Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Jackson Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I live on eastern Long Island, NY. Today (Sunday, Feb 5, 2012) I read the local newspaper, which included an interview and photo of Jackson Pollack on his 100th birthday in late Jan'12. Common knowledge has it that he died in a car accident in 1956. He jokes about this misperception in the story.

I created a Wiki user account, put the facts from the newspaper on the TALK section of the Jackson Pollack entry, and asked that a more experienced editor confirm and edit. A few hours later I looked, and my entry was DELETED. I think the appropriate response should have been to REFUTE rather than simply delete. The fact is that the man is alive. He has led quite a full life since 1956, which the story provides details of. He goes by the name PJ Pollack.

Dan's Papers - Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. The story was written by the paper's founder, Dan Rattiner. Should be easy to confirm.

Dcestaro (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your edit to the article's talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there, or here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The editor who removed your post thought you were bananas (to put it bluntly).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who wants to read it, here's the Rattiner article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real question here - is he still painting? The Interior (Talk) 01:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, his hands shake too much.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the print version; has photo. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was all rather bitey, wasn't it? Sad that no-one troubled to welcome Dcestaro (did it just now). Removing talk page comments that are not overtly disruptive isn't great either. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, one can safely say that this thread is a load of old Pollocks! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on Cusop, be fair. First, it wasn't wholly unreasonable to react to Dcestaro the way the editor did. It turns out in retrospect that Dcestaro was absolutely sincere, but it was a wacky business and superficially preposterous. Second, several of us helped out. Demiurge correctly restored Dcestaro's comment. I did a fair amount of research to figure things out and then responded to Dcestaro's original comment, for which he very graciously thanked me. And JFHJr added a helpful link and an apology. The fact that we also had a bit of fun here with the spoof itself was not intended to cast aspersions on Dcestaro.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sajeel Shahid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HI, I have discovered this page it has information about myself that is not true and is defaming my character, I have never given any interview to any newspaper and this case was dealt 5 years ago and apology letters received from these newspapers, pls remove this page thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.193.145 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears well-sourced (perhaps with some WP:NPOV concerns). The IP user could be a namesake. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick. There doesn't seem to be a sourcing problem in that they appear reliable. If the IP truly is the subject, I suggest first contacting the publishers in question, especially the BBC and The Sunday Times. They'll be happy to post a retraction, redaction, or correction. If there is one already online (I didn't find any), a link here would be grand. It may also be worthwhile contacting WP:OTRS by e-mail to provide more firsthand information (apology letters, etc). JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a G10 attack page speedy deletion request from user Knowledgesearch2 (talk · contribs). The user has now written to me saying that she is the subject's wife and objecting to the article as unfair and inaccurate. I have pointed her to OTRS. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see anything establishing that Shahid is aka "Abu Ibrahim". The Newsnight transcript attributes the extended quotation to "Abu Ibrahim", and our infobox says he is aka this name, but the Newsnight transcript doesn't use Shahid's name and I see no source that connects Shahid to this alias. The other two references are fine, but unless there's something to establish the connection #2 might have to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation – [1] – establishes it as an alias. All three articles refer to Al Muhajiroun. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I suppose that's good enough (it should be added as a reference in the infobox, then). On the other hand, I wonder how many "Abu Ibrahims" there are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - I am glad (and my fathers expensive lawyer is pleased with me) that I am not responsible for any additions or admin actions to keep that article published using en wikipedia. He is not really notable is he, we have three citations with his name in them, all returning to a single event - and nothing that he is really a notable person imo. Youreallycan 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This can be taken to AfD. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The article about myself contains many false information and lies and fabrication. Here is why?

(1) The comment [2] posted under Sajeel Shahid wikipage that is being attributed to me by the author of wiki page has not been made by me at all, but rather by someone else. I left al-muhajiroun in 2002, and this is public knowledge. If you go to the information sourced No2, you will not find the name Sajeel Shahid anywhere. This comment has been made by some one else named abu ibrahim, and not Sajeel Shahid. There are alone 6 Al-Muhajiroun members in UK whose alias is abu ibrahim. Ibrahim is a very common name people give to the children after the Prophet ABraham, and this is very common alias for many muslims. Also this interview is made in england, with some Al-Muhajiorun members and I was in Pakistan in 2004 and had no relationship with al-muhajiroun as I left them in 2002.

(2) Also the first statement that says I am one of the leader of Al-Muhajiroun is also a lie, again this statement is without proof. I just use to sympathize with their political views. There is no article stating that I am a leader this is just use on wikipage also I have never been quoted as saying that I am one of the leaders of Al-Muhajiroun. Also there is no statement by this party to say that I was one of their leaders.... Also someone might have sympathy to a party, and to represent it as that I support the all the views of this organisation is also grave injustice comments like "that endorsed alQaedas terror attacks on September 2011" I never made such statements, so why attribute to my page is indirect false accusations.

(3) Also the information source 1 by (Nick Fielding) all relying upon one point that sajeel told an arabic newspaper, which newspaper? no name!! I have never given any interview to arabic newspaper as I dont speak arabic in 2004 upto 2007. To not name the arabic newspaper and to say in there that I know this person, which I never met in my life is fasle fabrication to the highest level.

(4) I have been in the UK since 2005, without any charge, not even one fine in my name. My only crime is that I use to run a madrasa (school) in lahore that hosted 190 students in there, how does I know who comes to studies there, but media never asked him no interview just story that has been made up.

I run two successfull buisness here, please dont malign my name with these false sourced information.

To summarise: To pose someone else comment and attribute to me is a huge injustice, just because the alias may be the same is no evidence at all especially when I was not even in UK. To call me one of the leaders of al-muhajiroun without evidence is a lie To base all articles on a arabic newspaper without quoting it is also leading to making lie against me

I look forward to a reply many thanks Sajeel Shahid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - In support of your comments I have nominated the article for a seven day deletion discussion - You are free to join in the discussion and to make one vote for either keep or delete. Read WP:AFD for details of how the process works. Youreallycan 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajeel Shahid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I am the contributor who contributed the original draft of this article. I have several requests.

1. Could you please follow the steps to confirm your real world identity? We have a team of trusted volunteers whose task is to confidentially confirm real world identities -- this is the WP:OTRS that other contributors have requested you use. I think it is very important for every individual who requests an article's deletion, asserting it is about them, confirm their real world identity, because, unfortunately, some individuals would happily spoof us, claim to be the subject of an article, as part of a campaign to tailor the wikipedia's coverage of a range of topics.
2. Two requests for speedy deletion were made to this article, a G7 and a G10. Did you make both of them? G7 is for the use of a person who contributed an article, only to realize they made a mistake, like misreading the references. So, I would have been eligible to use G7, but you wouldn't, and neither would anyone else.
3. Were you responsible for all the following edits? [2], [3], [4], [5], [phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajeel_Shahid&diff=475621640&oldid=475525730]?

OK. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not knowledgble about wikipedia and how it works, so I dont understand even following the link on how to certify my identiy. If you could explain I am glad to follow it
2. I have not requested any deletion, my family noticed this article and has brought to my attention only yesterday to help put my points across. The same is with the edits as I have only put my points across yesterday

Please mr author, note I went to pakistan in 2000, to start an islamic school, I had sympathy for al-muhajiroun but than left them in 2002, when there was no other reason for me to do so except an ideological one. For one interview you tarnish rest of the life of someone. How fair is this. You have even lied again, I have never inspired people to go to pakistan to take part with taliban. Show me one proof for that... Do you have an agenda or some motive? Are you the same person who has for the last six year trying to publish a book and wanted to meet me ? Please have some respect of the life of other people, especially when the other person is clearly stating that you are labelling accusation against him ..... my mistke is only to open an islamic school for 2 years !! an give one interview !! is that a crime !!

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit this link for instructions on how to contact Wikipedia to request deletion of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been expanded and allegedly improved to make the person appear as if a massive player in terrorism - Sajeel Shahid when he is clearly not at all. - - Youreallycan 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajeel Shahid. I invite other editors to consider the arguments being made there -- particularly (from my perspective) the fact that incidental newspaper mentions are being used to support a case for notability even though none of the sources are substantially about the subject as WP:N would require. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wrongtom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry, can't deal with this, just funny, spurious nonsense about this DJ remixer that has been on-wiki since 2007. Please can some sensible heads decide if the guy meets GNG, he's recently remixed a whole Roots Manuva album[6].
Does he pass musicbio, or is it BLP1E and you're out? Too involved and still laughing, at least stub it to something reasonable, or has Wikipedia merged with Uncyclopaedia? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that amuses you, I would suggest you have some growing up to do before you should be editing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks thumb and looks on sullenly

Only trying to help, someone posted it to Facebook and it was only on reading the extract a second time (and laughing) that I clocked it was from his wiki article, but I did mean the article as a whole and the general tone which is very unencyclopaedic.

And what's not funny about massive wangs :=) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed a lot of the fluff, which doesn't leave a lot. I've sent it to AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know where to start and was rather admirative at this rather fine piece of surreal, peurile writing, which obviously doesn't belong on WP. Had a quick look last night but couldn't find a lot to establish a reasonable level of notability, I'll have a dig and visit the AfD. Can you post the link to the discussion, cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in my post above. There's also a link in the page history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Wrongtom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - * {{lafd|add the article title here}} - Youreallycan 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry 'crosseyed and painless'. Will check it out. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Wildmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The beginning of the entry is "...is a piece of shit, hatemonger...."

This may be true; but is probably not appropriate. Maybe if they cited examples. Just found it unusual for Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.169.247 (talk • contribs)

Already removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has inserted seven links to four self published websites on the talk page that attack Prem Rawat and contain contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.[7] I have removed it once but it was reinserted. I would appreciate an impartial editor to enforce BLP.Momento (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the talk page that this issue has been taken here. I can be fairly aggressive about enforcing BLP (in this instance WP:BLPSPS), even on talk pages, but in this instance I'm not sure I'd remove the section as it's a list of improper sources rather than a direct attack on the subject. In addition, removing other editor's comments because of claimed BLP violations can be controversial if it's not egregious.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat needs a permanent entry on this noticeboard, alas. Collect (talk) 13

26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the topic has been pretty quiet for over a year, until just recently.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahina Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I recently stumbled upon a blatant copyvio in this BLP and removed it. Then I took another look at the rest of the article and thought it could use input from BLP regulars. The article currently focuses on two unsuccessful legal complaints by the subject. I'm not sure if any of it meets BLP standards. And though they've gained some regional coverage, I'm not convinced either event is noteworthy. Any opinions? JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I realize I was likely looking at a wiki mirror. What I removed was, in any event, a large swath of uncited material tagged at addition. Anyhow, what say ye about the rest? JFHJr (㊟) 05:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following need verifiable citation or must be deleted:

"Sheila handed her gold medal to her twin brother after becoming the olympics champion, and he dropped it to the floor and some parts of it are rotten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.129.88 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism, I've removed it. January (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a Wikipedia novice, but this article ("Dregen") appears to have had a press release/promotional biography copied and pasted into its body. It reads like an advertisement and lacks citation. N.B. the section headed "Biography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.148.141 (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the whole bio section for all of the reasons you mentioned; I'm going to look at it later more carefully to see if the person is actually notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wondering if anyone is available to take a look through Dr Fleming's article and see that it's balanced and appropriate? I've had a couple of complaints come in to the WMF about it. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonably balanced. However the last section may possibly give undue weight to a recent relatively minor incident, so minor that I'd hardly classify it as an "incident". It was removed by an IP, but then restored. See [8]. The incident is in no way defamatory, but could be slightly embarassing. It's referenced to Politico and was also picked up by UPI, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post all citing Politico as the source. It probably should be considerably pared down. This is especially so since the article discusses nothing about him after the 2010 campaign and then abrubtly devotes a whole section to this news snippet from three days ago. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the onion section - as, undue weight to trivia. Youreallycan 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's sensible. Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was replaced by User:Goethean without any discussion - I removed it again as undue weight to trivia and left him a note linking to this discussion thread. Youreallycan 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The incident received extensive media coverage in Time magazine, The Boston Globe, New York Daily News, New York magazine, International Business Times, The Advocate, The Hill, CBS News. For Wikipedia to elide the incident would be distinctly odd. — goethean ॐ 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you say "slow news day"? the "story" has no legs. it is a complete blip in the life and career and importance and impact of the subject of the article. each of those pieces of coverage is simply the exact same content of the UPI story with the paragraphs cut and re-arranged. it has no place in the article. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it were sourced only to the Onion itself, I could see the point about trivia and undue. But given the sources presented by Goethean, I think it's appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As most recently edited, the heading had been removed, which effectively put this item under the "2010 campaign" heading, which I would think anyone would agree is nonsensical. I moved it to the "House of Representatives" section and gave it a subheading simply because I didn't see any other way to place the info in the article that wouldn't look weird. (If anyone wanted to write something about what this guy has actually been doing since elected besides the two incidents in which he's been widely mocked, it would presumably help the article appear "balanced" and place less emphasis on those incidents, relieving the WP:UNDUE concerns.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see anywhere to put it - and as a header I was only getting trivia or facebook comments - the header the onion incident is just more satire - its not an incident at all, and as we are requested not to add trivia sections, the trivia it should be even in the article, so I was in two minds - and he mistook a satirical article as if a not satirical one and it was pointed out to him and he removed in - what trivial newsy nonsense. If you insist on including it, I think Facebook comments is a better header. Youreallycan 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Brinker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some very contentious statements in this article. 132.170.89.68 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf[reply]

Please be more specific. --BwB (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Callista_Gingrich#.22Third_wife.22 - please all folks with in interest in BLPs come help discuss whether she should be "third wife" or "married" to Newt in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Schuette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was filled with biased information, and comments like gets a kick out of hurting sick people. Was edited today by myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjohnsteak (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of some material was appropriate. However, what you added (about his win in Michigan) needs a cite. As an aside, Ballotpedia is not a reliable site (it's a wiki).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Monica Pignotti is a user who has been focused on the Steven Hassan page. We have found out that Monica is actually in a real life dispute with Hassan [9]. She is specifically interested in inserting criticism into his article over his fees where she also posted his phone number as well as his methods. These include inserting her personal commentary: rephrasing the practice as "manipulative" in such a way that it does not appear in the original source. I'd like someone more experienced with BLP than I am to take a look at this.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the paragraph of criticism I inserted that violates any of Wikipedia's rules. I inserted correctly cited material from a published edited volume by widely recognized cult experts who disagree with Mr. Hassan. Coffeepusher appears to be intent on having all criticism of Mr. Hassan deleted from the article, which would result in an unbalanced article that contains only favorable material about Mr. Hassan. It is my understanding that it is desirable for Wikipedia articles to be balanced which means including criticism. The original source does express concerns about Mr. Hassan's approach resulting in manipulation. Various forms of the word "manipulate" are used repeatedly in the source material I cited. If the form of the word "manipulative" is a problem, I would be glad to change it to "manipulation" or "manipulativeness" both of which were used. I did not include "personal commentary". I paraphrased the source material because the moderator asked me not to quote directly. What we're talking about now is a very short paragraph describing the article.

Here is one example of a direct quote from the material in question (the Clark et al reference in the article):

"Hassan...says that our critique exaggerates the manipulativeness of his approach." (p. 175) So here you can see clearly that even Steve Hassan interpreting their writings as accusing him of being manipulative. I did not invent this word. It is used repeatedly throughout the article.

Some of the material that comes up on a Google search of my name and Hassan's, but the way are false, defamatory postings about both me and Steve Hassan. We were never in any kind of romantic relationship, as some of the postings state. These postings were part of a highly defamatory internet smear campaign against me that was perpetrated against me. Hassan and I merely have differences of opinion on the topic of cults.

The reference to the fees posting was something that occurred much earlier and has nothing to do with the present dispute. I did not originate his phone number -- it was publicly posted on his website in relation to his fees so I did not violate any kind of privacy, as Coffeepusher appears to be implying.MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify what Coffeepusher is objecting to, here is the latest version of the paragraph in question:

"In Recovery from Cults, David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy, and Michael Langone have written about Steve Hassan's approach to exit counseling.[26] They say that "...Hassan runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."[26] Their central comment is that Hassan's approach is said to "effect" change without the cult-involved person's prior approval and is hence, risks manipulating the client, whereas in contrast, Clark et al.'s informational approach "invites" change."

The phone number was a direct quote from his website and involved an edit that was made two and a half years ago in order to provide an update, since earlier some other author had posted his fees in the Wikipedia article which were no longer posted on his website. MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

actually this is not a continuation of the content dispute, that is going on on the talk page and I have let you and Will figure that one out.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone who is in a dispute with a person in real life should not be editing that persons biography - at all. This is straight and basic conflict of interest. You are more than welcome to edit wikipedia MonicaPignotti, but please don't edit articles where you have a personal stake - it compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "personal stake". I simply disagree with Mr. Hassan on a professional level, but I did not insert any of my own disagreements into the article. I merely inserted and quoted from a published reference.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A google suggest that you have worked to get his license revoked which would of course more than a professional disagreement. In any case just like COI doesn't allow you to edit biographies about yourself it also doesn't allow you to edit article about people with whom you are in a public disagreement. It doesn't really matter whether the particular edits were not your own arguments. I am sure you wouldn't like Steve Hassan to edit your biography either. If the biography needs sourced criticism then someone who is less personally involved in the topic will provide it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is completely false. I never worked to get his "license revoked". That post you will notice is anonymous and made as part of a highly defamatory smear campaign against me. This was made by the same anonymous poster who said I had sex with Hassan, which is also completely false. I hope you understand that not everything posted on the internet is true. I am curious, though, whether the same rule applies to the "personal stake" of Steve Hassan's supporters who are obviously working very hard to keep all criticism out of the article. No problem, though, there are plenty of other places on the internet where I can and will post this well referenced criticism and there is nothing Mr. Hassan and his supporters can do to censor that.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that not necessarily all of that which is found in a google search is correct - the sher volume of the hits suggests that this is not just a professional dispute but some kind of larger dispute - quite possibly including one or more smear campaigns. The only way that ikipedia can hope to guard against becoming a vehicle for smear campaigns is by restrict the acces to adding negative information about living peope to persons who are not too close to the topic. For the same reson we don't allow editors to quote their own publications or edit their on biographies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so your purpose was to insert criticism of Hassan into the article and elsewhere on the internet?Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, with regard to the article, my purpose was to give the mostly positive article, some balance. That is supposed to be what Wikipedia is all about. With regard to the internet, my purpose is to help people be good mental health consumers by providing them with accurate information about mental health professionals and their practices. I have been completely up front posting under my real name. Would you be willing do disclose what your relationship is with Steve Hassan?MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can go back to Mr. Hassan and report to him that he can thank you for giving me a great idea for my next blog article which will be a full, in depth discussion of the Clark et al chapter I referenced. I'm sure he'll be very grateful to you for giving me the idea.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for your first question no problem, funny story really. I found an edit on the Rick Ross (consultant) page that used religious freedom watch as a source. As religious freedom watch is a Scientology front group it does not qualify as a WP:RS so I deleted the entry and went to the talk page to discuss it. On the talk page the other editor mentioned questionable criticism on the Steve Hassan page which led me to your edits. Now if you look at my contributions you will notice that these are the only two people related to counselling that I have edited in my last 500 edits. I have no "relationship" with Steve Hassan or with cult exit counselling...or really with cults for that matter. I edit wikipedia. As for your second question outside of the phone number you have provided I have no idea how to contact Hassan and best of luck on your blog.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism I cited was far from "questionable" and it was properly referenced. The authors are widely recognized cult experts. Michael Langone even has his own Wikipedia bio page and has far higher credentials than Hassan (a PhD as opposed to Hassan's Masters in Counseling and unlike Hassan, Langone has actually conducted research and has had it published in peer reviewed journals). In any case, there are likely to be future publications criticizing Hassan as I have a few of my own peer reviewed ones in the works. Hopefully some "neutral" person editing Wikipedia will cite these when published and they won't be suppressed.MonicaPignotti (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to insert information from any peerrevieed publication relevant to Steve Hassan that I am made aware of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will say - that biography is overtly promotional, with bloated and exaggerated importance, and likely created or expanded by conflicted editor/s. Youreallycan 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I do know based on discussions on his former list serv, that Hassan has encouraged his supporters to contribute to his page and based on its tone, I suspect they have. That is why I was attempting to add some balance. In any case, I want to be sure I understand COI with regard to living person pages. Would that mean that ex-Scientologists who have spoken out against Scientology could not edit a page on David Micavige, Scientology's current leader? I ask since I am an ex-Scientologist who has spoken out against it and would like to know if that means I (or other Scientology defectors)should not edit David Miscavige's page.MonicaPignotti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Your question implies a specious argument. You could be a Scientologist and edit an article about Scientology (or the opposite). You could be gay and edit an article about a homophobe. All this assuming you are neutral in your edits, cite to reliable sources, etc. What's much more problematic is when you have a private dispute with a particular person and edit that person's article. In that situation, you should stay away from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I would add that if you are a Scientology critic, and editing Scientology articles, you should exercise the greatest caution. Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia for a brief primer on why editors editing the Scientology section of Wikipedia face the largest set of sanctions imposed upon any section of Wikipedia. Most of the people from both sides who edited during that time have since been banned from editing Scientology related articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientology history is a special case, and although anti-Scientology editors were also banned, it's probably fair to say that the controversy and the resulting bans stem mostly from pro-Scientology edits. In any event, it's always important to be very careful in editing any controversial article, particularly if you have strong feelings about the subject. Although I believe some editors can maintain neutrality even in light of their personal views, obviously, editors' opinions on another editor's "neutrality" vary. Unfortunately, a kneejerk reaction to edits to some articles is to accuse the editor of having an "agenda". Before I started seriously editing here, I never knew I had so many agendas, many of which are inherently contradictory. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing the least bit specious about my argument. Go back and read what was written. I was told I could not edit Steve Hassan's bio page because of my history with him (and by the way, much of what is on the internet about me with regard to Mr. Hassan are outright falsehoods posted anonymously), not because my edits were not neutral. I did not insert my own opinions into the piece. I was properly citing a valid reference. Also, note that I specifically asked about David Miscavige's bio page, not pages about Scientology in general. I specifically noted the Miscavige page because it is directly analogous to this situation, as Miscavige is a living person. By the rationale that I have been forbidden from posting to Steve Hassan's bio page, I (and anyone else with a history of criticism of Scientology) should also be banned from posting to Miscavige's page. I'm not saying we should be banned, only pointing out the inconsistencies.MonicaPignotti (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second paragraph, although some people tried to nitpick on forms of the word "manipulate" (various forms were used repeatedly in the article I cited and even Hassan was quoted as saying he was being accused of "manipulativeness") I did not inject my opinions into that and the description of the article in question was neutral. It is obvious to me that Steve Hassan has supporters that are working very hard to keep this page positive for him. The topic of Wikipedia edits to his page was discussed several times on his former list serv and there were insinuations that some of his friends have ties to Wikipedia editors and from the looks of the article, as others have also noted, it reads like a self-congratulatory puff piece. Since I am no longer allowed to edit this page, I hope that others for whom the neutrality of Wikipedia is important, will remedy this situation and add some balance to the article. I will move on, as I have tried my best to bring this highly unbalanced situation to light.MonicaPignotti (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Paya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(The information in the last para of Ali Paya is inaccurate and appears to have been written by someone who has a grudge against Mr Paya.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.53.2 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue section removed by User:Youreallycan. Dru of Id (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viggo Stoltenberg-Hansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The section "Supervision, Mentoring, and Lecturing" appears to be highly subjective, and to lack appropriate sources. Revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.37.43 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article currently has no sources about this person. Notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shabby as the article may be, the first two hits at the scholar link lead me to assume this subject would most likely pass WP:PROFESSOR criterion 1 (note 1). In aggregate, the rest of the results there also indicate he's relatively notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good idea to find at least one source that is actually about this person: otherwise we have nothing to verify his existence let alone the most basic biographical details. To establish WP:PROFESSOR 1 you need to demonstrate "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". That is, sources that discuss his work as such. Note 1 refers to numerous citations of his work. I don't currently see any of that in the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with either the Indonesian language or with soccer, but I found this article to be full of unreferenced claims of criminality and malfeasance by living persons in the organizations which organize and control the sport there. I have tagged some of the claims regarding Nurdin Halid and "Eli Cohen," as needing references, but I cannot read the local language press to find reliable sourcing, and I hesitate to remove statements that might be sourceable by someone fluent in the language. "World Football Insider," a website, is referenced at one spot, but I'm not sure it constitutes a reliable source to satisfy WP:BLP. A closely related article is Nurdin Halid, which has numerous statements that he is infamous, involved in criminal cases, corrupt, and jailed multiple times. These claims are referenced first to a broken link (present ref 2 of the Halid article) to a publication called Kompas, March 23, 1999. Then there are statements of convictions or prosecutions for other crimes ref'd by non-English publications, which does not violate BLP but which bear checking by someone fluent in the Indonesian language. There is one English language article in Kompas, a newspaper website, from March 10 2011 which verifies some of the claims, but does not substantiate all the negative statements in the two articles. Some help would be appreciated from someone fluent in Indonesian to check the refs and make sure all negative BLP statements in the two articles conform to policy and have adequate refs to reliable sources. Edison (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if this is an article in the English version of Wiki, we should have sources that are in English? If not then that material can be removed. --BwB (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language sources are permitted, just not "preferred". See WP:NOENG. Material should not be removed just because the source is foreign, if otherwise reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that numerous editors have been reinstating content at Militant atheism that defamatory to numerous living people. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that groups can be covered by BLP unless there are specific named individuals either referred to in the article or so unusually closely associated with a group that a statement about the group could reasonably be understood by the majority of readers as a statement about a specific individual. Is that the case here? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the case here. There are four or five prominent people associated with "New Atheism", all but one of whom are living. They stand to be defamed by the terse pronouncement in this disambiguation page. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution individuals reading this noticeboard to see the pending report against User:Jweiss11 as well as read the following paragraph. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The report against against me is nothing more another facet, in addition to issue I've raised here, of a disgusting, inappropriate, biased, conservative push by Anupam and others. It has no place on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Militant atheism at the New Atheism article, a situation which I think is correct, since the term is derogatory only, not encyclopedic. With no cited explanation, New Atheism cannot be listed as a dab link at Militant atheism. Binksternet (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The reference to New Atheism violates MOS:DABENTRY.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without a named individual it is hardly a BLP issue. The "P" is BLP refers to person. Groups don't qualify. If groups did equate to persons then this board would be terabytes in size. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as small, identifiable groups are concerned, it remains a BLP concern. Compare "the Bush Family" or "the Kennedys", or "The Right Brothers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the maximum size of a "small group" ever been set on Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8.5 billion is a reasonable upper bound. Sharper bounds will, in my opinion, very much depend on context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and all this time I resisted) You also have to index for population growth.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New Atheism is a sort of combination term for about four (or maybe slightly more) individual writers, and the "militant" label is used by their critics. Pushing for the militant label here on Wikipedia raises some of the same issues that came up about the Santorum neologism, in terms of to what degree Wikipedia should promote a critical term. Anyway, the "militant" page is now at AfD, where it probably belongs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Martin (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is the subject of an OTRS complaint. I'd appreciate it if experienced editors here could add it to their watchlists and keep an eye on it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already. Wifione ^Message 14:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C C Patil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Karnataka video clip controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. Another user and I would like some clarification on the appropriateness of some article additions I am proposing. I may be violating BLP. Here is the article as I proposed it. Here is the discussion on the talk page. The other user makes a claim that I am advocating for something; we had talked a little here also. I expect that anyone who reads what I have written will find that what I have stated comes from reliable sources and is a NPOV representation of what those sources state. I am asking for comments about the suitability of the material I am proposing to add and how it can be improved if it is to be included in the article at all. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a desire to include one single facet of his position to add weight that he is hypocritical, seems undue imo - it all sits better at the 2012 Karnataka video clip controversy - Regarding your desired addition, what involvement has CC Patil in the slutwalk? Youreallycan 17:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here - Talk:C_C_Patil. I added a Slutwalk section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To third parties: Please see Talk:2012 Karnataka video clip controversy#Quotations from news reporters and Talk:2012 Karnataka video clip controversy#Requested move. Bluerasberry seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a vehicle for advocacy and does not take responsibility for the content he inserts about living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why users feel they can use wikipedia for personal activism. That thought pattern is detrimental to the NPOV of the whole en project. Its better to get a blog and vocalize there, they are free. Youreallycan 17:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would help put things in perspective : User:Bluerasberry/hindu terror. The politician belongs to the conservative Bhartiya Janata Party which is also listed on this heavily biased travesty that exists in userspace. Hence the attention. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my motivation. If my userpage is a problem then please say so, but you linked to a series of excerpts and links and nothing I have written. I know nothing about the BJP. I work in HIV education in India, and I know very little about Indian political parties. So far as I know no Indian political party is very supportive of HIV educational issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I deleted the page on request. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a little look I am not seeing support anywhere that this part of your desired addition is anything to do with the subject - "For reasons of "moral grounds" the state government in the context of Patil's statements had also denied permission to a group organizing a political protest called a slutwalk" - I can't see support for it in the citation you wanted to support it with, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ws080212Karnataka.asp - if it is could you point me to it please. It says the government opposed the slut walk on moral grounds but not that it opposed the slut walk because of CC Patil - it looks like WP:synth to me. What exactly has that slutwalk got to do with this living person, what does this mean "the state government in the context of Patil's statements " - ? and where is it cited to? Youreallycan 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you above with a redirect to the article page. I have more citations here. Thanks for giving feedback. I agree that what I have written is unclear. Would you be comfortable moving this discussion to the C C Patil page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. One non specific comment to all, is to be careful when reading low level press reports - they often assert without words and its easy to read it as per their desired unspoken assertion and then rewrite that unspoken assertion for inclusion in an article. I have only an interest if there is a dispute, if you want my opinion on a future desired addition please feel free to ask on my talkpage. Regards - Youreallycan 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maanvi Gagroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The person does not have any achievements of note and the profile does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. The article should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newlyp (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a sourcing problem, but I haven't removed material since I didn't find the content problematic. Meanwhile, I think it's likely WP:TOOSOON to call this actress notable under WP:NACTOR because she's had one supporting role and a handful of apparently very small roles. I'll wait for more input from others regarding notability, since I'm not very keen on Bollywood stars. If you feel this article really needs to go now, you should visit AfD (we don't actually delete articles at BLPN). Read WP:BEFORE to see how to nominate for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JFHJr. I would also add that AfD is not for the faint of heart. I've added a notability tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing problem, for now, is mostly fixed. Otherwise, it's been marked for improvement. Further notability concerns should be heard at the talk page or at WP:AFD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon R. Gladdish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon R. Gladdish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has twice been prodded, both templates subsequently removed without the issues being resolved. I've had lengthy discussions with the article's author, who has admitted to conflict of interest. Subject doesn't appear to be notable, claims are not reliably sourced--this looks like a vanity article. Does anyone want to take this to AFD? Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed unsourced content, especially content that went over the line as far as WP:BLP, WP:PEACOCK, WP:COAT to name a few. More eyes probably needed here. I'm inclined to agree with the IP, but disinclined to nominate at this time (for no particular reason, sorry). If the IP is so inclined, please register an account and start at WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup was much appreciated. Always better to have multiple objective eyes on a problematic bio. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could provide some help. I hope other editors here will have a look as well. I've also left a note at talk regarding the BLP cleanup and notability in general. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time looking into the subject, I decided AfD was right for this article after all. See nomination link at the top of this section. JFHJr (㊟) 16:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hsien Loong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a lively discussion at Talk:Lee Hsien Loong about whether the following sentence is acceptable. Additional feedback would be very welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.^[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, part of a Cabinet-wide reduction described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"^[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.^[3]"

^{[1] — http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/asia/singapore-slashes-officials-salaries.html
[2] — http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168620110589932.html
[3] — http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/uk-singapore-politics-idUSLNE81503N20120206}

• I have no real interest in this particular BLP, but given things I've read about others in this region, I'm led to wonder whether any of the active editors there are socks of User:La goutte de pluie. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As of now, there is no increased sock puppet activity on Singapore-politics related articles. But this is a possibility that we must consider. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a policy about making decisions to include references to scholarly articles written by notable researchers? Scientists often write many articles in their careers. It is not practical to include all of anyone's work in their article, but probably a few key papers should be included in some cases within "Further reading" or a "Bibliography" section. I tried to find a description of best practices but could not. As examples, look at Einstein#Publications or Richard_feynman#Selected_scientific_works. How many publications is enough? How many are too many? What about for much less notable scientists - I do not want any article to look like a CV or resume, but if I have 10 references for a scientist who has a small article, then that looks like a collection of links. Who has discussed this before? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I want to clarify an issue regarding WP:BLP that arose on the Óscar Mendoza Azurdia. Based on information in this blog, which I fully admit would not be a reliable source in nearly any case, I changed the individual's BLP category from Category:Possibly living people to Category:Living people in this edit. User:Mewulwe reverted it in this edit calling it a "meaningless blog", which I disagree with. My interpretation of WP:RS and WP:BLP leads me to believe that if a source, regardless of its reliability for anything else, claims that someone is living, and there is no reliable source claiming the contrary, that person should remain in Category:Living people, which is better equipped than Category:Possibly living people to alert other editors of WP:BLP vandalism and violations. Rather than get into a revert war, however, I thought I would post this here to get some outside opinion, as it's more of a general question of interpretation rather than something specific to this article. Mewulwe will be notified after this posting. Canadian Paul 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just is the blog as such not reliable, it doesn't even begin to offer any evidence that the person is alive. It is just playing with data it probably got from Wikipedia, assuming if there is no death date he must be alive. Mewulwe (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zambians seem not to be able to handle success decently :-) → «« Man77 »» 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Santorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[10] shows the repeated addition of:

There he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was entertainment, not an actual sport.

Is the reporting of his position for a law client UNDUE here? Does it in any way imply that he personally approved of steroids for wrestlers? If one client's position is given in the BLP, would the positions he stated in other cases be equally germane? I suggested that such was the case, but have been reverted, therefore brought the issue here. Poklitical "silly season" is in full force. I fear. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its totally undue - a single issue - from a period of employment - why that one only? Lawyers argue all kinds of stuff - coatracking that single one is totally undue. - Youreallycan 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:UNDUE? This is by far the most prominent case he handled as a lawyer. There's no implication in the text that Santorum approved of the practice. If you are aware of other cases which have received similar attention we might add those too.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the accusation that this is tied to the so-called "silly season", the material was stable in the article long before Santorum declared his candidacy.[11] If anything, it's those who are deleting it from the article who are guilty of election-related editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was it should not have been - a passing comment in this lengthy op ed/article that starts with , Rick Santorum is taking a piss Youreallycan 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/2005-09-29/cover.shtml

That' a profile, not an Op-Ed piece. And there are other sources available. Since this does not violate BLP it should be restored. We can add another half-dozen sources to address the weight issue.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add all those (imo worthless) proquest search results - There is no good reason to focus on it. In his career it isn't important. Youreallycan 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single sentence is not a focus, and reliable sources are not worthless. On the contrary, they are the basis of Wikipedia.  Will Beback  talk  23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You desire to focus on that single issue from a whole period of employment. In his career it isn't important - Convince me that it is? Is the issue something specific that is a thread through his career - in his private life or as a politician has he commented about this steroid issue? - Youreallycan 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see it is verifiable, and a single sentence doesn't qualify as undue weight.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does if you choose to only report that case from four years work. Youreallycan 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We focus on that case because it was the one that generated the most news coverage and public attention, and is thus more noteworthy than the other cases he covered. This is in agreement with WP:UNDUE. There is no WP:BLP issue here, because the material is factually correct, verifiable and reliably sourced. The sentence says nothing at all about his private life or beliefs, as they are irrelevant because he was acting in the role of attourney, which the sentence clearly states. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got more citations that assert the particular importance of that case and the reasons behind that? Youreallycan 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevent. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right back at ya. - I prefer to keep a decent level of discussion, but what can I say to such a comment .. Youreallycan 00:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to satisfy your curiosity, a quick Google search will turn up abundant hits for Santorum's wrestling-related activities. Do your own homework. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am an adult! - I don't do homework. I also oppose this desired inclusion so I don't need to present any sources. Youreallycan 00:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just above you said that Proquest's newspaper sources are "worthless". Do you want sources or are you making up your mind without based on some other consideration?   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course investigate accessible reliable externals. I have done a bit of searching myself already since the discussion began - please don't copy paste a bunch of proquest returns. What accessible reliable externals have you got that not only repeat this factoid but elaborate on it? Youreallycan 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC) -[reply]

What's your problem with Proquest?   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen users cut and copy reams of proquest returns to assert notability when actually they have not even accessed the articles. - and its impossible for users to investigate. Youreallycan 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem with any citations. It's not unique to Proquest. Even worse are people who post raw Ghits as if those mean anything.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're deleting sourced material. That's unhelpful. Have you read all of the sources?   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:BLP having a citation is not a gold badge for guaranteed inclusion. 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NPV calls on use to include significant material, as determined by reliable sources. If this doesn't qualify then nothing with fewer than four sources does either.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion of K&L details The article currently says that Santorum "practiced law for four years at the Pittsburgh law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, now known as K&L Gates." Four years... they same amount of time he was a U.S. Rep (for which the article has an entire section). What did he do while at K&L? Well, we have a reliable source that says "he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was entertainment, not an actual sport."1 I believe it is completely within policy to include this information. In fact, it would be nice to know more about what he did there. I advise this info be incorporated into the article for good so we can strive towards a comprehensive article. —Eustress ^talk 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did his job - what he was told to do, defended his clients to the best of his ability. This article will never be a featured article - its under opinionated partisan attack and all additions are in support of that focus. Youreallycan 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking a case from his career like that is odd. It looks obviously pointed. I don't think anyone above is arguing it's not true. They're making the case that it is biased coverage of his legal career. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the single most prominent case he had, so it isn't cherry picking to mention it.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: 1 biased source does not WP:DUE make. I mean really: "Rick Santorum is taking a piss." We can't find better sourcing that this? For a BLP?? This isn't AFA or NOM afterall. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many available sources. If that's the basis for the oppostion I'll go ahead and restore it, using those as well. (Also, how do we know that source is biased? personal opinion?)   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious...so the argument is that an article that starts out with "X is taking a piss" which appears in a WP:RS, was edited, reviewed, and published is questionable how? I understand that you would have started your own personal article about Rick differently but how exactly is it questionable?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

got two more sources [12] [13]Coffeepusher (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more: [14][15] (In addition tothe ones an editor deleted...)[16]   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Rick Santorum is taking a piss" mean?   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it's the opening line for the original sourceCoffeepusher (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Include: Abundant reliable sources out there supporting the sentence in question. His lobbying for the WWE stands out far above all his other activities as a lawyer, and generated a lot of national news coverage at the time, and again now.[[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that Beast article is clearly a bit of an attack - the fact that there are a few attacking articles about this factoid isn't any reason for us to repeat it. I think this http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060616/16santorum.htm - twenty factoids about the subject just about shows its worth. Youreallycan 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which again is irrelevant. The sentence you are trying to remove from the article cannot in good faith be characterized as an attack. And yes, we repeat it--- because it is notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources. Also, his involvement with the WWE cannot in good faith be dismissed as a "factoid". It was the most important part of his carreer before he entered politics, and one that he was particularly proud of, judging from his 2006 campaign ad. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions most of the items in the list of 20. It is also included in a list of 11 things about Santorum. So two separate editors of widely respected publications think this is noteworthy for short lists of things about the subject, in addition to the other sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally it is the only thing mentioned in conjunction with his time and K&L which refutes the claims that he did more notable things while practicing.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty check time: A lawyer will state things in a case which are there to represent his client and that has absolutely nothing to do with his own beliefs.. Really! That is what lawyers are paid to do -- and the insistence that Santorum favoirs use of steroids is beyond "silly season" entirely. Cheers- and Will, I expect far better of you than this bit. Collect (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians also say things to represent their constituents. But in other articles about lawyers we include their most prominent cases and their noted arguments. It comes down to following the sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty check yourself. The sentence you object to does not in any way say that "Santorum favors use of steroids". This was not just any client in an isolated court case. It was his MAIN client, fellow conservative politician Linda McMahon, and the proceedings garnered a lot of national news coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yah, but unfortunately for your argument we have established WP:V and WP:WEIGHT using multiple secondary WP:RS, the fact that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't justify the original claim for WP:UNDUECoffeepusher (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, how is "He is getting paid for it" an excuse for anything? "He is being paid for being Sadam's executioner"? "He is being paid for dumping fuel oil in the Chesapeake Bay"? And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of Santorum it appears that the issue was more general than just steroids. I had a roommate at the time when this was going on that loved wresling, I did not, but I was fasinated that they had to actually argue that it was not a sport and it was just entertainment since anyone with half a brain knew it was entertainment. It was a pretty big issue at the time, and I don't see a problem with some mention, just so long as it doesn't give the impression that Santorum is pro-steriods, which seems to be the issue that some are trying to push. This quote from ABC is a pretty good view of Santorum's view.

ABC “I was at the center of that,” Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2010. “Pennsylvania was the most pernicious of states when it came to regulation. They made you pay all this money to the boxing [athletic] commission. They used to just rape these guys. You’d have to pay a certain percentage of the gate receipts to have these officials just stand around and watch the match. It was ridiculous.”

Arzel (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion; BLP is meant to protect living people from anonymous editors, not from themselves. There's a reason it's not called WP:STUFFTHEGENIEBACKINTOTHELAMP. Besides, what Collect says is true; lawyers represent their clients irrespective of their personal beliefs; that would seem to make it less likely to reflect badly on him, given that it doesn't necessarily mean that was his personal view. Furthermore, as pointed out above it was his most prominent case, and there are plenty of good sources for it. Others arguing for inclusion have already elucidated what I would have above, so I'll say no more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the ABC News cite Arzel found was helpful, and I reworded the material in the article, using that cite and getting rid of the pissing cite as unnecessary. I also gave the material a bit more context because it was a lobbying effort, not a case.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is reliably sourced information about a public figure so not a BLP issue and not germane to this page. Normal editing process applies, so the place to discuss sourcing, weight, relevance, etc., is over on that article's talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion. Reliably sourced information, not at all inappropriate weight. Consistent with WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• An op-ed has managed to cherry pick a factoid from Santorum's legal work to show that Santorum supported an absurd position (that's what lawyers are paid to do). The writer does not even pretend the statement is a fair summary of Santorum's legal career, nor does the writer have any particular knowledge of that career. Now editors want to cherry pick items from pieces written about Santorum to portray a particular view. That is a misuse of Wikipedia, and such double cherry picking should not appear in an article. If something about Santorum's legal career is desirable, find a source which is reliable for the topic (legal work in general, with a study of Santorum's work). Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion, even though there is at least one external citation that says that he reportedly argued for the use of steroids in a court, it is clearly evident that it is UNDUE to mention this in his biography article. Just saying that he represented the World Wrestling Federation (or WWE) should be enough. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion. Unless I'm wrong that it was the highlight of his legal career per RS. I may be wrong as I didn't research it deeply, but [21] and [22] both state it as the highlight. If this is not so, then please count my opinion as Oppose inclusion. But if you're going to mention one fact, you should mention the most notable, and you should give a full summary, that is the steroids as well as the Wrestling association. B^e——C_ritical 08:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion and if anyone can find sourced examples of other notable legal work he did, consider them for inclusion too. Should we remove all examples of lawyers who represented convicted murderers? Of course not, it's their job to do so. At no point is it stated or inferred that Santorum personally shared the opinions of his legal clients. WP:BLP not violated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no BLP violation here, and that is now even clearer with the improved sourcing. I think Dominus Vobisdu and Blade of the Northern Lights sum it up the best. Neutron (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion. I am sick and tired of having every article censored to some Pollyanna version. If that's what BLP really means then for God's sake repeal it. In. Its. Entirety. Deleting inconvenient facts from the biographies of political candidates to make them more palatable to voters in the run-up to an election is an intellectual and political corruption of the highest order. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose inclusion The "fact" is not well-founded as being remotely relevant to the BLP. Lawyers do not have the positions they take in representing a client as their own personal positions, so implying that Santorum supports steroid use is improper on that basis alone. The Molly Ball source does not support even the claim as cited to her, so that one is "right out" at the start. Last I checked, irrelevant "stuff" was not automaticllly included in BLPs contrary to the views of some. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already apparent from your opening statement that you oppose inclusion. Also, can you quote us which part of the article implies that Santorum supports steroid use? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the fact that lawyers don't necessarily share the views of their clients would seem to make it less likely to reflect badly on him. And the redlink I have in my comment above is red for a reason. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose inclusion What an odd "out of know where" statement. I realize that the wording no where implies that he holds these views personally, but why add this case and not any other? Did it change case law? Was it argued before the Supreme court? Did he win, lose, draw? Did this case define his life and his life's work? If he doesn't hold this view, then why even have it in the article? Is this case being portrayed in the mass media, or is it just a snippet in a biography? Does the quality of the article diminish without this statement? Is the article improved with it? Just some questions to ask ourselves?--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Users are opining that there is no BLP violation - the violation is that the desired addition is undue - WP:UNDUE to focus on this factoid from four years of work. - Youreallycan 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue weight it not a BLP violation, it's an NPOV violation. Weight issues should be adjusted by editing, not by ouright deletion. There's no justification for violating 3RR.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats exactly correct - the editing correction is removal - feel free to add it yourself - I won't be responsible for adding it - Youreallycan 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Longping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains propaganda from China. While it has warnings on the top, several contentious and overstated remarks had been present, which I, who have a doctorate in this related field, modified makingthem less contentious.

Please limit the further ability for contenious and exagerated remarks to be put forth by the Chinese until more academic references can be substantiated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.25.157 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]