duke apparently liked what Cook wrote is being used to associate Cook with what would further Duke's antisemtic and white pride agenda. Not a single secondary source commenting on this supposed controversy is presented to justify such an association yet it is continually being readded to the article of a living person. nableezy - 06:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP cannot be used a loophole to censor the fact that his articles have appeared in certain publications. Saying that his articles have appeared somewhere does not mean that it was the author's intention for the article to appear there. But at the end of the day, where a person's article appears is part of the person's notability. We can't just write that his articles appeared in mainstream sources and hide anything that's non-mainstream.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are manufacturing a controversy without a single secondary source mentioning it. And what is the relevance of David Duke commiting copyright infringement, as well as the 100+ other places you can find this article to a biography of Jonathan Cook? This is an attempt to link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. nableezy - 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill with all the drama. There's no "manufacturing of any controversy." Articles about authors include information about where they are published. If they were published in notable publications, whether mainstream or non-mainstream, this information should be included in the article. We can't use WP:BLP as a method of creating a false impression that an author is only being published in mainstream sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am "chilled". You cannot link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. That David Duke reprinted an article by Cook is wholly irrelevant to a biography of Cook. Multiple reliable secondary sources making note of such a relationship are required for its inclusion. nableezy - 06:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where an author is published is certainly an important aspect of an author's bio. Reliability is not an issue here. David Duke's website can be relied on for the fact that this guy's articles appear on David Duke's website.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the word "published" like it implies some link between Cook and Duke. There is a claim of copyright on the al-Ahram source, which predates the Duke reprint by several weeks. You are using Duke's infringing of that copyright by reprinting the article. You are doing so to make a link between somebody widely considered a racist and a journalist where there is no evidence that either Cook or al-Ahram consented to Duke reprinting the article. You are doing so without a single reliable secondary source saying one word on this. So you are violating both WP:BLP and WP:LINKVIO (linking to copyright violations is also prohibited). nableezy - 07:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where a an author is published is an important part of an authors bio. Full Stop. The copyvio issue is a bunch of issue-clouding. But now that we're on the subject, I dunno where you're getting your info that David Duke made some copyright violations. If there's any BLP violation, its right here on this talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont know it is because you are not looking. The article appeared well before Duke reprinting it with a copyright claim 8/2/2007 © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved. But that is indeed a side issue to the violation of WP:BLP you are intent on including. nableezy - 07:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written in small script as not to cloud the issue: Please provide a source that David Duke violated any copyrights. Your investigations are not sufficient. The irony of violating WP:BLP in this very thread is delicious.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I think we have to assume that Cook has no control over which websites pick up his articles. Unless there's some indication that they're there with his blessing, I don't see how we can write about it. It's better to use mainstream secondary sources for anything contentious in BLPs; primary sources tend to lead to OR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An integral aspect of an author's bio is where he or she was published. The types of news organizations that publish what the author writes tell readers a lot regarding the subjects the author writes about. It doesn't make a difference if the author gave an affirmative consent each time it was published. We give the readers the information in a neutral manner and they can come to whatever conclusion they wish. But we certaintly cannot mislead readers, under the guise of BLP, that an author has only been published in mainstream sources when he clearly hasn't.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make a difference if the author gave an affirmative consent each time it was published. complete crap - as far as I can see Dukes has posted the first bit of it and a link to the original article - this is not published by and that claim should not be made in the article.--Cameron Scott (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's highly misleading to claim someone was published in a certain source if all that's happened is it's been discussed on a fringe website. Many websites particularly blogs, both fringe and non-fringe take the work of other people as a point of discussion or to support their POV all the time, sometimes taking it out of context or in a misleading way. The fact that some website has done this for Jonathan Cook is irrelevant unless this is widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. I'm sure you could find this with many of the more controversial journalists and commentators, and believe me if you tried to do this with most of them, you'd be blocked quick fast. The wider issue here is somewhat common with BLPs of journalists and commentators. Generally speaking, we should take great care with using primary sources (i.e. the authors published work) to try and demonstrate their viewpoint as it's easy to push a POV about the person or manufacture controversies that don't exist (even when we don't call them controversies) by selectively quoting something that someone said because an editor finds it interesting. IIRC, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) are good examples of these. The way to avoid this, as has already been mentioned above is to only mention things the person has said that are mentioned in reliable secondary sources. This isn't misleading readers. In fact it's precisely the opposite. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An almost unsourced article to begin with, most of the recent edits consisting of additions to the list of people she's been romantically linked to. Some of which fairly well reek of attempts at being funny. Far as I can tell the article, and especially the recent edit history, is an absolute minefield I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to even begin to sort out. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "love life" section and a few other dubious additions. It looks like parts of the article are based on the biography formerly at http://www.lizfuller.com/bio/index.asp (currently a dead link, but an archived version is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20071218051536/http://www.lizfuller.com/bio/index.asp). The article still needs more sources; I haven't been able to find much that is reliable. snigbrook (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feminazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article quickly turning into a dumping ground for every MMFA piece about Rush Limbaugh using the word. While I hate the word myself (and any example of Godwin's Law for that matter), I don't think itemizing every single time he used the word as particularly due weight. Here was the version before I hacked some of the blogs and MMFA off: [5]. I have since edited, nay hacked it down so that it wasn't so one-sided, but I still believe there should be eyes on it. Soxwon (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding text originally posted on WT:BLP/N by Soxwon (talk⋅contribs) _{(migrated by Whitehorse1 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The biography section for Stephen Hawking is most definitely libellous, but when I attempted to edit it (only to remove the libellous material) it showed up differently. I'm not sure what's going on, but what shows up on my screen is quoted below:

[vandalism redacted!]

Smacks of Wikipage vandalism, no? This is the link I used to get to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

The page was vandalized, but has been restored. You probably still have the vandalized version in your local cache. Clear the cache, or do an explicit reload, or go to the latest static version on the article history to see the real current version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFRESH tells you how - in short: go to page, hold Ctrl, press F5, release Ctrl. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schulz, thanks for the heads-up. I had never visited the listing before from the computer I used (at work, and without my user name so I couldn't sign in), so I don't know how it was in the cache on the computer, but I appreciate the information. Also, kudos on the vandalism redaction. I felt terrible posting it, but also wanted it to be clear just how awful the vandalism was. Regards, Rorieface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorieface (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gold is a living person. An editor is repeatedly calling him a 'propagandist'. I've warned him that this is a BLP violation (in fact, very likely a libelous statement) but he persists. Some administrative action is required here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the editor refactor his comment. Rockpocket 06:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The background is that User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen wants to support Dore Gold as a reliable source of historial facts in Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1948), and I don't believe he is a reliable source for that. Everybody who has been watching TV for the past several decades has been Dore Gold on TV spinning the Israeli position on something. He's a part of the Likud establishment, an Israeli politician of the right wing, and his writing reflects that. Moreover, what is the point of having rules about reliable sources if I can't make an argument that a particular source is not reliable? This is an example of me trying to maintain standards, and I think my record regarding use of sources is the best in the Middle East section. And "propagandist" is a mild word in this context; the idea that someone in Gold's position would be offended by it is just silly. The guy is a lifelong politician and diplomat who promotes his country and his party; he knows that, everyone knows that. Compare to the description "assorted drivel" that Gilabrand just used of academic historian Ilan Pappé on the same page. And User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen him/herself doesn't shy from referring to a Palestinian journalist and another person as "well known partisans...obviously not WP:RS for anything other than the opinion of their authors". Or from calling academic historian Nur Masalha a "extremist Palestian activist". Pots? Kettles? But to conclude: from now on I will refer to Dore Gold as partisan source not meeting the requirements of WP:RS and will stop calling him a propagandist. Zero^talk 13:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe Gold is a reliable source for historical facts - take your concerns to WP:RSN. You've been asked to remove your BLP violation from the page - please do so. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave two examples of your similar comments. When you remove them, I'll remove mine. And, no, I don't need to take every RS issue to RSN, I'm allowed to read the policy and apply it with common sense. Zero^talk 14:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone is partisan is not the same as calling him a "propagandist". You were asked to remove your BLP violation by an admin, and that request is not conditional on anything. Please do so. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an official government spokesman a propagandist is a far milder thing than calling an academic historian an extremist activist. Forget the "partisan" journalist, show us that you are really motivated by BLP concerns by deleting your comment on Mashala. Then I'll be happy to remove my much less serious comment on Gore. But we can start a new section here on your own BLP behavior if you prefer. Zero^talk 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my request, Zero. There appears to be a dispute about the reliability of sourcing - which is somewhat beyong the scope of this noticeboard. I would suggest you both avoid using labels with regards to living people in future )you don't need to call someone an extremist or propagandist to explain they are not a reliable source) and, as a matter of good faith, both refactor the examples listed here. Alternatively, since neither are particularly egregious, it might be better to simply draw a line under past transgressions and move on to deal with the real issue. If you feel unable to resolve that yourselves, dispute resolution may help. Rockpocket 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it seems LoverOfTheRussianQueen has been blocked indefinitely for multiple sockpuppetry. Why am I not surprised? But I'm going to demote Mr Gore to a mere partisan anyway. Zero^talk 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, perhaps not surprising. I'm sure Mr Gold will sleep easier in that knowledge ;) Rockpocket 02:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Bryant (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Toronto-area politician/businessman involved in a motor vehicle vs. cyclist incident late last night which resulted in a fatality, and the article has undergone considerable editing since then, including a range of BLP violations. Since there is good content also being added by IP and non-autoconfirmed editors, I don't want to ask for protection, but the article would benefit from plenty of eyes right now given its current activity (both editing and viewing). Risker (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep and eye on it tonight. Rockpocket 02:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone post the notice on challenging the neutrality of an article on the Joseph Patrick Kennedy II article? I don't know how to post the notice. The notice is needed because only scandalous information is allowed and all positive information is being deleted. I posted a complaint on the discussion page and someone deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk • contribs)

Not done. Continue the discussion on the talk page please. ƒ(Δ)² 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly or wrongly, someone removed his talk page complaint because it was in CAPS. --CliffC (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but there is a new discussion on the talk page. ƒ(Δ)² 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pavlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is in total violation of Wikipedia standards and is living off of irrelevant references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunsizzle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - I'm hoping some brave soul could take a look at the Joni Eareckson Tada article. Although there are no contentious or urgent negative comments that are in need of removal (which I would have done myself), the entire article seems to be an over-the-top puffery piece. I had originally just tagged the page with a NPOV and Refimprove tag, but was requested to add additional information on the talk page today. After revisiting the article I'm even more convinced that it needs to be rewritten. There is some interesting and valid information contained within the article, but it is so confabulated as to be nearly unreadable. Any help in pruning the article and adding some third party sources would be appreciated. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains biographical information about several living individuals - all of whom have received some level of media attention for their actions, but most have not been subject (yet) to criminal prosecution or a trial. Could an someone who is more active and current on guidelines in this area than I currently am give this a once over? Fawcett5 (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your notice here, I had created a new one below and am merging it into this section (below). I had similar concerns but got reverted. Can we bring some other editors in? NTK (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite one month ago, The Smoking Gun published a credible investigative report revealing the true identities and biographical information of the founder/leader "Dex" and multiple other members of the Internet group Pranknet, which is responsible for all sorts of criminal phone "pranks" causing untold damage and humiliation throughout the United States. One of the alleged members, Shawn Powell a/k/a "Slipknotpsycho" has since been charged as a result of the report

Since the report, the Pranknet article was rewritten to attribute the heretofore anonymous/pseudonymous criminal activities of Pranknet and its members to the persons identified in the TSG report, as well as wholesale inclusion of the biographical and factual allegations against each of these persons in the TSG report, all of whom had previously acted anonymously/pseudonymously.

My removal of the identifying information was reverted. I contend that a single private investigative report, however credible, is not sufficient per WP:BLP to both identify all persons involved and to adopt its factual allegations. I have no quarrel with including the report and a link to it (I left it in with my edit) as well reporting on Shawn Powell's arrest, and adding references and links to any additional reporting. However given the seriousness of the criminal accusations I do not think that a single, even reputable report, suffices at this time to "out" anonymous individuals on Wikipedia itself and adopt its findings, which should be referred to as allegations. I fully expect that the situation will rapidly change as more individuals are charged and there is a public investigation and further reporting. I do think that breaking allegations against private individuals, especially damning allegations as these are, should be treated conservatively per WP:BLP. NTK (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree; the personal details are not necessary for an understanding of the topic, and the possible damage from a wrong identification, no matter how unlikely, would outweigh any benefit. --NE2 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly disagree that the article violates BLP. The personal section is the meat of the story and very much central to understanding the topic: These guys ARE Pranknet. Moreover, the section previously blanked by NTK contains more reliable sources than just TSG. The paragraphs regarding the Pranknet members are relatively short, factual, cited and verifiable. Nothing in this disputed section is original research or an unverified claim: it has all been public knowledge as a result of multiple news reports in multiple mediums, most of which have far greater traffic than this particular article does (based on pageview stats, the Pranknet article gets a couple hundred views a day, compared to the millions who probably read TSG and newspapers.) Wikipedia is not "breaking" anything or "outing" anyone becuase this has all been public knowledge for a month now. BLP does not require that all negative information about living people be purged from Wikipedia, rather it requires that it be verifiable, neutral, well-cited by reliable sources and contain no original research or unverified negative claims. I am very much happy to see the article improved, and if specific language can be rewritten, added to, or specific details (like hometowns) removed than I'm all for it. As I said on the article talkpage, everything can be made better. But I do not think blanking 3/4 of a well-cited, verifiable article is improvement or an accurate implementation of BLP. Rather, we should strive to improve the article by adding additional citations where necessary and revising the language if necessary. NTK brought up a helpful omission on the article talk page that the Globe and Mail article seems to indicate Pranknet denies that Dex is Malik, which I will add when I get a chance later tonight. It would be nice if he added it himself instead of attacking the article wholesale. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to improve the article, have added several additional references for verification, revised language to show more ambiguity, etc. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The biographical information is verifiable and is not original research. We are simple restating information verified and published by other quite reliable sources. We have done our best in the writing of this article to keep it NPOV. If you feel the text needs editing for better NPOV, please go ahead. We can't be afraid of citing reliable sources that contain difficult content. Furthermore, there is a lot of information we've intentionally LEFT OUT of the article (such as phone numbers and street addresses of the individuals which were made public by TSG), because it is not encyclopedic and also would violate BLP practices. Ouellette (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Sheindlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Also: Judge Judy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:DANIELARAGONLAW appears bent on revenge for being completely humiliated on the Judge Judy show a way back (look it up Daniel Aragon and Judge Judy on YouTube if you wish.) After he created a sockpuppet and put some real vile stuff in one or another of these articles, I blocked him (and the sock), but folks should keep an eye out. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Jpgordon. I've added both to my watchlist. –Whitehorse1 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Will keep an eye out. ƒ(Δ)² 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected Bandar bin Sultan today, following a swathe of edits from a migratory IP making claims about the subject's parentage. To my mind these claims are entirely defamatory, and they're certainly unsourced. Blocking individual IPs seems futile, and I don't think a rangeblock is called for. I've failed in my attempts to get the IP contributor to provide any source at all. If any uninvolved administrator feels the article should be unprotected, and that some kind of other dispute resolution is practical, then have at it (although I consider myself uninvolved, having edited the article solely in an administrative capacity). This is, incidentally, the second (substantively unrelated) time someone has been adding stuff about Bandar - last time it was claimed that he'd been arrested following an abortive coup-de-tat. I really don't think the two episodes are related, but you never know. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jay Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography on cardiologist whose notability I can't assess:

1. Too much focus on one incident and not on his life and works (BLP balance/NPOV/WEIGHT issue of a negative but sourced kind)
2. Should he have an article anyway?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he doesn't satisfy notability guidelines (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E). An AfD is probably in order here. ƒ(Δ)² 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is going to have to step in at the Karl Rove article, I feel. I'm unwilling to get involved in an edit war, where admitted right-wing partisan Soxwon is removing sourced material to fit his agenda. Look at the edits, look at his admitted political views on his talk page, and tell me what you think. Jusdafax (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, he removed something that was supported by a youtube video, which is not a reliable source, he simplified and neutralized a statement about a third party who is not the subject of the article, and he removed something claimed to be "oft cited", which did not have a supporting citation. From a BLP perspective, he did fine. Just because someone is open about their political affiliation does not necessarily mean they are editing with an agenda. We all have slight biases, even those who do not disclose their politics on their profile page. I would suggest you try discussing the article with the editor on the talk page, and try to learn to work together, and understand each other's concerns. The concerns you raise here are not a BLP issue, in my humble opinion. - Crockspot (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of either of our views it is obvious and undeniable that this article is a current hot spot of contention. On Aug 19, an editor on the Rove article was blocked after nearly two weeks of turmoil. I disagree with your opinion; I contend my concerns have been placed exactly where they need to be placed, where I and others can discuss and learn from them. Indeed, it could be argued that your statement is designed to shut down debate. Jusdafax (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Having had a quick look at the article it needs a lot of work and is generally a pile of negativity against Rove who IMHO, has been one of the most influential political figures in American, and by extension, world politics. Do I think he's also a worm? Possibly, but my opinion matters not. Look to neutral reliable sources, and there are many, to lead the way and you just may get a good article there. -- Banjeboi 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi's analysis could be read as presuming that notability (and political influence) precludes being any kind of a bad sort, which is actually the thrust of a lot of RS material about Rove. When unpicking the undoubted problems with the Rove article, we should deal with establishable facts, not being nice or nasty to him. This is the challenge in dealing with the negative coverage: neither laying on him matters which are unverifiable, nor suppressing material that is entirely due. So far the problems have been with people who either want to cast him as the devil, or as an innocent Joe unfairly slurred.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, one can certainly be a notable jerk. The point is that whether or not I like a subject we let the sources lead the way. The article is a pile of negativity presented in a POV manner. We can let the facts speak for themselves in a NPOV manner and still cite that he is seen as a bad sort. We don't state that we think he's a bad sort, we let the sources state that and everything else. -- Banjeboi 19:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that it is all right to trash Karl Rove because you think he's a jerk violates the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Justafax and VsevolodKrolikov seem to be the same person. Justafax keeps referring to my getting blocked. I got blocked out of frustration. Everytime I made a legitimate addition to the Karl Rove page, my edits got immediately deleted. So out of frustration I just went back in and reverted them. I was actually blocked less than 24 hours because an administrator told me what I needed to do to get unblocked. But Justafax is an ugly dog with a bone keeps taking stuff my talk page and posting it inappropriately in on the Karl Rove talk page. Justafax is like a cancer and so is VsevolodKrolikov and I believe they are both the same person.96.41.72.156 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a negative biography of a marginally notable individual. May need eyes/further community discussion.  Skomorokh  08:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about what your concern is, as it seems that you are the editor who actually restored the negative material here. Can't it be argued that until the article is more defined, inclusion of this insider trading incident fails WP:WEIGHT? My view would be that it's very wrong to reduce the entire life of a person to one incident of insider trading, even if it happens to be true. It's the job of judges & courts to deal with insider trading, not Wikipedia. Other opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it here because it is ineligible for speedy deletion but could become a magnet for unproductive contributions. I added the reliably-sourced content as it is the primary claim to notability of the topic. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted to have the article deleted. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Demagogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Another round of attempts to list "modern" demagogues. As in past efforts to do so, the listed names tell more about the adding individual's personal politics than the subject of demagogy. --Allen3 ^talk 13:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an editor who insists on a "see also" link to a page called Climate change denial. I tried to remove it twice and had each revert backed out. The issue, as I see it, is that a "see also" link to a page called "Climate change denial" is much the same as simply writing somewhere in the article, "By the way, Ian Plimer is a Denialist". Actually, the very existence of a page called Climate change denial must present a number of potential BLP problems but I guess that's another matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is not a BLP issue, so why you posted it here is a mystery.
2. Plimer is called a climate change "denier" or "denialist" all over the place, eg [6] [7] [8] [9] etc etc.
3. Why would there be any problem with the concept of denial? Plimer does deny the concept of anthropogenic global warming, not so? ► RATEL ◄ 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also object to this editor's use of the "See also" to (indirectly) pejoratively label the subject as a "climate change denier". This appears to be a possible BLP violation to me.

None of the sources mentioned above are WP:reliable sources. In order,

1. Plimer mentioned only in a reply to this newspaper blog posting.

2. Personal blog post.

3. Opinion column by a virulently critical opponent of Plimer.

4. Personal blog post. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Tillman. Since when are The Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor not RSes? You're clutching at straws, as is to be expected from one of Wikipedia's most persistent editors of climate-related pages for the denialist cause. ► RATEL ◄ 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not obvious, Ratel is the same editor involved in the dispute. We need the help of uninvolved, neutral editors. Thanks in advance. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not obvious, editors Alex Harvey (aka Alexh19740110) Alexh19740110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Tillman Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are two editors who spend most of their time on wikipedia editing pages to do with climate change, always trying to enhance, protect and boost the profiles of people who, usually for financial reasons, claim that anthropogenic climate change —a concept accepted by over 97.5% of the world's active climatologists— is a scam and bogus. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratel, as a good faith editor I invite you to remove these personal attacks and false representations and my response here to the same, and then withdraw from this page so that the procedure of escalation to the noticeboard can be allowed to operate without your interference. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: Why not all three of you hold your tongues and allow some previously uninvolved editors to fit a word in edgewise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue remains open. I would appreciate the input from an uninvolved editor, i.e. someone without interests in the climate change debate. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As the book ... argues against the scientific consensus on climate change, rejecting the view that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" ... climate change denial is a logical link to include so is certainly acceptable as a "See also" link. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this earlier but was reluctant to get involved because although I'm not an involved editor, I do have a history in some global warming related articles and may not be seen as a neutral editor. However while I initially shared some of Alex Harvey's concerns (about the linking not the existance of the climate change denial article), after more consideration I now agree with Benjiboy. More importantly, it occured to me that rather then the see also, we could see if there's someway we can link to 'climate change denial' in the article. Would either side object to linking to it via this sentence "Leigh Dayton, science writer for The Australian, expressed dismay at Plimer for having "boarded the denialist ark" and described his arguments"? I've also made the later suggestion in the article talk page where it's perhaps best discussed Nil Einne (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Hagelin is a co-developer of one of the more successful unified field theories and writer over 70, frequently- cited, peer-reviewed papers. He also, in two papers, indicates that he sees an identity between this unified field of physics and a unified field of consciousness. The John Hagelin article quotes from Peter Woit's book, [10], (pg206/206) that says that most physicists think of his ideas as being "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot." It's important to say clearly in the article's Reception section [11] that most physicists don't accept Hagelin’s ideas in this regard, but I wonder if, given BLP, we need to quote the most extreme language in the source, the word "crackpot." Would it be more appropriate to say simply something like this? -- According to Peter Woit, most physicists reject Hagelin's idea that there's a connection between the unified field as understood by physics and a unified field of consciousness. The whole reception section may have problems but maybe we could start with this one.(olive (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The statement is a direct quote from a highly-regarded book, and I believe that it accurately reflects the views of the great majority of physicists. I don't see any undue weight issue here, as the section is currently written. Looie496 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the text in question:

• Peter Woit says in his book, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And The Search For Unity In Physical Law, that "Virtually every theoretical physicist in the world" rejects Hagelin's attempt to identify the "unified field" of superstring theory with the Maharishi's "unified field of consciousness" as "utter nonsense, and the work of a crackpot".

While we're evaluating this, it is relevant to note that an editor has also requested that this be removed (Talk:John Hagelin#Reception section: concerns):

• Physicist Victor J. Stenger wrote in The Humanist that "quantum consciousness" as described by Hagelin is a "myth" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

A good strategy for writing Wikipedia articles is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. These appear to be accurate summaries of reliable sources, presented neutrally. They both appear to be significant points of view and so should be included. Both are short and do not appear to have undue weight. I don't think the word "crackpot" violates any core policy. It comes down to whether the term adds information to the article. I recently argued in a different dispute that the word "dingbat" didn't add any value to a biography because it's not informatiove.[12] OTOH, "crackpot" is a more specific criticism for a scientist, similar to calling someone involved in medicine a "quack". If there are reliable sources that express a view that the subject is a crackpot, then I think it might be a violation of NPOV to omit that. More generally, I'm concerned about the removal of criticism from the article. There appears to be a pattern of non-NPOV editing on articles related to the TM topic.   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to call into question the entire article in response to a fairly and neutrally written request for assistance here. You immediately colour the situation, and skew any possible fair response. You also fail to note the reasons the editor is concerned about the Stenger lines.

In terms of the word "crackpot", it is the most extreme language used, and the question I had is whether a middle ground summary would be more appropriate in a BLP article. Nowhere does it say in BLP if it adds something to the article, go ahead add it, and no single word violates a core policy. BLP does say, "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement" A good example of an article that could have used the most extreme examples available but did not, and instead is neutral and factual is the George W Bush article.(olive (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You wrote, The whole reception section may have problems..., so it does seem germane to mention other parts of the criticism section. Since you wish to remove this bit of criticism it's relevant to note that other bits of criticism are also being proposed for removal. I don't think that laying out those fact prevents a fair response.

Our writing style is not in question here, since this is a verbatim quotation.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You called into question all of the editing on the article. And I am quoting WP:BLP.(olive (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I proposed removing Stenger, because he says that Hagelin often talks about quantum consciousness. I can't find any instance where Hagelin has spoken about quantum consciousness. I don't think he's ever used this term. I'd appreciate if someone could find and instance. Stenger gives nothing to back up his statement. My feeling is that it's a questionable source if it doesn't give an instance and no instance can be found. TimidGuy (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "crackpot," as used in this article, and other such words used in these quotes, represent ad hominem attacks. Use of ridicule and ad hominem attack is the lowest form of argument, hardly one that belongs in a good WP article. The following advice under WP:BETTER is well worth keeping in mind: "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." ChemistryProf (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that now another set of criticism has been proposed for removal.[13] I am concerned that the criticism of the subject's scientific work is being systematically reduced. This doesn't appear to be a BLP issue, but it may be an NPOV issue.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a suggestion for rewrite which the editor says he feels was more inline with WP:BLP and should not be characterized as a removal which is untrue. As well, this is a suggestion and is open to comments and is not a fait accomplis. I suggest you take this to the NPOV /Noticeboard if you have concern about NPOV.(olive (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I wanted to add that we don't add information to an article because we have a source for it. We edit discriminately, and make sure in a BLP that "sensitivity" as per WP:BLP to the subject is maintained. Thinking the word "crackpot" is an appropriate word to describes scientists while "quack" is good for medicine is way beyond my comprehension, and I don't see support for that theory in Wikipedia. They are name calling pure and simple, and insults, in my mind. We can describe the situation without stooping to the same level an author does who in describing this kind of situation is so lacking in vocabulary they have to resort to name calling.

Is this word "crackpot" significant as a descriptor for Hagelin. Have many people used the word so the word becomes a noteworthy and necessary description when talking about Hagelin. I don't see evidence for that.(olive (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

We're not calling Hagelin a "crackpot". We're quoting a notable source who has called him that as part of a critique of the work. While the quotation of the actual word is open to debate, I don't think there's any basis for removing the criticism itself. Wikipedia defines a "crackpot" as "a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false". We could insert text to that effect in place of the word itself, but I'd still say that's watering down the criticism.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that the word itself is not well used although the criticism itself is noteworthy and should not be removed but should be reworded more in line with the Wikipedia:BLP Policy .(olive (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's part of a direct quote from Woit in the article, so we cannot reword it. It's not our wording to change, but Woit's. We can't reword direct quotes and we shouldn't try to water them down if they're on-topic and reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion of "most physicists reject Hagelin's idea that there's a connection between the unified field as understood by physics and a unified field of consciousness" does not appear to be a fair summary of the criticism, which can be found here: [14]. For example, rather than "most physicists" he says "virtually every theoretical physicist in the world". They don't simply "reject" it, the author says they "reject it as utter nonsense and the work of a crackpot". If you can prepare a more neutral summary of Wpoit's criticms I'm sure no one would mind using that instead of the quotation. But so far I havne't seen such a summary being proposed.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No of course we can't reword a quote, but use of the quote is a choice not an obligation. A word that is cherry picked out of much longer text and is the most derogatory word in the text is not representing the source fairly and in a BLP is transgressing what a BLP should be. This isn't watering down its writing in a summary style with the BLP guides in mind.(olive (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have to agree with Olive on the point "that we don't add information to an article because we have a source for it." Many "negative" quotes could be found for countless BLP articles if one was to take the time and effort to find them. Of course we need to present praise and criticism for Hagelin in a balanced, neutral NPOV way, supported by RS material, but I feel it is bad form for editors to seek out material to insert to specifically and blatantly try to damage the reputation of the person. --BwB (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It follows directly from WP:NPOV that in cases of fringe scientists such as Hagelin we should seek out and include mainstream reactions to the work to document the fact that it really is fringe and describe the work neutrally. We shouldn't avoid doing so merely because it would hurt someone's feelings. And if we have a direct source saying that he's widely regarded as a crackpot, it would be a gross misrepresentation of that source (and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV) to water it down to "some scientists view his work as unscientific" or something more generic like that. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hagelin is hardly a fringe scientist. Over 70 widely cited papers in peer reviewed journals and to quote Peter Woit "many of them published in very prestigious particle theory journals" and two controversial papers does not make Hagelin a fringe scientist by any measure. Nor is "crackpot" a term that is used anywhere else so the term itself is not noteworthy in terms of Hagelin. Hurting someone 's feeling is not an issue but following BLP which itself uses the term "sensitivity" is. I guess I would see that the issue is creating neutrality rather than watering anything down.(olive (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Echoing Olive -- Hagelin played a major role in developing the leading grand unified theory in physics. He's recognized for that, including an article in Discover magazine. Do a search in Google Scholar on his name and you'll see his many papers in Physics Letters B, which is the top physics journal in the world. And he's hardly the first scientist to suggest a connection between the unified field and consciousness. Other's who've suggested this include Nobel laureates Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner, and Brian Josephson. TimidGuy (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm T. R. Reid, the author and reporter described in your article "T. R. Reid." There are some mistakes in your article. Since so many people use Wikipedia, I regularly have to respond to users who have found inaccurate info in your article about me. These errors proliferate like mad.

My sense is that it's extremely hard to get this stuff corrected. Is there anybody at Wikipedia who is responsible for correcting errors? I'd like to get accurate info. in the bio of me, but can't figure out how to do it.

Your software was concerned about "excessive amounts of consecutive whitespace" (whatever that is) in my comment. I hope you will show the same concern about getting the information right.

Please help! --thanks, t.r. reid —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRREID (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you are actually T.R. Reid, it's good that you're open about it. Although anyone can edit wikipedia, directly editing material about yourself is a conflict of interest and is discouraged. Instead, the best thing to do is go to the talk page Talk:T.R._Reid for discussing changes to the article and post your specific concerns there, and other editors can respond. I've set up a section for you to add to. By the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes (~) so that your automatic signature comes up, and people know who's posting.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also have the option of contacting OTRS volunteers via email. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem for details. -- œ^™ 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking it's only hard to fix errors if they appear in reputable published sources -- that always makes things difficult. Uncontroversial errors are usually easy to fix -- just point them out at the article's talk page, Talk:T.R. Reid. Looie496 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that Ogi Ogas may bear watching. He's kicked up a big firestorm in online fandom (see http://linkspam.dreamwidth.org/5800.html) leading to pressure to include more material on that in his article, but most of it is from far-from-reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Barkow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A New York Observer article described her "as the ‘counter-clerk’ [to Antonin Scalia]—the nickname given to the Democrat he hires to sniff out political biases in his arguments." However, an anonymous IP user removed that statement again and again and again, claiming that the Observer article is flawed and that he/she "knows" Barkow. Now what to do? I just gave up reverting because I'm sick of that edit war. Is there any rule or guideline how to deal with this? All I know is that WP:COS prohibits authors "from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." // bender235 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin Coughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Journalist writes about subject of article. Journalist loses job, through circumstances that aren't quite clear. Journalist sues subject of article. Lawsuit reported in another major daily. Journalist, who happens to be a Wikipedian, then edits about the pending suit (in which he is a party) in the article. This one has WP:COI written all over it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Naledi Pandor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced BLP, issue of IPs both in main article space and talk page posting contact info. Could use some extra eyes. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

89.3.21.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing this page, claiming to be the subject, seeking to have her date of birth and age removed from "Wikipedia US" in the same way it has been removed from "Wikipedia France". Looking at the French article, there is indeed no DoB on the page. More eyes and thought are required here. This was originally listed on AIV but it is more appropriate to take it elsewhere. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 09:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing the above, the IP switched to vandalising the article, so I reverted and semi-protected it for 5 days. This does nothing to solved the underlying problem. ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 09:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues here. One is the content itself, is the birthdate reliably sourced? Then is it that important? If we have compelling evidence the BLP subject tries to keep it private it may need to be redacted in some way, possibly using just the birth year than the full date as that is a BLP issue to help prevent identity theft. See if her websites and what the most reliable sources use. If she herself seems to advertise the date then there's little reason to leave it off. If she seems to avoid it then I would go with just the year. -- Banjeboi 15:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the year is the thing the IP was vandalising. (BTW, I have no interest in the article in any way, I just tipped this out of AIV). ➲ REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a discussion on birth date and year should be sorted out a Talk:Diane Tell first. There are contradictory sources (1957 vs 1959) and it would be a good to determine if consensus can be reached on what dob/year should be established, based on available WP:RS. Dl2000 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article about actress Leighton Meester is using a primary source (her birth certificate) as a reference for her birth location. This is potentially a touchy BLP issue since she was born in prison, but it also seems a bit odd to have Wikipedia list her as born somewhere different than what secondary and tertiary sources say. Secondary reliable sources mention her birth location as Marco Island (presumably because that is the info Meester gave them) (AP,People, CTV.ca) as do the common tertiary sources (TV Guide, TV.com, imdb). I'm taking this here because I'm not familiar enough with the use of primary sources in BLPs to make a judgement call myself. Siawase (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the best sources which do support the born in jail bit but rework the content to be all about Leighton rather than criminality of parents. This is a very interesting aspect but we should phrase it NPOV and show how it affected or didn't affect her. -- Banjeboi 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources do state that she was born in Texas, including the one I added to the article along with the primary one (namely an article from the Chicago Sun-Times by Bill Zwecker, archived at that link). All Hallow's (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that recent edits by User:SlimVirgin at Lyndon LaRouche violate WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples below are characteristic. The general effect of these edits has been to eliminate well-sourced material that presents LaRouche in a favorable light, while giving disproportionate amounts of space to highly derogatory criticism from obscure individuals, in a manner that overwhelms the article and appears to take sides. SlimVirgin has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. [15] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
2. [16] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
3. [17] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
4. [18] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
5. [19] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
6. [20] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
7. [21] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
8. [22] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
9. [23] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
10. [24] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
11. [25] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
12. [26] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
13. [27]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
14. [28] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics

For anyone who wants to look at this, the article is undergoing a long overdue clean-up, mostly Will and I doing it, and it's not finished yet. The writing's being tightened, the refs sorted out, fluff removed, over-reliance on LaRouche removed, better secondary sources added, criticism absorbed into the text rather than hanging separately, narrative flow improved, and so on. This is the version before my first recent edit (113 kilobytes); and this is the latest (91 kilobytes), so people can judge for themselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the end result is an "attack article" incompatible with BLP guidelines.--Leatherstocking (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both Will Beback and SlimVirgin are quite capable WP:FA writers - I am sure they will do fine with the clean-up. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on forum shopping

• Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in forum shopping. Please see WP:ANEW thread [29], and WP:AE thread [30]. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User warned for forum shopping.rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed an unsourced "controversy" section from this BLP, I would appreciate some extra eyes on the article for a bit. -- Banjeboi 15:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our Van Jones article can probably use some experienced eyes to take a look at it. Van Jones has been in the news lately for calling an opponent political party "assholes"[31] and for signing a 9/11 conspiracy theory petition[32]. There's a lot of edit-warring going on (including claims as to whether or not he's a communist.) To make matters worse, the article is using blogs and opinion pieces for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited biographies in a while, but it strikes me as violating WP:BLP to open one with

Paul A. LaViolette (born ca 1948^[1]) is an American scientist who has proposed unorthodox physics theories and interpretations of the Bible, Mayan pictograms, the Zodiac and ancient Vedic stories.^{[citation needed]}

User:Meco sees nothing wrong with it. I don't care about this guy, so I'm posting this message here as my last involvement with that article. Pcap ping 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]