Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive69

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP(s) keep adding Jewish-American to lead sentence against MOSBIO. Any help appreciated, maybe protect? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IP's have been warned and reported to WP:SPI. Will continue to monitor article. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have extended WAY too much assume good faith at this point :) Cheers, --Tom (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days.--agr (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The IP said on my talk page that he had 1,000s of IPs and software and other cool stuff that would make him victorious in his efforts to keep warring. Oh well, hopefully all will be quiet on the western front for a few days :) YIPPPIE! :) --Tom (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – -shirulashem^(talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we protect again? Our Russian friend has returned. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've semi protected for 6 months, based on the threat made at User talk:Threeafterthree. --agr (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jenkins (religious leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There are two current issues:

• Hearsay - A significant number of sources quoted in the article are under discussion as gossip and BLP failures for this reason. When removed they have been reverted back into the text but as the sources are demonstrably hearsay should they be removed immediately to avoid any doubt?
• Pay for and restricted sites as sources - Several sources are problematic as they refer to sites that require payment or Athens accounts (i.e. no freely available registration) to access the articles. For this reason some of the dubious sources have been left unchallenged for a significant length of time. Should this BLP be reliant on such sources without including quotes from the source so that there is reasonable easy verification?

Note, a merge for the article has been suggested and a prior AFD was turned down on the basis of adequate sources. Having these sources removed as unreliable may be the basis of a future AFD and this may be an area of contention.—Ash (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with the second part only. Online sources and/or free sources are not required; reliable sources are, which may or not may not free or be easily available on line. In this case the paper newspapers cited would be considered reliable sources; no web link is necessary, as the paper copy could be consulted for verifiability purposes. I will agree that the current courtesy links are unhelpful, as they go to the Athens account log in page. If links are going to be included they would better to link directly to newspaper archives which at least gives a free abstract. eg. [1]. If you want an easy way to check verifiability (without a health-giving walk to the library) you might want to try the folks at the resource exchange.--Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this does imply that reasonable verifiability might be limited to an abstract, which in this case may not discuss the subject of the BLP. Particularly as none of my libraries here in South London stock copies of the Houston Chronicle.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. As I said, paper resources are fine (otherwise we wouldn't be able to use books, for example). The link would be a courtesy link only, and not even required. You may not have easy access to this newspaper, but plenty of other people do, (see my suggestion above) and they could probably email copies to you if you doubt the word of the the editor who added the information. You could also certainly ask the editor who added the citation to quote the relevant passages from the original article on the talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty logical consensus building approach and if sample text were quoted for discussion on the talk page, this may result in suitable quotes being added to the citations. In this case the issue is trying to give some context for biographical data. Particularly as when challenged, the text of some sources has been weaker or more tangential than one would have expected; in the long term it may require some re-phrasing of the article in order to meet WP:BLP.—Ash (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this editor is the one who has proposed the merge, and appears to be actively arguing against reliable sources in this article. The user's first post to the talk page is regarding his own proposed move, and the actual merge proposal is his second edit to the article. Motivation for this sort of behavior is left as an exercise for the editor to explain. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone else please help out and explain what Jclemens is accusing me of here, I seem to be missing the point. I think that proposing a merge and then collaborating in tidying up the article was not against any particular policy or particularly unusual. Does anyone think I have to explain my motivation?—Ash (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note, I have raised Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts‎#Jclemens accusations and threats for this last matter, as a more appropriate forum rather than discussing further here.—Ash (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A source (funded by the Iranian government) is reporting a Saudi opposition figure claiming Bandar bin Sultan‎ (a senior Saudi prince, formerly the Saudi ambassador to the US) has attempted an unsuccessful coup-de-tat. I don't know how reliable a source we should regard Press TV; at the very least I'd appreciate it if others watchlist this article. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that Press TV is widely considered a propoganda arm of the Iranian state. I don't think it should count as a valid source. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that we becoming my suspicion too. It's been a day since the PressTV report, and the story hasn't been picked up by any reliable source. So I've removed it and insisted on WP:RS on the talk page. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of this singer, but her article is repeatedly being edited with some serious BLP violations. Could others keep an eye on it, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This article regarding Brian Quintana has a clear conflict of interest in its content. Furthermore the person in question has repeated recreated this article about himself with new accounts over and over. The most recent of which has just been blocked for sockpuppetry, see Michaeledean (talk · contribs), Daphnaz (talk · contribs), and Brianq (talk · contribs).

This article has been deleted at least 7 times, (twice by yours truly), it has also had at least 2 AFDs One for deletion Another no consensus.

Personally I would be in favor of deletion upon the grounds of WP:BIO and WP:BLP, however I am open to the possibility that might be biased now because I have dealt with this person in the past. So I would like to welcome many more eyes to this article, so that you can judge for yourself. At the very least I hope it will greatly improve the NPOV on this article. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed this survived the 2nd AFD. The only good source is the LAT piece "Startling claims..." which makes him sound like a fantasist, perjurer and fraudster (all of which are linked, to his claims to be a "socialite"). The others are blogs, tiny papers (LA Independent is 32,000 circulation), Thaindian News is a website for... Indians in Thailand(!) or passing references. Uncited claims need removing, and frankly I'd vote delete. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the "evidence" in the Allison Quets entry is unsourced or conjecture. The biased newspaper sources are not verified, if linked at all. This article does not comply with Wikipedia's own policies and must be removed. If it is still standing after this complaint and my prior efforts that it be taken down, why is it still standing. It is an "orphan," it does not comply with living person's bio rules, and it is unsourced. It must come down. On top of all of that, the two children involved will grow up to see lies/conjecture/whatever. Please take this down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 76, for your report, and I recognize that you have been trying to express your concerns about this article for quite some time. I'm sorry that your efforts have been in vain to date. I agree that the article is very much sub-standard. I'm not yet sure whether it is really a candidate for deletion, since Quets and her story have been quite well covered in the media. I have already started work on cleaning up the article, and sourcing it appropropriatly. I encourage other interested editors to help in the process and to offer their comments on whether this is a candidate for deletion under WP:BLP1E.--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please be sure to read all the case law and legal documents at Quets's site at that is the only source for such documents at this point. In addition, if this isn't deleted, I assume journalistic fairness will, indeed, win and Denise Needham, Kevin Needham, Michael Shorstein, and John Gurley will all have entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I am a research scholar who studies adoption issues, and I have read every public document on the case. There truly is no way to verify this story with reliable, ethical sources. Although it can be verified that the Needhams broke federal law by not following ICPC regulations and ignoring the laws of their home state, NC, as is required in adoption law: the laws of both states, sending and receiving, must be followed. NC has a 7 day waiting period. Quets was well within that time frame. This case should be labelled, how to legally kidnap children using a corrupt trial judge who the adoption attorney used to work for, also verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quets' website is down, but in any case it is very likely that the website would not be considered a reliable source for our purposes. Our policies require us to use independent third party sources, such as newspapers, books and other media.

We are absolutely not interested in importing your external dispute here, and cannot include your opinions about the principals or about the merits of the case; especially given that it appears that Quets has lost her case at more or less every level. [2]

I do still question whether this is BLP that WP needs per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Quets made the national and international news at the time of the kidnap. Since then, there has been coverage of the various court cases, but in local papers only.[3][4] I would be interested in some other eyes and comments on this.--Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what "external dispute" you are referring to. My dispute is with the lack of evidence, documentation, and ethos in this text. The text simply does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Those are the issues. I'll assume the shift in your tone, which is quite unnecessary and rather rude, is due to the late hour and exhaustion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.130 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 August 2009

I think if you reread your post then you will understand what I am taking about regarding important external disputes. Your comments about a "corrupt trial judge" and "legal kidnapping", for example, show that (rightly or wrongly) this is a cause for you. I'm sorry if you considered my post rude, which was not my intention, but it was necessary to point that this, and some of the suggestions you made about the article, are inappropriate.

It's much better idea to focus on how the text does not adhere to WP policies and guidelines. My view, from a quick survey of the literature suggests that what remains in the article is eminently sourceable from reliable sources, though it needs updating, and repetition removed. It also seems pretty balanced to me.

My question remains as above, however, whether, we need this article at all.--Slp1 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am editing the biography of David Ferguson (impresario) to improve its overall quality and sources. However there are currently some issues that I believe need consensus in order to remove unjustified banner templates. I would appreciate comments from editors regarding banners, sources or anything to add about NPOV, etc. Thank you-- deb (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lester (like so many others) has just claimed (to a dubious tabloid) that he is the biological father of at least one of Michael Jackson's children. Per BLP respects to the children, who have been hurt enough over the past 7 weeks, this should probably stay out of the article until there is some form of DNA confirmation. Was hoping some admins could watch over the article. — Please comment R² 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So it appears in newspaper reports all over the world, but Wikipedia should conceal what he claims solely because somebody might not like it ! It is an established and referenced fact that Mark Lester has claimed it to be true. Wikipedia is supposed to state the facts isn't it - or is it supposed exclude what some people don't want to be true. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers show little/no regard for peoples privacy or respect for human dignity, we on the other hand, do. I'm not saying it is or is not true (I honestly don't know or care), that is not the point at all though. — Please comment R² 12:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The widespread censorship of established facts because they are not what somebody wants to hear really discredits Wikipedia. It makes Wikipdia a very biased source of information. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You lost me at "censorship" which in my experience always means "I cannot get support for some fringe view or gossip I want in Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very obvious that you do care. A quick look at your contributions shows that you have made a huge number of edits concerning Michael Jackson, all of which have either reversed anything negative concerning Michale Jackson or have added something positive concerning him. Bias and concealing unappealing facts should have no place on an encylopedia, but unfortunately there are so many people on Wikipedia that will make concerted efforts to distort and conceal the truth. --Franklin Demenge (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You two need to take your bitchfest content dispute elsewhere, and I remind Franklin Demenge of WP:NPA, and advise he not imply anyone here is distorting or concealing anything, as that is character assassination. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KC's assesment. Please limit conversation here to BLP violation discussion rather than how Wikipedia does or doesn't function appropriately since that adds very little/nothing to improving correcting violations. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Mark Lester himself is making the claims, and the claims are being reported by multiple reliable sources, not reporting them would be burying our heads in the sand. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The entry on the above is just outraegous and scandalous self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.32.158 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? He is a notable business executive and record producer.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tucker Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has a long history of being semi-protected due to IP vandalism. It was recently protected for two weeks' time. Within days, the IP vandalism, most of which is of the BLP-violation nature, has started again. We've got things like the insertion of defamatory links, removal of content that might be seen as positive, and the (cited) claim that Max is a gonzo journalist repeatedly removed. Semi-protection would probably be rejected due to not enough recent vandalism, so I'm bringing the issue up here.

One can check the article's history to see how regularly this article has to be semi-protected; I'd personally like to see it given the same indefinite semi-protection that articles like George W. Bush get. McJEFF ^(talk) 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the question of appropriate mug shot use is still being debated at Talk:BLP, but in this case a reasonable compromise was reached on the article talk page Talk:Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates#Mug_shot to move the mug shot out of the infobox and replace it with a neutral pair of photos of the two participants. One editor keeps reverting this change [5], [6], [7] claiming there is no consensus, even though he is the only one objecting to the change at this point.--agr (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note. As the one seeking to add a potentially damaging image, about which there is controversy - and indeed, using a mug shot when the charges were dropped is arguably an attack article move right there - he must gain full support before even attempting that change. He does not have it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. Mug shots generally follow arrests, add little or no derogatory information (unless the subject is in disarray, a la Nick Nolte), and serve to underscore the unnecessary humiliation involved when an inappropriate arrest is made.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here was whether the mugshot should be the lead photo in the article's info box. Five out of six editors in the discussion agreed it should not. Under the change which kept being reverted, the mugshot was not removed from the article, but was moved to a place later in the body.--agr (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I agree with that -- the post I replied to seems to be discussing whether the mug shots should be used at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My error, I phrased that poorly. I did indeed mean adding the image to the lead. I apologize for any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

After helping others to protect the article from those who went about adding all sorts of defamatory content (mostly of a racial nature), you can imagine how bowled over I was at being accused of adding it myself - especially since the "defamatory content" I was being accused of adding was the info that was pre-existing in the article!

As the person "warned", I'd like to point out that AGR filing this complaint pointed to a BLP discussion wherein the appropriateness of mugshot photos should be allowed in main BLP articles (this instance is in a sub-article specifically addressing the arrest). The user agr assumes that all mugshots were tendentious - a view that has little in the way of support within policy. Indeed, agr spent a great deal of time edit-warring the image substitution in, prompting a gentle nudge(1) by myself to slow down and build a clear consensus after this second revert in as many minutes.

Frankly, I do not think mugshots are inherently demeaning or NPOV, but that's an issue to be sussed out here, not by self-righteous behavior gussied up as good editing with a "consensus" built in the dead of night. Either way, all I was asking for was for agr to build a consensus - which he rather clearly didn't bother to seek as he was reverting over and over again. I even suggested he do a quick spot vote in the form of a poll which, after I signed out, he had not acted upon, and in fact called "unnecessary." A quick look at the article discussion page clearly indicates that substantial and reasoned discussion is ongoing in the article abut this so-called consensus.

Lastly, this also appears to be the third time that Killer Chihuahua has accused me of overwhelming wrongdoing. I would think that, after twice before jumping the gun and assuming the very worst of me. he might be mature enough to realize that he really needs to think before acting. I also think that - in light of these failed assessments of my behavior - it would be advisable that he abstain from seeking to judge me. He's shown he's not very good at it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time I brought this matter to the attention of this notice board, Arcayne had just reverted the move of the mugshot from the info box to the body of the article for the third time ([8], [9], [10]). I came here rather than continuing a revert war. All the other editors on the talk page discussion at that point had agreed to the change. The discussion there has since continued on whether the mugshot should be used at all. So far no one has argued it belongs in the info box. Instead of addressing his info box reverts, Arcayne has attacked me repeatedly as is evidenced above. --agr (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined you would characterize your having misrepresented the situation sufficiently enough to warrant a wee bit of disdain. Arnold. What I said repeatedly - which you can see in the edit summaries of each of those links you supplied - that you should find a consensus before insisting on jamming your personal beliefs down the throats of the rest of the community. And then, rather than continue to discuss the matter or poll the members (which you dismissed as "unnecessary"), you continued to edit war into your very own third revert. They aren;t personal attacks ; I am addressing your unfortunate behavior. If you don't like your behavior being addressed, adjust the behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there is no way the mugshot/booking photo should be in the infobox. The article is specifically about the arrest but the man is innocent of any crime so he deserves a lot of protection. As it is now it looks not too bad. There is no way that mugshot should be in the infobox, in fact if he is innocent of any charges then the mugshot shouldn't be in the article at all as the guy should not even have been arrested at all. He seems to be a decent man and has had his own page as an intelectual for 4 years, we should give this living person all the protection we can. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)) Also the title of the article is wrong.. At least it should be.. the wrongful arrest of H L Gates. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

See, I don't mind you having that opinion, Off2riorob, so long as you seek a consensus for that opinion in the article discussion. As for myself, we cannot protect the man from himself - and we should not twist the BLP to do such. If someone is stupid enough to mouth off to the police and get arrested, we aren;t going to hide that fact. Mug shots are a matter of public record, are well cited and are neutral to use in sub articles. As this is not the main article for Gates - in fact the bleeding article is called "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" - I cannot imagine a more appropriate place for the image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you argued that we should not place a picture of Ian McDiarmid on the main page alongside the Palpatine FA because people might mistakenly think that Ian MacDiarmid was, in fact, the leader of the Galactic Empire. I personally found your arguments to be absurdly hysterical, but how is this situation any different? Placing a mugshot may give the impression that the individual is, in fact, a criminal - however the charges have been dropped. –xeno^talk 00:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Zeno, I totally agree with you. The charges have been dropped and we should drop the wrongful booking shot. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Just a comment. People are arrested all the time and then charges are dropped or they are proven innocence or whatever. That doesn't mean it was a wrongful arrest. I believe that you have to prove it was a wrongful arrest in a civil court, ect., otherwise it's just an arrest, nothing more nothing less. Anyways, carry on. --Tom (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I saw the article at first glance and my first impression was, why two images of a distinguished proffesor in handcuff, who are we trying to kid around, two images of him handcuff! Yes, lets make it clear where the black man belong, dont you dare open you mouth to a police or to an administrador or even a steward in Wikipedia, the control is 1984....I know Im incoherent, but two images are too much, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge not TMZ.com, hey did they post more picture about Michael and his drugs??? --J.Mundo (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, JMundo; you're being incoherent (lol). First of all, I certainly hope that wasn;t some sort of accusation of racism, 'coz that dog won't hunt, not when I'd spent the better part of the week keeping racist trash out of the article.

Zeno - and everyone else for that matter - please listen carefully: I don't give a sodding rat's ass if the image is in the article or not. observations of policy and guidelines aside (which most seem content to conveniently be forgetting), I want folk to observe the idea of BRD and build a consensus based on policy, not some politically correct, white apologist guilt of "it feels mean". I've tried to express this before, and the best argument I am getting is that I'm sort of racist ceep for wanting the image - and major changes in general - to be discussed. Are you at all surprised that I am a wee bit miffed at the situation? Discussion doesn't mean edit-war your preferred version in get reverted, edit it back in, leave a comment about how you are putting it back in. Rinse, repeat about three times. Do we really want an encyclopedia built on some the efforts of some hack with more endurance? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

White or black, having a mugshot of a person in an article about an arrest where THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED seems very problematic to be from a BLP perspective. We should err on the side of caution in such circumstances, and the fact that the article is now protected after a <removal/reinsertion/removal/reinsertion> sequence is quite disturbing. UnitAnode 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who requested page protection. I had been discussing how at least half of the discussion was being cluttered by folk who seemed to have forgotten all about BRD and were edit-warring over some ill-advised edits. The protection is intended to settle folk down and force them to actually talk themselves to a consensus - something they clearly weren't doing before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne has repeatedly accused me and others, in a most uncivil way, of edit-warring and somehow violating BRD. To begin with BRD is not always applicable in a BLP situation. WP:BLP says "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved." Second, I have made exactly one edit to the article in question -- ever -- as the logs will show. How this can be construed as edit-warring is beyond me. If I were the only one affected, i'd keep my peace. The removal of the mugshot from the info box that I sought and that Arcayne reverted three times seems to be sticking. But I see that other editors are being driven from this discussion by the repeated mischaracterization and incivility being shown and that is not acceptable. I must insist the incivility stop.--agr (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• FYI for the other admins here; Arcayne has announced his intention to disregard my warning, claiming the warning was "bogus" and implying that it was personal.[11] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment as to the FYI - I am absolutely dismissing KC's biased little grudge match, as it was based on yet another instance of KC not doing his homework before accusing me of being the Big Bad Wolf - something he's done not once but twice before. His accusation is based on a fallacy - I didn't add derogatory material to that - or any - article. This continued assumption of bad faith on his part is indeed tedious, and I have informed him that any subsequent instances will have repercussions for him. I don't care if he ius useful - so am I, and I am tired of having him assume the worst and using the admin buttons to threaten me or to besmirch my editing stance. Of course, I am not now, nor have I ever, added any negative material to any BLP, and I am not about to begin now. I have asked KC to abstain from decisions where he might wish to evaluate my editors or intentions, as he is so profoundly and provably inaccurate at doing so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed, I have warned you several times. You heeded the warnings, if I recall correctly, or at least I did not see you continue the problematic behavior, or I would have blocked you. Same here; you cannot invent a hostility I do not feel, and somehow pretend that makes your behavior inviolate or the warning moot. I have warned many people, and some of them multiple times. I have no personal axe to grind at all; merely doing my job. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Clarification: your warnings were all proven inaccurate and based either upon sloppy research on your part or a simple presentiment of inaccurately assuming the worst. I did not "continue the problematic behavior" because there had never been any problematic behavior to begin with. Ergo, that which never started is not something whioch cold be resumed. You can keep stating that you do not have animosity, but each time someone suggest si am doing something wrong, you always seem quick with the warnings. And not once have you apologized for jumping the gun when you were proven wrong - not just by myself, but by others. There are a great many admins in the wiki-en; maybe let them deal with me. You have proven unable (or unwilling) to accurately gauge the actual facts of the matter. I am asking you to abstain, as there will be repercussions if you cannot control yourself. Now, you might comment, as I know you like that last word and all, but until you step over the line, these are mine: you are not neutral in regards to me; please stay away and trust that some other admin is smart enough to evaluate situations where I am involved. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Utter nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, it is, but all of it unfortunately true. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  this is the wrong venue for this. I have taken it to Arcayne's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Good, though I think most folk had figured that out, what with the moving on of this thread regarding the substance of the issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting we pass or final comments here as to whether to keep the mugshot in the article or remove it. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Sure. Sorry about the KC nonsense. Anyway, we use mugshots in many articles, including at least one FA. Mugshots are not inherently "demeaning or derogatory" - they are a method that the police identify a person placed under arrest. They are a matter of public record, are usually free-use, and help to illustrate text discussing the arrest. No one is contending that the arrest did not occur, nor that the person depicted in the free use image is anyone but Gates

In the sub article, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" - note that it is not the main article for the BLP, but a sub-page specifically discussing the arrest and aftermath - there is also an image of Gates in cuffs on his porch, an image which I am somewhat sure will not survive an AfD, as its fair use rationale is pretty wonky. Free image versus fair use image - no-brainer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the KC nonsense - I trust that you will apologise to her properly on her talk page, Arcayne. I would also suggest that you strike those portions of your comments here.

When I get at least three apologies from her for prior bad acts, I will consider allowing bygones to be bygones, Guettarda. Not before then. That KC issued a bogus threat to block was part of an ongoing pattern of bad faith. I consider it nonsense, and as provocative as attempting to poison the well here by stating that I intended to add "derogatory" info again. That's the last I am going to speak of my issues with her here since, as KC pointed out, this is the wrong venue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the use of the mug shot in inappropriate, since it creates the perception that Gates is a criminal or otherwise deserving of arrest. Whether the arrest was appropriate or not is a matter of dispute. NPOV does not permit us to endorse one side over the other. Of course, our BLP policy requires that we avoid further damaging Gates' reputation, but the using the mugshot wouldn't be appropriate even if this weren't a BLP, since it fails NPOV. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear how it fails NPOV, Guettarda. We aren't endorsing one view or another. We using an image this is both free, indisputably of the subject of the article, in a sub-article that speaks to the specifics of the arrest and aftermath; therefore it is not only appropriate, but more connected to the subject matter than any other image save for the nonfree image of the beer summit. Wikipedia is full of mugshot images, most notably in Rosa Parks, As we are using a free image to note and highlight an event, I am not sure how that is a violation of NPOV. You will also recall that Wikipedia is not censored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I wondered how long it would take before someone would pull out the "not censored" card, though WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable to BLP issues, where WP is clearly (in some ways) "censored". UnitAnode 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed in too many different places. (Here, the talk page of the article, and WT:BLP and probably numerous user talk pages). I'd suggest settling on a common location. Incidentally, I still haven't been presented with an argument as to why the mugshot is more relevant (or relevant at all, really) than the FU image of him being led out of his house which does not present a one-sided view like the mugshot. –xeno^talk 20:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that had been explained before. The article is is about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates (the fellow in the booking photo). the arrest is discussed somewhat in depth within the article, which is substantiated by the image. The booking image is a free image, whereas the image of Gates in handcuffs on his porch is not a free image and, if anything, displays Gates in a far more negative light than the booking photo. As that image and the beer summit photo kludged image (which seems to be facing deletion at Commons as per WP:OI) are not free, their use and availability are both limited. As many would not be able to even imagine the eminent professor being arrested in the first place, the booking photo establishes visially the fact of the arrest and that it indeed went as far as being processed at the Cambridge Police Department. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

I believe you are missing the word "not" between "would" and "be able to even imagine" ? –xeno^talk 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Xeno. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me like there's a consensus to not put the mugshot in the infobox itself. While it makes sense to keep the mugshot in the article, the desire to make it less prominent is understandable. Frankly, I'd be more inclined to agree with Arcayne if he could manage a bit more civility and a bit less hyperbole. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up on the BLP policy talk page as well. Started with this section and continuing with the section that follows. Discussion there was more about the appropriateness of the image in general, not just about an infobox. Consensus seems to be not to use mug shots in BLPs unless the subject is currently incarcerated, which is proposed to be added into policy. Otherwise, such images are appropriate in articles about the arrest or about the crimes wherein the arrest is discussed. Combining the points of these two discussions, I believe that much like mug shots should not be used in BLPs of subjects not currently incarcerated for their alleged crime(s), the mug shots should not be used in the infoboxes of crime/arrest articles when the subject is not currently incarcerated for their alleged crime(s). Lara 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that would appear to be your personal opinion; the community that has spoken on this issue still appears to be rather sharply divided on the issue. In short, you appear to be misrepresenting consensus here. Booking photos are free images - right out of the gate, that's a big plus, since most images are not. Next, the booking photo image is not int he main article for the article for Gates; it's in an article specifically discussing the arrest and fallout from it. Just as the Rosa Parks' article uses the arrest materials to indicate an injustice given form so do, I would argue, the images of a Harvard professor and documentarian under arrest for (allegedly) mouthing off to a cop. You say it's demeaning - that's your opinion. We have dozens of articles of folk who are not/were not incarcerated at the time their booking photo was used. Like the song goes, "everyone here is equally kind"; Wikipedia is not censored, and make no mistake - removing the booking photo would be censorship. No one in their right mind would contest that Gates was arrested. So long as the article describes all events equally, the image of the arrested Gates serves both sides of the argument: he was arrested, and that arrest was unjust. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Gates article, the mug shot is now out of the main info box, and shown in a section describing the arrest events. I think that is the appropriate treatment. (This is far from a typical arrest situation. What this arrest means; whether the arrest should have been made at all; these are topics of vigorous controversy out there. Showing the mug shot helps illustrate the controversy.) Pechmerle (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne is correct that there's nothing at all resembling the consensus claimed by Lara regarding what should be done with mugshots in general. However, it seems like there is at minimum a consensus not to put that photo in the infobox. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot and arrest pictures, in or out.

There has been a lot of discussion over these pictures in or out, an editor has started a head count of opinions at the [Gates talkpage] This is an important decision for the Wikipedia, please come there and leave your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Carl Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute about "material" being added and cited to youtube and the Outfoxed documentary. I think its best to leave it out unless main stream media have reported/covered it. Unfortuneately, the other editor made it abundantly clear on the talk page of what he thinks about the subject of the bio Thanks, --Tom (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

said material has been there for months and is located in the "criticism" section. This is simply an attempt of rightwing cleansing of Wikipedia articles. Cameron is amply quoted and criticized in "Outfoxed", which was promoted by a major national organization (moveon.org) and reviewed in several national (WaPo, Variety, NYT) and international (The Guardian) papers. You can not make Cameron uncontroversial by simply deleting every reference to his critics.

Furthermore, the idea to suppress this film is especially ludicrous when you actually see Cameron there on tape openly sucking up to Bush and telling him that his wife is so actively involved in the Bush campaign. Outfoxed doesn't allege Cameron's conflict of interest - it shows it. Calling that partisan defies reality. Wefa (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not gone and looked at the article yet, but I will state that youtube is not generally a reliable source. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

this is not' about some youtube clip. The documentary film quoted is a professionally released film, is available on DVD (e.g. from Amazon), has been reviewed in several national papers, listed in the IMDB, and has its own extensive Wikipedia article, which I suggest you reading to delevop your own judgement. Furthermore, this film is not used in the article as a source of facts, but as an irtem of critcism; for which it is a primary source. Wefa (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

as for the article, User:Tom (talk) has now for the third time reverted my edits on that section and blanked it, so you will have to dig in the history to find it.Wefa (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the movie; you used a youtube clip of it as a source. I suggest you find a better source. You state NYT and Washington Post etc; use those. It is very problematic to use a youtube clip of a documentary as a source. The documentary would be fine; but you're linking to youtube. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The youtube clip is useful because presents exactly the part of Outfoxed that deals with cameron. It is an excerpt of the film. I do not see why this is a problem - this film itself is properly quoted by its wikilink, its web site also was in the external links list, but User:Tom removed that one as well. It's quite frustrating that I am supposed to answer for that although I oppose it. Wefa (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is still a youtube clip, which has been historically frowned upon. I suggest you take this to the reliable sources noticeboard - be sure to state that the clip is loaded on BraveNewFilms' youtube account, NOT a copyvio from Some Random Person - and get a wider input there. Please note I have not removed the clip; I have not stated the clip is not allowable, nor have I objected to it, I have merely pointed out that Youtube is generally frowned upon here. That has been changing, but I'm not sure what consensus will be on this one. Meanwhile, if you have other sources which do not involve a youtube video, please utilize them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Frowned upon, not prohibited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I had specified that, and even gone so far as to clarify that "I have not stated the clip is not allowable, nor have I objected to it". I think this has been made clear enough. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are two key reasons why YouTube clips are frowned upon. One is that YouTube clips are prohibited if they are copyvios (as with any other links to copyvios). This doesn't appear to be the case here since from what I can tell the clip is from one of the producers. Two is that a lot of the reason of YouTube clips are random usermade stuff that isn't suitable for external links let alone sourcing. Again this doesn't apply. So the clip itself isn't a significant issue. However if it's decided the documentary is a reliable source, then the documentary should be the source in the article with the clip as a convenience link at best. However it's fairly rare we use video as a source for a variety of reasons. Using a documentary by a political action group as a source in a BLP seems highly problematic to me. Are there at least any reliable secondary sources who mention the documentaries criticism? Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thank you for that thoughful analysis. That pretty much sums up my position(except I dislike youtube more) and what I was asking Wefa for on the talk page as far as if other reliable sources/main stream media have covered said criticism, but I guess I wasn't as articulate. Probably because I like to guzzle beer and watch cage fighting. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Among them this one, which has been on the talk page and which I plan to add once this is resolved.

But this approach it is still ridiculous. That part of the article does not assert facts but reports criticism. It doesn't say "Cameron has a conflict of interest" but "Cameron has been criticized in Outfoxed for having conflict of interest". And the movie is really the best source for that claim.

as for Tom guzzling beer in a cage or so, it is my impression you do not argue straightforward. First you deleted that section because of [WP:SYN]. After I cleaned up the SYN issue, you then deleted it again for poor sourcing. Your only activities on the article have been deleting material. And you only delete material critical to Cameron, or opposed by FN people. There are other ways to improve articles. You deleted the mediamatters transcript link for being broken, but they fixed it upon request within the day. And so on. Heck, you even challenged something as benign as his birth year without presenting even a shred of evidence of it being wrong. I am somewhat at loss how else to deal with this. Wefa (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wefa, as pointed out by other(s), is it really "fair" or due weight to include criticism from an obviously partisan "attack" documentary. Does it rise to the level of noteworthyness where it should be included? Was it a big deal outside partisan sources? If so, provide a few citations. As far as the DOB, I explained that the article had gone back and forth listed a few different DOB, so I fact tagged it, not that huge a deal. Right now 1/2 the article and 2/3 of the citations are of a critical nature and I am just not sure if adding more would present a NPOV due weight article. Anyways, I should probably step out and let others deal with this. --Tom (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• This seems like a blatantly unbalanced article, as the main (and perhaps only) sources for the "criticisms" are admittedly partisan, like Media Matters and Outfoxed. However, as I've had my fill of stepping on landmines the last week or so, I'll leave it to others to handle. I simply wanted my opinion on the matter noted here, for the record. UnitAnode 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This..Frowned upon, not prohibited... is not something you should ever be using to aid your point of view Arcayne.I have seen you type it more than once. We should err towards caution, you are at the limit. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

• • Oh, I am sorry; that could have just as easily been stated as WP:IAR. And quite honestly, I don't recall ever citing IAR in defense of an argument before (yeah, not once in almost three years), or the words "frowned upon, not prohibited"; perhaps you could show me where I've said that before? And at what limit are you speaking of- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody who is not associated with User Threeafterthree/Tom please summarize a consensus from this? The guy keeps reverting my edits even though I did everything suggested here (provided additional sources from newspaper, trimmed down weight). It was my impression that the consensus (here) was "don't rely on Youtube alone" (which I did). Also User Threeafterthree/Tom seems to threaten me with "involving others". Can anybody point me with a way how to deal with this? I don't want to get into edit warring here (the guy has already reverted my twice today), so I'd appreciate some more general advice than the (certainly helpful) debate on the finer points of youtube sources above. Thanks Wefa (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wefa, I am sorry if you felt threaten, I can assure you I meant no such thing, I meant that we should have other eyes involved to mediate, reach consensus, since we disagree. I ma glad you came back here, you beat me to it :) I am still not convienced this "material" rises to the level worthy of inclusion, see WP:DUE, especially for a bio of this short length and the amount of criticism already included. If a few uninvolved eyes say Iam a jackass, I will saddle up and ride off :) The only thing I am disappointed in, I will admitt, is that you made it perfectly clear on the article talk page your strong dislike for the subject of the article. This could give the impression, whether correct or not that your edits are biased. That is why it is always best not to include comments like that on the talk page. Anyways, hopefully others will chime in and made there is middle ground. Again, no threat meant cheers and good luck. --Tom (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)ps, nobody here is "associated" with me :) --Tom (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• You won't like my summary, Wefa. I think the whole "Critical reception" section (or whatever it's currently called) should go. It's little more than an excuse to post negative things about Cameron, sourced only to partisan documentaries and the self-described "progressive" Media Matters. This is beyond unacceptable in a BLP, and it needs to go. Cameron is a well-known figure, and enough sources exist about his life that a decent little article could be written about him. The article as it currently stands is certainly not that. It is quite unbalanced, and presents some very large problems regarding WP:UNDUE. That's my take. UnitAnode 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It was my understanding that such sections were a widely used instrument to deal with Biographies of controversial figures in a NPOV fashion, and I have seen it used that way in many articles. Now you seem to argue that critical or negative information is not permissible at all. Can you point me to any place where I might find that as a policy?

Furthermore I find your outright dismissal of mediamatters as a source a little disturbing - from my admittedly European perspective mediamatters seems to be far more reliable as a source than, say, Fox News - and Fox News is quoted here all the time.

And lastly, if you really know anything more about Cameron than is written in the article and can be reliably sourced, please please please give me pointers/hints. I have been looking for this article for years now, and despite some intensive searching, I have bnot been able to find much beyond his nearly empty FoxNews Bio page. Wefa (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis should be on little article. And for the record, your reference to Cameron as some kind of "controversial figure" is itself a very non-neutral POV. The fact that you seem to feel that Media Matters and Outfoxed are in any way reliable sources for information on Cameron also displays a POV that is biased. A BLP on a journalist like Cameron should resemble something like the BLP on Alessandra Stanley. If any actual reliable sources can be found for errors, omissions, or biases by Cameron can be found (as there are for Stanley), they should be judiciously included. Entire sections on such things, though, are wildly inappropriate. UnitAnode 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I was not aware that I am supposed to present a NPOV in talk page debates. IIRC, the policy applies to articles. I am supposed to be civil, polite, to assume good faith etc. But bury my own good judgement?

As for media matters, these guys meticulously document their research. Every tiny bit is verfiable on their web site. Why that is not reliable is completely beyond me. Republican bias?

As for controversiality of Cameron, he is a very promient Fox news personality. Outfoxed is essentially 78 minutes of hard evidence that FN is not a journalistic but a propaganda operation. That should suffice for "controversial" alone - heck, they are so controversial that the current president and most of his competitors refused to debate on Fox at all.

Lastly, your comparision with the Alessandra Stanley article is problematic. The Stanley article is hardly anything but stub quality, and it alreday has bad undue weight issues. To put it less circumspect, that article is damning, scathing, nearly destructive. Cameron's article is outright nice and far better balanced compare to this. Wefa (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - I just checked your allegation that criticism is only sourced to Mediamatters and Outfoxed. I am afraid you are mistaken here. There are also sources to the Wall Street Journal, Salon.com and USA today. Wefa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that's remotely notable (and reasonably well-sourced) in the criticism/bias/whatever-it's-currently-called section is the USA Today article on the fake Kerry quote. As for the length of the Cameron article, it should be perhaps two or three paragraphs, well-sourced, with the Kerry quotes thing mentioned in the article text, and certainly no special "sections" for negative information. UnitAnode 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - can I take from that that you also do not consider Salon Magazine a reliable source? Wefa (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. If it's an opinion piece, entitled "Rewriting History" (as this one is), that is solely intended to "expose", and is only used to source negative information in a BLP, then no, it's not a reliable source, in that regard and for that purpose. UnitAnode 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look through the WP:RS/N, you'll see that the consensus has been that MMFA, Salon, DailyKos, and other such sites do not by themselves give WP:WEIGHT to any viewpoint beyond that of a fringe. You need other MSM sources that cover it as well. Soxwon (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing apples with oranges. Salon.com is an online newspaper with paid fulltime journalistic staff and full editorial control. Dailykos is a group blog/community site. Mediamatters is a watchdog group. I just have reviewed all 13 mentions of Salon on WP:RS/N, and contrary to your assertion Salon is consistently held to be a reliable source there. If you disagree we should directly take this there. Wefa (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And. let me add that I still have not seen anybody to summarize a kind of independent consensus here. This noticeboard apparently is so lowtraffic that is borders on dysfunctional. Remove me and tom from this debate and all you have is an avowed conservative arguing for blanking all criticism on Cameron, and Nil Einne and KillerChiuaua suggesting to tread carefully with youtube sources (wich was quite helpful, thanks guys, but not sufficient). I have basically given up on the Cameron article, but I would still appreciate to understand how the 3RR rule does not apply on BLP articles (were all my edits get immediately reverted by the same guy over and over), and I am pretty concerned that this general whitewashing of conservative topics on Wikipedia seems to spread to more and more articles. Granted, the Carl Cameron article is probably the wrong place to make an example of (the guy isn't *that* important), but I've seen more disturbing examples in recent days. Observing this board here (not) operate has not really advanced my peace of mind on this. Wefa (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For Salon: [12]. I think what has been said over and over, is that Salon, MMFA, et al are not sufficient w/o another MSM source. As for the documentary, is it a WP:FRINGE view? It appears the answer is yes. Soxwon (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, that is a copout. That is the article tal page for Salon.com, and not the reliable sources noticeboard. The talk page's first paragraph notwithstanding, the place to find consensus on that is WP:RS/N.

that you actually consider Outfoxed and Moveon.org fringe needs no further commentary. Wefa (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are fringe, along with WND and Free Republic from the right. They are perhaps a significant minority, but should only be present in contrast to a mainstream view. As for my "copout," considering it was referenced in the 1st RS/N case (heck right at the top in the first three lines. As for Salon itself, you need to look through, you'll find that more than a few considered it a tabloid at worst, but on par with WND and Freep at best. I think that finding a better source of MSM coverage would be appropriate. Soxwon (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These edits are very questionable in terms of application of WP:BLP: [13]. BLP demands an emphasis of a neutral POV and must be very verifiable. These edits in the lead section of the article are not conform with these rules, but it seems to me an indicator for "edit warring" as it was common recently and caused the Arbitration Committee to decide in May 2009 "(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding", which has been put on the article's talk page [14]. Please review. Proximodiz (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Please see [15]. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

??? The situation was not resolved but worsened. It would be help if a neutral and uninvolved administrator could look into the issue. There have been several questionable edits to this article in the last week. 170.206.224.50 (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Please see [16]. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Need I say more? Keegan (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes? If that is her stage name, then I don't really see how its a BLP violation. Livewireo (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on this CNBC anchor includes a reference to her previous marriages sourced to Page Six of the New York Post. The Page Six item refers to alleged ethical issues raised by her marriage to her executive producer. The article itself makes no reference to those supposed issues, but I wonder whether this is an appropriate source to be linked in a BLP. What say you? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is just being used to source a non-controversial detail (as it seems to be in this case), then that shouldn't be too much of an issue, assuming that we think t hat the Post is reliable enough. I don't think there's an inherent BLP problem, but it wouldn't hurt to replace it with a different source if we can find one. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better source: [17]

162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the NY Post item just linked would be a suitable replacement. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What essentially boils down to a traffic violation is being given undue weight and by doing so seems to be presenting a case of "where there's smoke there's fire". [This version] has a subheader "Marijuana incidents". It begins with a comment made by Bob Denver which he later recanted about Wells being his drug supplier. Nothing is given to explain why he made the comment, why he recanted, or if Wells was even aware of it. It then goes on to explain how Wells was caught with drug paraphernalia in her car, but that a friend took responsibility and that Wells was accepted as being guilty of no wrong-doing in relation to the drug paraphernalia. Finally she is fined with reckless driving, and "no offense was put on her record." So although in the eyes of the law, nothing is recorded on her record, we are making this incident a part of her record here. I feel that although the section is partially sourced, it is presented in such a way as to make it appear that she is guilty of something. The traffic violation in itself is so minor as to be trivial, and I think this whole section should be removed. There have been several editors who have criticized this section since March 2008, and each has been overruled by one editor who seems to have adopted the role of gatekeeper for this article. If the law says that Dawn Wells is not guilty of any criminal offense, we should abide by that, in my opinion. I'm going to remove the section entirely as I feel it does not comply with our BLP guidelines and would ask that it not be added again, until/unless someone independent and unbiased looks at it, and says it's OK. Rossrs (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, the Denver allegation shouldn't be mentioned since he refused to say it under oath. I don't think the paraphernalia incident should be mentioned since she was not found guilty of anything and mentioning this minor offense that she was exonerated of casts an negative light for no good reason (because she was exonerated). Lastly, the driving incident appears to me to be a case of WP:UNDUE weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How widely was this "material" covered by reliable sources? I remember a possibly similar case where a basketball coach, forget name had some minor DUI years before he became "notable" and it was general consensus not to include since it was so minor and not related in the slightest to his overall carreer nor related to achoholism, ect. Was the case above one shot deal or related to larger story, ie pattern, ect. Anyways, I would err on the side of non inclusion unless it was some "huge" deal/story. I don't know either way, just chimming in. Good luck. --Tom (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Erik Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I want to get a second opinion (or three). Recently, some reliable sources have reported that anonymous sources (John Doe's 1 and 2) have made allegations against Erik Prince in sealed affidavits. However, at this point, they are simply allegations by unknown people. There have been no charges, indictments etc. Essentially 2 unknown people making the allegations and that's it. I think this is contentious at this point and kind of flimsy to repeat allegations that Prince was involved in a conspiracy to murder people made by unknown people, even if the accusations are being reported by Keith Olberman and The Nation magazine. Of course if it becomes an actual charge or at least somethign being actioned in court, it belongs in the article. But right now, it feels like it doesn't belong at this point. Am I on the right or wrong track? // Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Little as I like to say it, I think you're on the right track. If the identities are later unsealed and proven to know what they're talking about, or if court action is taken based on the sealed declarations, that will be a different story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Henrik Brockmann (talk · contribs) has been editing articles of groups associated with the musician of the same name (who he claims to be), saying he doesn't want his name linked with them. -- Pakaran 17:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

this page continues to be slandered and cannot prove anything. I am afraid of liability. Look at the talk page also. I think the page should be locked to new users. This person is involved in Gay rights and probably angers a lot of people. There is also a football player in Cincinnati named Jordan Palmer, and this person cites no credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentucky1333 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on adding some sourced content. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily stricken out the unsourced negative BLP content in the mean time. -shirulashem^(talk) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I recieved a personal letter from Sharee who is my friend and she said she was ofically released as of July 29th and she wrote the letter to me dated 8-5-09. Someone better check facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.57.162 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal correspondence is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of this biography has debatable notoriety. It appears to have been written by the subject herself or perhaps her employer, ESPN. After reviewing the revisions to this article it appears as if this biography was written for ESPN's own marketing or for the subject's self-promotion purposes.

Cutefluffybunny (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there appear to be no sources for any of the data cited. AfD?Martinlc (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My request yesterday for page protection on Nicki Minaj was rejected for a reason I don't understand (the reason for rejection was because the IP who was vandalizing had been blocked, but there were at least 5 different IPs vandalizing yesterday alone). But the vandalism continues, and was just reverted by the very admin who rejected my protection request yesterday. This article badly needs protection, the attacks are disgusting, but nothing is being done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I managed to squeeze out a 24h protection. Maybe next time list it at User:Lar/Liberal Semi, where it will likely receive a much longer protection. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The biography article on Mr. Nabih Berri, the current Speaker of Parliament of Lebanon is ABSURD.

"It is widely believed that Berri has benefited from the large sums of money", "He, as well as Rafik Hariri and Walid Jumblatt, are viewed by many as having been puppets of the Syrian government during its 30-year military presence."

This is a clear absurd defamation that has to be corrected immediately. I understand that Wikipedia does not check every article, but there should be a minimum regulation.

We kindly request this complaint be taken seriously, and acted upon immediately.

Thanks in advance, W.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.38 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to a more neutral version of the article. I don't know about the accuracy, but the sources were organisations with aims to "promote American interests in the Middle East", and what appeared to be personal websites and blogs – probably failing the neutral point of view and reliable source guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This reads far more like an op/ed piece rather than reporting, and as we know, "[n]ews reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact"; "[s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." WP:RS. In what ways can we use that source in the context of WP:BLP, where we are concerned about "[c]ontentious material ... [that is] poorly sourced" and directed to write "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"? Can we use it as a source that supports purported statements of fact about Palin, or only as a source for statements about the source's opinion of Palin?

I'll give some specifics. Fmr. Gov. Sarah Palin made some remarks critical of Obamacare; the source says that Palin is "wrong," and that "[n]othing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision." Is that a reliable source for a fact claim in Palin's article that she is "wrong"? Or is it a reliable source only for a statement in the form of "the AP"--or Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, the nominal author of the source--"argues that Palin is wrong"? And either way, is it acceptable to substitute the loaded word "false" for the word "wrong" and citing the AP story? (Crossposted to RSN). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

not another Palindrama already The piece's statement is as much a statement of the opinion of the writer as to future possibilities as is Palin's herself. Stating an opinion as fact is a rhetorical shortcut widespread among unscrupulous/lazy journalists (and politicians, for that matter). But without question they are both opinions, and should be presented as such. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since she is wrong, I don't see what is contentious about the AP saying so. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I say that you're an idiot, you will no doubt object that I'm being contentious (among other things). Or rather, that my claim is contentious. It is hardly an answer for me to say "since you are an idiot, I don't see what is contentious about saying so." That would be circular reasoning, and you would rightly object. I'm not saying that you are an idiot, but I am saying that your reply is an identically circular argument to the one just shredded.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Politicans often say things that aren't true, and pointing an example out isn't automatically contentious. Can you find a source half as reliable as the AP supporting Palin's claim? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Dlabtot (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you've not understood it. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, a fortiori in a BLP. It isn't incumbent on me to prove that she is right, it is incumbent on those who would add material claiming that she is right or that she is wrong to demonstrate its compliance with policy and that its inclusion is justified as a prudential matter.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand just fine. The burden HAS been met, and your assertions are nonsense. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Petro Voinovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Amongst other errors indicating carelessness and falsifications, the article contains contentious information about a “living″ person that is clearly libelous and harmful given the lack of a single reliable source. In particular, I direct you to the middle of the second paragraph. I ask for assistance in immediately removing the contentious material, so as to avoid unnecessary rounds of edits. As a new user, I am more than happy to assist in this process. Please advise. Thank you. // Kerhonkson09 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done It's unclear whether Voinovsky is a living person or not - it says that he "died after 2003," but we have no details. WP:BLP mandates that "[c]ontentious material ... that is unsourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I see the material you have in mind, it's certainly contentious, and it cites no sources. If he is alive, BLP applies, and the material should be removed immediately. Since we aren't sure, we should err on the side of caution, and I have accordinly removed the material. Even if Voinovsky has died, however, the clams made were unsourced and highly contentious, and removal is appropriate per WP:PROVEIT. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve the quality of the articles on Outlaw motorcycle clubs, many of which are in very poor shape. Most of them have an infobox with a formula like criminal activities: Drug dealing, Extortion, Prostitution..., e.g., Abutre's, Grim Reapers MC. Generally this list of crimes is uncited, or if it is cited, only a sort of general allegation by a law enforcement speaker will tick off a number of crimes, such as in Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club citing the Tri City Hearald (this was my edit). Most outlaw motorcycle clubs deny that they are criminal organizations, and say they can't be held responsible for the actions of individual members. Sometimes, but not always, the FBI or other agency will make a public statement that club is a criminal syndicate. It is usually easy to find news stories stating the names of known members of a club who were convicted of specific crimes. Actual convictions for racketeering or proof of widespread criminal conspiracy is more rare.

So my questions are:

1. When dealing with articles on a club, are the standards the same as all BLP in general? Or can uncited negative information simply be {{fact}} tagged in the hopes that it will improve in the future?
2. How much sourcing is needed to add a crime to the criminal activities: field in the infobox?
3. When is it appropriate to use an infobox with a name like "Infobox Criminal organization"?

This might be too many different things to discuss here. There are many other issues with thes motorcycle club articles you could get caught up in if you wanted to, and I'm only trying to fix one thing at a time. Mostly I want to know if I should blank the criminal activities field, or {{fact}} tag it.

Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Kirtanananda Swami is being reviewed and is full of self published/unverifiable and other sources (such as video) that does seem to suggest WP:CBLANK. Specifically sections and footnotes are disputed. Can a few users with good experience in BLPs have a quick look at it please. Wikid^as© 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note this article is currently undergoing AfD review here --ponyo (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraph of the article violoates NPOV:

Hewitt's changes to the "Logic programming" article sparked some criticism by Robert Kowalski and the logic programming community.

According to Corruption of Wikipedia:

"Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Wikipedia official) favored Kowalski’s side of an academic dispute that he was having with Hewitt and using his Wikipedia power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Wikipedia) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. While he was upset with Hewitt because of their academic dispute, Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to Hewitt; see Corruption of Wikipedia.)

When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that "you [Matthews] discussed this story with the [Wikipedia Public Relations] committee prior to publication [of the Observer’s libelous attack on Hewitt], and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom [Arbitration Committee] member to do." However, Mathews was "unrepentant" about his behavior. His justification was that his instigation of the libelous Observer attack on Hewitt resulted in continued favorable publicity for Wikipedia by the same reporter. Also, the article served as an object lesson intended to intimidate other academics from challenging censorship by Wikipedia Administrators less the same thing happen to them. Matthews then "killified" McEwan for having raised the issue during his campaign for reappointment to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But, still, Wikipedia offered no apology." 76.254.235.105 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

71.198.220.76 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence and the preceding paragraph which I think is what you are after. The sources were particularly poor for a BLP. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Megan Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparently Megan Fox made an offhand comment about Megatron from Transformers "[taking out] out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America". User:Ashley92995 apparently believes that this comment deserves an entire paragraph in Megan Fox's article because the actress came under heat from some right-wing bloggers.[18] I think it's both a case of recentism and giving what is an incredibly minor event undue weight, given that it got no real notice outside of the blogs.// Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Megan's comments had been put in the article A LONG TIME ago, almost around the time they were made. I won't deny that i was a Megan fanboy and as such, even though I concede that they were a stupid thing to say, there was no denying that she did say them. Also, there was no "apparently", the sources are sound, verifiable- she did say it. Unlike model Bar Rafaeli, whom also made an anti-military comment, Bar went out of her way to dispute what she said, said she was taken out of context, etc. Megan has never apologized or retracted the comments, instead relying on Paramounts PR department (imho) to keep this out of the public light, which largely worked. But it does not change the fact that she did say what she said and has never clarified what she said. The sources are sound and were put in a long time ago. I would also point out there are many on the left wing that would absolutely applaud Megan's comments if they read them here on Wikipedia. Ultimately, we are not here to give Megan a favorable edit to her Wikipedia page. We are here to give her page a fair look, and if it meets Wikipedia standards on Biography of Living Person, which are met, they should remain in the article.

My curious coincidence, by including them I feel there is a better argument for upgrading it now to Good Article status. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more mainstream source from THE INSIDERS's official website....say what you will about tabloid news organizations, but they are sort of in the business of reporting on celebritys and when they can verify this story, they would. Do you think for one second that if this story were untrue, that Megan would not be suing the crap out of them. Anyway, enjoy. ^[1]

As I said at Talk:Megan Fox, there is no doubt that she made the comments, the issue at hand is whether those comments have been reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight, as this is a single comment, not widely reported, held against the totality of Fox's life. I think this fails on both counts. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. As I've been trying to say, it was never a matter of verifiability but notability. No one's doubting that she said it. It just doesn't warrant inclusion on the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems very undue, and not notable in the long term. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is notable, the only ones really fighting to oppose this are Megan's fanboys, and I admit to being one until this weekend (when I became a Sienna Miller fanboy). It's no less worthy or unworthy of inclusion then many other things that are unfavorable to someone but meet other Wiki standards. Again- There are people on the left that will applaud Megan's comments. When you look at the ABC NEWS story, where it gives it some mention (albeit largely edited), there is no doubt Megan's PR people were doing their best to supress the story, which is unto itself another issue. The fact that you guys are trying as hard as you are to keep it out is beside the point. Anyway, the sources I put up meet the reliability standard and verification is already there. While I can respect your reasons for keeping it off to protect Megan's reputation, that is besides the point- argue about it on some other fan site, but here at wikipedia, it is notable. If Megan had retracted the statement, clarified it, said she was taken out of context, that would certainly be reasons to remove it. But she has never done that, so it stands. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You seems to be suffering from a failure to assume good faith on the part of those who disagree with you. So if we remove the ad hominem part of your argument calling us fanboys, what we are left with is your opinion that the sources are reliable. As you have been told, the BLP policy specifically excludes using blogs as sources. YOu recently posted a link to The Insider, which notes at the bottom that it was submitted by a user. These are not reliable sources. If you can present a reliably sourced report (i.e. mainstream media reports) then it could stay, so long as it passes the hurdle of undue weight, otherwise it must be left out. Kevin (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Agreed, Kevin. Whipple, please don't poison the well here. I'm not a "fanboy" for anything, so accept the discussion here in good faith. Right now a Google news search for Megan Fox turns up nothing on this topic on the front page. Famous people say stupid things sometimes, controversy blows up and then goes away. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, my more current edit has MSN, ABCNEWS and other's cited as sources. In one of the replies, someone could not even dispute them, but acted like it was not enough. Nothing wrong with me calling you "fanboys", heck I was one of you in that I was aware of what Megan said, but was willing to look past it because I genuinely liked looking at Megan. However, now that I have seen GI JOE, Sienna Miller has taken Megan's place at #1 in hotness and now am more willing to make this discussion. Anyhow, NPOV states that ""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." and some other things. Bottom line though, is that the newer edits highlight the ABC and MSN parts of the article. If you want to remove the part about "her comments don't make her shine" and a few other aspects of it, then that can be substained. And a Google search on Megan Fox Middle America brings the story right back up, so don't act like this is some sort of conspiracy to bring her down. If she were to retract or clarify her statement, that would be one thing. She has not done that. Whippletheduck (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If this were truly notable, why would it make a difference if she had retracted her statement? Dayewalker (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a case of WP:UNDUE. Just because a reliable source reports it, doesn't mean we should include it. For example, if Obama visits a city today and delivers a run of the mill speech, the news will report it, but that doesn't mean we need to rush to his bio and insert it. ABC, MSNBC etc report the news, Wikipedia is not the news. She said something that may or may not be dumb. So what? People remember her for her role as an entertainer. I think bio's should focus on significant live events, not just things to fill space. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We are also talkign about Notability here. If Obama said what Megan Fox said about how he plans to dole out health care.....if he used the exact same words and it was irrefutable what he said....your damn right it would be in the article for him to have said what Megan said. Also, remember that there are MANY on the left that would probably agree and applaud Megan for what she said, so this also cuts both ways. Anyhow, According to this.......[i]"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."[/i], from the NPOV area, this is less about whether it should be in or not: the standards have been met. Megan's supporters (I won't call them fanboys since they are crying foul over it even though I mean it as a term of affection). And yes, there are going to be people that justifably will be upset that may not even know this happened, as Megan's PR people have done a great job spiking this story. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we're talking notability, but your comments don't address notability at all. You're discussing how we would deal with it if the comments came from the President, and talking about the comments from an NPOV standpoint. However, this doesn't address the basic factor of notability, and undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The comparison is flawed because Obama would be talking about something that actually effected people, unlike Fox, who is nothing more than an actress.....which is simply a citizen with an opinion. Believe it or not, actresses have no real power. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whippletheduck, everyone here has heard your arguments, and remain unconvinced. There is absolutely no consensus here to include the "Middle America" comments that Fox made. Remember, no-one here disagrees that she made the comments - it is clear that she did. The issue is that her comments have not been discussed by mainstream media except as a passing mention, which means that to include them lends undue weight to an issue that mainstream media have largely ignored. If you intend to continue your argument, you need to address this point, and leave out mention of left wing/right wing/fanboys/Obama. Kevin (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one that brought Obaman or the Right/Left part into this discussion at all. Sandor was the one that kept complaining about how only right wing blogs and somewhere else ever reported on this as a reason not to include the article. When I called him out on it, it was someone else that brought Obama in as an example, and did not do a very good one, claiming that it would not be notable if Obama in a stump speech made the comment that Megan made----Does anyone beleive that if Obama said what Megan said that it would be the end of his presidency?

And you guys are all trying way too hard on this, threatening 3R as quickly as you are to try to spike this debate. if the Wikipedia standards are correct, then it is the content that needs to be addressed, not the number of editors that are involved. If you all agree that the sources are good (which I notice, none of you are criticizing anymore, which sounds like "well we can't refute those sources so lets make it an NOTABILITY ARGUMENT instead", which personally I think is rather cowardly.

I would not be surprised if a lot of the megan defenders are really affiilated with whatever agency represents Megan and are trying to spike this so it does not reflect badly on your client.

I suppose I can wait and see if she creates a history of additional ridiculous statements, she is only 23 so she has plenty time to do that, and then catalogue them. Good thing about Wikipedia is that edits and stuff stay in the system so it will be easy to regenerate whatever it is I need to do it. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're not addressing the notability issue here at all, rather you're choosing to cast aspersions on the motives of people who disagree with you. Consensus appears pretty clear the section isn't notable, if you disagree, please address the question. Dayewalker (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Kevin in his first chiming in, this is about reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight. The newer sources, specifically from MSN.COM and from ABCNEWS meet what he claimed and what others also agreed with him on, meet the Reliably Reported Standard. As to Undue Weight, it says we have to judge based on the reliability of the information, not the number of editors, that is right in the UNDUE WEIGHT criteria, with a specific quote as

""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.""

So, the question is, to both Kevin and to Sandor Clegane, you were saying one thing, both agreed, and now that the two issues you both specifically cited as making the entry are being met, you are now changing the argument to what now??? Whippletheduck (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not changed my position at all. The blogs cited (The Insider etc) are not reliable sources, and cannot be used in either the article, or in arguments about notability or undue weight. The MSN and ABC reports are reliable enough for use in a BLP, however they are barely passing mentions stating what Fox said. As such, when we look at the total reliable coverage of Fox's comments we have 2 extremely minor reports out of the hundreds of reputable mainstream media outlets. To use those reports would violate WP:UNDUE. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying what she said. However, for it to be notable (and not undue), it needs to received significant coverage in reliable secdonary sources. When famous people say dumb things, it's not necessarily notable. The Dixie Chicks comments about President Bush are a good example of notability, it received a ton of coverage and is still very much notable. As I said above, Googling news on Megan Fox doesn't return any major mentions of this. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the Dixie Chicks. "I'm embarrased that the president is from Texas" got a million times more attention then what Megan said (which was a million times more offensive) yet Natalie Maines got flat out crucified/burned in effigy/everything else that they did to her, which was a real shame. While I can see how people might have taken offense to the timing, at least Natalie Maines had the class to A) attempt to explain her statement, B) Issue an apology, and when that didn't work she more or less ran with it. Megan has never apologized or even been called out on what she said. Good point, Dayewalker!!! Whippletheduck (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think you understand what point I made. We're not here to say what's offensive, or to demand an apology or else we put it in the article. We're solely dealing with notability here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no no no no....go up to the beginning of this article. Notablity was NOT the cited problem. Both Kevin and Cleghorn both claimed it was the Sources and No Undue Weight of an entire paragraph about one incident in her article. Notability was not cited until later when they began losing both arguments, and now they want it about that plus Consensus. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This biography page sounds like unwarranted self promotion by the same person. Please delete this biography page about Fabian.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmj005 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Martin Suchanek. Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with this article's notability. It seems to be giving undue weight to an event in the lives of Barack Obama and Henry Louis Gates, and its notability appears temporary (i.e. it's not notable). Before putting up an AfD with a view to a merge to wikinews, I would like get opinions from BLPers on the nature of such articles. I raised this on the talkpage and it turned into a bit of a pointless spat. However, I genuinely don't see merit in the arguments put forward for keeping it as a separate article. I feel I must be missing something.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability just means that other reliable published sources have taken notice by writing about it. In terms of notability for Wikipedia purposes, this subject is way beyond any reasonable interpretation of that policy. You seem to be describing your subjective feelings about the subject(s), rather than objectively looking at the body of published work. There is no such thing as temporary notability. Published sources do not go away. Dhaluza (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This has made headlines around the world.. its certainly notable. Had Obama not got involved then i would agree it just belongs on Gates own article, but President Obamas comment and the following "Beer summit" at the White house totally makes it worthy of an entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely and totally notable. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point - is it notable enough to have its own article (rather than be part of the respective BLPs of Obama and Gates), and one of such length?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a major incident, it would be more of a problem to try and present balanced information on several peoples articles. Much better to have a single article covering the whole event. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, it was an incident that received significant national (and international) media coverage. It deserves it's own article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, and worthy of an article. (I support the comments by Dhaluza above on notability.) Pechmerle (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Notable and deserving of its own article. If we tried to capture the relevant detail in a main BLP article, there would be complaints about Weight.Mattnad (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I started this section to find out people's opinions of articles like this. I only think that Britishwatcher and Mattnad actually take the question seriously and give an answer; Britishwatcher's is persuasive. However, simply having national and international sources over a short period of time cannot be enough for notability in an encyclopedia. If this were enough, we could have justifiably have articles on Barack Obama's choice of pet dog for his daughters, David Beckham's confrontation with fans on his return to LA Galaxy and Vladimir Putin's public displays of his pectoral muscles. All of these have probably had more sustained and/or widespread international coverage than this incident will do. I worry that media coverage is taken as evidence of notability per se. It means that notability depends on erratic media interests, with the possibility that with prurience historically a thing of media fashion, we would be in the strange position of some decades having far more "notable" events than others. If you look at the talk page, a couple of users seriously put this event on the same level as the Hutton Inquiry. That to me suggests a surrendering of one's grip on reality to the mass media.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the broader arguement and I think the only real answer is these issues are handled by the consensus of the community. We have guidelines but in the end we as a group decide how they apply to individual articles. If you took this article to AFD, or tried to propose a merge, the community would weigh the matter, and I suspect come down heavily on the side of retaining this article. As to something like Vladimir Putin's public displays of his pectoral muscles, I suspect the community would not be supportive of an article. Why the difference? Because the subjects are different. Can I point to a line in a guideline why? Not off the type of my head. But that's how the community does and should work. Using human judgement to decide exactly how to apply policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The kind of debate happens all the time on wikipedia, but usually on the article talk pages. As cube lurker mentioned, this theoretically could be merged into the Obama (somewhat) and Gates (more so) articles, but you'll need to see if there's alignment among editors. Mattnad (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up on the article talk page, under the helpful heading "Err...", but, as Mr. Krolikov acknowledged at the end, it received no support there, so he decided to bring the question here.--agr (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. Perhaps a beginner's error, but this effort could be construed as forum shopping.Mattnad (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping at all. I did not hide from the talk page that I raised it here, nor here that I had clearly been in a minority of one there, and my reasons for not moving to an AfD before asking here is because I felt I myself was probably missing something. There's no point proposing an AfD if the proposer is unfamiliar with the community's approach to this kind of article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question you asked was if the article should exist, because you questioned its notability. Clearly a story that gets national media attention in a contry as large as the U.S., evolves through multiple news cycles, generates a spectrum of reaction, and fosters political debate on several fronts, is well over the top in terms of WP:Notability (even before Obama weighed in). I think you are conflating notability with suitability for an article. Not everything that is notable is suitable, and WP:NOT addresses that, but WP:Wikipedia is not censored either. The examples you give are false equivilancies, because they did not have the same level or type of coverage--those subjects would generally fall under the tabliod news category of WP:NOT#Tabloid. Substaintial media coverage is evidence of notibility, per se, but not in and of itself sufficuent to support a suitable article; it's just one gating issue, and not the one you should be focusing on in this case, since it's a non-issue here.

As to whether the article should exist, since it is notable it should exist at least as a redirect because the subject is widely known, therefore AfD is inappropriate. If it were redirected, the content would need to be moved, because it is verifiable (there are over 50 references cited) and the community would not support its vanishing because that would be censorship. So the question is how would such a merge work? You have three main actors, Gates, Crowey and then Obama. Splitting the content between their biographies would take it out of context. In fact James Crowley (police officer) is a redirect to this article because of WP:BLP1E. And as has been pointed out, moving the content to these biographical articles would create a problem with undue WP:Weight as well. You make the argument about weight in your original post here, but keeping this content as a separate article is actually avoiding giving it undue weight in the context of the individuals. Henry Louis Gates will probably be most remembered for this event, but his biography should cover his entire life's works without dwelling on this.

Your points on the inconsistencies of media attention are well taken, but I just don't see how your overall argument rises above the emotional level as discussed in the essay WP:I just don't like it. Dhaluza (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dhaluza, I see your point about management of material entirely, and it's very well put. I no longer question the existence of the article, as I stated above in saying that a similar point made above was persuasive. In my defence, this was not the kind of argument put forward on the talk page. Part of the reason for wanting to talk about it here was the arguments put forward there.

I don't understand the principle you invoke in saying the other articles I suggested are disqualified because they are tabloidy, and I disagree about the level of coverage. Perhaps not in America, but in the rest of the world they probably receive as much attention - and no matter the size of the US, the rest of the world is bigger. Secondly, how do we decide what is tabloidy, without falling into the trap you (of course I think unfairly) accuse me of, which is the balance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Putin's display of his pecs probably has a bigger impact on Russian internal and international politics than is seemly, but the impact is there; Beckham is extremely notable and the event covered thoroughly, and arguably has a greater importance to the project of popularising and legitimising MLS (and, ultimately to the England football team) than this arrest has in terms of race relations in the US. The dog fuss has probably had a great impact on the sale of Portuguese water dogs. Isn't your dismissal of these topics as tabloid even more WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

In essence, my point is this - there seems to be a danger that wikipedia BLP notability is overinfluenced by the idiosyncracies of the mainstream media in the US. We could have been having this same argument fifteen years ago over OJ's gloves or Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress. After all, the national and international media attention was huge. What principles apart from community sentiment do we invoke? (another editor above says that there are no principles.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of Vladimir Putin's pecs that I saw was mostly tabloid material, and the discussion of it in news sources was gossipy, IMHO. So the subject is notable, but unless you could find sources that discussed it in a way that could be put in an encyclopedic context, it would not be a suitable subject for an article (if you saw reliable sources that seriously discussed its significant impact on foreign relations, then maybe it is a suitable subject after all). This is completly different from the Gates arrest, which was covered as hard news, and discussed in terms of racial profiling and proper police procedure, which are both issues of great import. Hence the false equivilance. I'm not judging relative importance in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world, because that is a fool's errand. WP:BIAS is not really an issue here, because this is a an event that happened in the U.S. Actually including more worldwide perspective would be appropriate, but your original suggestion was that the article should not exist at all.

BTW, I agree that the coverage in WP is strongly influenced by the MSM in the US. But that is a direct result of the WP:V policy. It sounds like your suggested alternative is to have WP editors exert a stronger influence than WP:RS, but I don't think that would have better results. Dhaluza (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. That the Gates arrest has been used as an opportunity to discuss on a national level other matters might indeed be a version of a rule of notability. By the way, saying baldly that I argued that an article should not exist is misleading - I questioned (or rather queried) the fact that this material was given a separate article away from the already existing BLPs. I've never questioned the notability of this event in terms of inclusion in those BLPs.

As a note, Putin's photos got lapped up by the tabloids and yellow press, of course, but these PR events (for that is what they are) have also been written in serious sources about as a clear indication of Putin's intention to maintain power, to show Medvedev as weaker, and to promote a more self-confident, assertive image in the near abroad. As a political scientist by training, I would find his pecs more notable, and Gates' arrest less notable in terms of probable long-term impact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you said you were posting here before starting an AfD, so forgive me for concluding that you did not think the article should exist. And I still think you need to go to WP:N to see what notability means in WP terms, and use it in those terms in discussions with other editors. For example it is not to be used as a test for inclusion in other articles, like the BLPs as you suggest.

As a political scientist, you should probably appreciate the distinction that Putin's public display of his pecs, rather than the pecs per se, is notable. Whether one or the other has more long term impact is debatable. I'm sure police departments around the U.S. and probably abroad will be updating their procedures and training as a result of this incident. But again, debating the relative importance is a fools errand.

Where to include the material is subject to editorial judgement. Putin's pecs should probably be handled at his bio page(and any related pages) if it would remain in proper context there (BTW, only the tabloid coverage is even mentioned there currentlty, so if you have sources for the relative import of their public display, you should work on incorporating them). If there were significant sources for expanding that material to the point where it was overwhelming his biography, then it should be summarized and split into a separate article. The point is that it's not the subjective judgement of the editors on the subject itself that matters, its the editorial judgement of how to put the verifiable content into the proper encyclopedic context that governs whether an article should exist. Dhaluza (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, it is expedient to organise material in this way. This is a perfectly good argument for me. The supposedly frivolous articles I suggested (and it was specifically "the public display of Putin's pecs", btw) would all easily pass WP:N; there is clearly another principle at work, which is necessity - do we need to have it as a separate article. I don't know if there is a policy to that effect, although on reflection it does seem to be operating from what I've seen of the past few months of my wiki-involvement. A couple of apologies: for brevity I did not separate out the difference between notability and "due-ness" ) (i.e. should a topic have its own article, and should it be included in any article), although I am aware of the difference. I appreciate this was careless. Also my suggesting AfD was misleading; I should have said a move to merge to a couple of BLPs and wikinews. I've been caught up in a few AfDs, with merging almost always on the agenda.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

His biography is a lie. http://davidyeagley.blogspot.com/ documents this with newspaper articles and research done on him by real indians. It's self promoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.43.243 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs (and other self-published sources) are largely unacceptable references (see WP:SPS). However, if there is false/unsourced information in the David A. Yeagley article, feel free to remove it and explain in the edit summary. hmwitht 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

YOU HAVE MADE RECENT FALSE AND DEFAMATRY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME. ON AUG 13 2009 IN MY ARTICLE "STANLEY HILTON,' you falsely stated that [struck]. I DEMAND YOU REMOVE IT IN 24 HOURS OR I WILL SUE YOU FOR DEFAMATION

STANLEY HILTON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.148.100 (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A stack of unsourced material in Stanley Hilton including the material referenced above has been removed in response to the above. Rd232 ^talk 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV concerns and possible public shitstorm. Comment at Wikipedia:AN#Drama_regarding_Glenn_Beck.27s_WP_article.  Skomorokh  16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the subject underway already, compromises and additions are already forthcoming. Soxwon (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently at User:Jclemens/WI1E and User:Jclemens/WIALPI. I'm actively soliciting discussion, opposing viewpoints, and corroborating examples. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Michael J. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A recent allegation came out in the local paper about Scott (the Sheriff) being friends with a convicted felon. Thus far, there are no criminal allegations, just the appearence of impropriety and some allegations by fired or forced out employees that the man in question holds a lot of influence in the department. Really, at this point, there is nothing other than that appearence of inpropriety and even then, records show that once Scott became aware of the mans past, his contact with him dropped off considerably. Should this be included in its present form or even at all at this point?// Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

...is some random BLP. There's currently nothing problematic but it will probably get a fair amount of vandalism as news sites pick up on this non-event. --NE2 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Members of WP:TVS project are protecting edits that are contrary to WP:BIO, WP:COATRACK, and WP:NOTINHERITED. In particular User:Neutralhomer tends to support his edits as being "established practice", rather than by addressing Wiki policy and guidelines. He has occasionally been hostile and abusive to editors questioning his actions, reverting a number of types of legitimate edits as "vandalism", with no other explanation. The matter was put to the Mediation Cabal here [19], but User:Neutralhomer did not acknowledge the request.

I would like to please encourage comment, I don't believe this is a complicated situation as far as BLP goes. A casual look at the examples will demonstrate the issue.

This matter affects 100s of articles that are beginning to being misused for the promotion of careers of non-notable people after they leave the TV station which is the subject of the article. This matter has been unresolved for some time now, and I would like to feel free to remove those elements of the TV station articles that the community feels are inappropriate. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

These are the edits: [20], [21], [22], [23]. There were three types of changes: removal of inappropriate bio material of non-notables who had left the station, removal of scheduling (which is not the matter I'm bringing to this group), and removal of overlinking, following WP:CONTEXT (also not the issue at hand). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Harriet Harman contains a statement that Ms. Harman's opponents nicknamed her "Harriet Harperson" because of her views on feminism. That the source meant to support the claim does so is not in dispute. One editor, however, thinks there is a problem with using the source is problematic because the news source allows members of the public to add comments on the same page as the story, and one member of the public added one saying, in essence, that Harman is crazy and should be institutionalised. The editor has not been terribly articulate in explaining his problem with using the article other than to say, erroneously, that it is "slanderous" and that since he wants it removed, it should be removed. The question for you is this: should an otherwise appropriate source be considered unusable because the source allows public comment and some yahoo has left an insulting remark in that comment forum regarding the living subject of our article? A previous discussion on this topic was started at Wikipedia talk:RS#News articles that allow comments, but editors there suggested starting over here. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Any genuinely libellous material would be removed, or at least be the responsibility of the publisher. It wouldn't be an RS otherwise. The comments are clearly not part of the article. In this case the website merely repeats printed material available in physical archives.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider that as rude and derogatory comments about the subject of the biography are clearly visible in the comments section of this link that in this case it would be better not to use this link, we have other options so if the link is contentious then why keep it in the article? [Here] is the link and here is the specific comment I dislike to be linking to.

Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this story was carried in the print version, just switch the reference to refer to that - a url is *not* required for a reference. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes' that is a very good solution and I support it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution in this case, in general it should be clear that this sort of thing is not an actual BLP problem if the only source allows comments. Obvious examples of this sort would be how much of CNN.com now has comments sections. To say we could not link to articles their if there are problems in the comments sections is a bit ridiculous. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary solution. Of the approximately 10 people who have looked at the situation, only Off2riorob has a problem with it. Moreover, I see no note on the page that says it was carried in the print version, and I have no information to provide an adequate cite to the print version. Most importantly, I have a cite to an online source that only one editor has a problem with. There is no compelling reason to remove the link. If this is to be what we do at Wikipedia, how many links are we going to have to remove? There are thousand, probably millions of links to articles that have comments where in rude remarks are made about a living person. Bending to this is absurd. -Rrius (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution in this case is so simple that I fail to see your problem, we are not changing any policy here, we are looking at this single citation, that in this case only I am objecting to derogatory statements in the public comments, the simple solution has been suggested that the article is quoted and the link removed, none of the comment in the article will change at all, I start to wonder if you are more interested in inserting the link than the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this not the only link on Wikipedia to an article with a public comment insulting to the living subject of one of our articles, it is about more than just this link. If you want to find the print citation, fine, but the point of providing cites is so that other people can come along and verify for themselves that the sources says what we say it does.

As for what I am interested it, it is having the best Wikipedia possible. I have already bowed under to your unreasonable objections to the actual text despite the fact that there was no basis in Wikipedia policy for those objections. The text was verified by reliable sources, but you objected anyway. Now, one of the reliable sources I found to replace one of the first reliable sources has fallen afoul of your standards, though everyone else admits that there is nothing wrong with the link. The suggest that the link be eliminated is simply a compromise to make you walk away satisfied. For myself, I am sick of merely getting rid of you by giving up. You have yet to provide any reason whatsoever why a link such as this should not be included on Wikipedia. Since there is no basis in policy, even a misinterpretation of policy for your objection, there is no reason to give ground.

I am uncomfortable with replacing an online reference with an identical print one because it limits the class of people who can verify the accuracy of the Wikipedia claim. Few people in Britain, and almost no else in the world, have the means to go to the print source and verify what we claim it says. All the same, if you can provide the print information (date it was published in print and the page and section it was printed in), I will give this last bit of ground to be rid of you. I will not agree to less. There is no good reason to eliminate the online link, thus doing so without replacing it with a precise direction on where to find the article is unacceptable. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a bit carried away, this is the tiny comment that is being confirmed through this disputed citation...

Due to Harman's views on gender equality, her detractors have given her the nickname, 'Harriet Harperson'.

At present there are two links covering this tiny comment, there is already a citation from the daily mail that covers the comment, this disputed citation could easily just be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the little jabs and insults. I am not getting carried away. There is nothing wrong with the source or the link, and you have provided no reason to prohibit the link. Your whole argument is that one public comment is insulting toward Harman. Everyone who has taken a position on that other than you has said that fact is irrelevant, including the people who recommended not using the link and referring to the print source. All of Wikipedia is a collection of "tiny" statements. Those statement are required to be verified by reliable sources. You have not shown once how linking to the source at issue in any way fails to meet the requirement for a reliable source. Your initial claim was that the comment in at the linked page was "slanderous". You apparently now understand that it is not libelous, but merely insulting. That is not enough to preclude linking to the source. Even so, despite the fact that there is no reason to do so, I am willing to agree to use the print version if you will provide the information that the few people in the world with access to the print version would be able to use to find the source. That is more than reasonable. So don't bother telling me again that I am "getting carried away" or trying to besmirch Harman or just edit warring or more worried about inserting the cite than the text or whatever absurd characterisation of my motives you come up with next. Doing so is a form of personal attack, and I am sick of it. You have been doing that since very early in our discussions, and there is no excuse for it. Your continued failure to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks is dishonorable. Just because some insult comes into your head does not mean you need to express it. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is not can we do without the cite, but, rather, why must we do without the cite? The more verifiability we have for a fact the better; so, why discard a perfectly legitimate reference that conforms to all of Wikipedia's policies on citations and verifiability? It would seem that if you, Off2, feel public comments left on a media outlet's website are now to be counted as part of the published source itself, your task should not be to have this one source ejected. Instead, you should actually be pushing to have WP:BLP#Sources altered to include a new stipulation requiring that WP editors sift through all public comments on any web story to check that no remarks left violate Wikipedia's definition of "derogatory"; which may also have to be set out in black and white. As there can often be hundreds of public comments on one web published article, perhaps a large team of WP editors will be needed to study and vet the comments sections attached to thousands of potential sources out there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Rrius, I agree with you, It is not slanderous, it is merely insulting! However, we are not in the insulting business are we? Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And now we come back to this. By allowing the comment to stand, the Evening Standard is not endorsing the comment. Put another way, by allowing the comment to be there, the Evening Standard is not insulting Harman. In exactly the same way, by linking to the Evening Standard article, Wikipedia is not insulting Harman. Your concern that linking to the article will somehow put us in the "insulting business" is unfounded. As such, there is no reason not to link to the article. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The insult is there, I am simply asking that in this case we have other options, so...lets use them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we'd only be using the alternative to suit your own personal dislike for a particular comment that, by your own admission, has nothing to do with the source itself. It could certainly be done, but it would validate the use of personal taste as a reason to discard an otherwise legitimate, usable source, thereby setting a horrible precedent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not personal taste at all, I was directed to the link after Rrius inserted it and I immediately saw the insulting comment from a member of the public and I am requesting that we don't link to it unless we really have to, thats all, not setting any horrible presedents at all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason not to use the source. That you ask is not a sufficient reason. You have asked, and been told that your request and reason for doing so are not enough to block the source, and by more than just me. I insist on the source because there are very few sources setting out where she got the nickname and why. One of those was previously objected to, by you and another editor, for no better reason than it is the Daily Mail. You also proved through your long objections that even saying that the nickname was meant to be insulting is controversial. At that point, you did not accept the Mail as a source for that claim, so why should anyone be satisfied that all future editors will? Equally important, when a claim in Wikipedia is controversial, it is quite normal to support it with more than one source, and removing the Standard would leave us with just one. There is a good reason to include it, and no reason not to, so it should stay. Despite the fact that there is no good reason to remove the link, I have agreed that I would not object to removing the link if you could provide a sufficient cite to the print version. Since you have not responded to that offer though I have made it at least twice, I have to assume you reject it. As such, the only reasonable alternative is to leave the link in place. -Rrius (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, thanks, I am not rejecting this offer, it was not my idea and it is unnecessary, the link is not needed at all, just take it out, or as has been suggested, link just to the paper, with the date. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rrius is asking that you provide all the reference information for the paper version of the article in compensation for rejecting the internet link. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. There's no reason in BLP to take out the link. It might be better if we had another identical link without the comments section but taking out the link simply because there is a comments section is not justified by anything in the letter or spirit of WP:BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I am uncertain of the "it" you are saying is unnecessary. It is necessary to have a cite to the source you are using to support the claim made. See WP:Cite. For an online source, that is a url directing the user to the source. For a print periodical, that is a cite to the work, issue, and page at the very least. I am saying that if you are rejecting the online source, you have to provide information for the other. I am very uncomforatble with doing that in the first place because we should make it easy for readers of the encyclopedia to verify our claims. It is far easier to do so online than in person. I have absolutely no access to print copies of the Evening Standard, and that holds for the overwhelming majority of non-Londoners. Even Londoners presumably have limited access. Even so, I have said I won't oppose a cite to the print version, but it must be a full cite. I should also note that the fact that I would agree to accept a print citation despite the availability of an online one does not mean other will go along with it. It is a simple fact that everyone who has commented on the issue has said the insult in the comments does not make the source unusable, and anyone would be justified to objecting to indulging you even to that extent. -Rrius (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have simply requested that this citation that includes a derogatory comment about the subject of the biography please be removed and as it is easy to do I fail to see your issues, the comment is small and easily cited elsewhere, and in fact is actually cited with the daily mail link. All of these comments are to resist my simple request. You are insisting on keeping the citation and yet it is actually not needed, oh well, I fail to see why you insist on keeping it. I have requested its removal and you want to keep it, so you are responsible for it not me. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So you keep saying. I have responded to this contention, and so has another editor. I have already given you good reasons for using both links, while you have provided none for leaving the one out. Your request means nothing if it is not based on anything substantial. Your entire reason for leaving the link out is some vague problem with an insulting comment on the linked page. You have not explained why that should matter, or why the same objection would not apply to every single article linked to by Wikipedia that contains an insult directed toward a living person. I am perfectly willing to be "responsible" for the link, whatever that mean. As for your failure to understand why I insist on including the link, I would direct you to the dozen or so times I have explained my position to you without your responding with something more substantive than "it's slanderous" (which you now admit you were wrong about), "it's insulting", or "because I asked". None of those is a good reason to accede to your request, and the policies and goals of the project militate in favour of including the link, so you should not be shocked at the lack of desire to indulge your whim. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

I came across another issue when reading the article which I've tried my best to resolve but hopefully someone can do better. See Talk:Harriet Harman#Fathers' rights protest Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP has repeatedly inserted blatant factual errors to make the subject of the article look bad. Page protection or an IP block is requested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. They aren't blatant factual errors just because you disagree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. You repeatedly inserted that the errors that a WSJ editorial column 1) was a news article or in the news section and 2) accused the subject of the article of something that the article did not actually say. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1)It WAS an article from the news division, as opposed to the editorial division, though I was incorrect (NOT purposefully) that it was in the news pages. 2)to what are you referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) It was an editorial on the editorial page, period. To make anything else of it is OR designed to push your POV, as you have been doing. 2) You repeatedly in inserted the false statement saying the article said Totenberg did not disclose the reason for her firing. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You tried to insinuate that Hunt was complicit in what the editorial division said. Not true. 2) If you are referring to the statement that she had left an impression about firing, may I remind you that I was restoring YOUR edit, and previously, an edit made by someone else a while back. The interpretation from the Kurtz article that she left that impression is more than defensible; the interpretation from the Hunt article that she did so is clear. Why do you have to resort to bullying tactics of trying to shut up people because they disagree with you or challenge your ability to have the last word?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Untrue. I added a citation from a reliable source that stated that some journalists made the connection. 2) That disagreement has nothing to do with the separate factual error you repeatedly inserted, as I clearly noted above. Don't try to play the victim here. This isn't about a disagreement, I brought it to this noticeboard because of you are playing fast and loose with the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2) The wording that I restored, added by someone else a while back and deleted by you, said that HUNT charged that she had not disclosed the reason she left the National Observer.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And Hunt did NOT charge that, which makes it a factual error that YOU inserted into the article. I can't find anything in the edit history to show anyone but you inserting that factual error. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt DID charge that. Sorry, but if you look at versions back at least through May 2006, you'll see the words in the article.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Now don't insert factual errors into this discussion like saying that it didn't appear before I added it back.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt DID NOT charge that. The old versions of the Wikipedia article do say that, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it make you not responsible for inserting factual errors when you have been notified that they are incorrect. Have you even read the article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Words I added back: "Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal brought up ..., -->and, relatedly, of not disclosing the true reason she left the National Observer.<--"

Hunt article:

In a recent Washington Post profile she talked about how she herself was a victim of sexual harassment when she worked at the now-defunct National Observer (which was published by Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of this newspaper). In the article, she left the impression that the harassment was behind her firing over charges of plagiarism.

Here are the facts.

In December 1972, the Washington Post's Myra MacPherson wrote a piece about Thomas P. O'Neill, who was about to be elected House majority leader. A week later, Ms. Totenberg wrote a profile of Rep. O'Neill for the Observer.

...

Ms. MacPherson, no longer with the Post, is "bothered" that last week's profile of Ms. Totenberg left the "implication that she left because of sexual harassment when there is strong evidence this was a serious case of plagiarism or a rewrite job."

Ms. Totenberg, in an interview, insists: "What I did or didn't do almost 20 years ago isn't the issue. I believe I left the Observer because I was being sexually harassed." But Lionel Linder, who was a top editor at the Observer in 1973 and is now the editor of the Commercial Appeal of Memphis, says flatly that Ms. Totenberg was fired because "whatever extenuating circumstances, it was clear that she plagiarized."

As Hunt clearly points out, Totenberg did NOT disclose the true reason that she left the Observer--plagiarism. Rather, Totenberg says she believes she left the Observer "because I was being sexually harassed."--71.80.34.146 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt does not point that out at all. Read what you quoted. Hunt says "impression". He never says she did not disclose it, and it is clearly disclosed in the Kurtz article Hunt is complaining about. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, not to sidetrack the discussion, but why haven't you done a page protection or IP block? Are administrators not allowed to do that if they've been involved in debates on the associated talk pages?Chhe (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to use my administrative powers to avoid any potential conflict of interest issues. Ideally a third party would intervene and at the very least help revert the IPs edits. They do violate policy but I'm not sure they are so grossly offensive as to merit immediate action where I could justify breaking the 3RR, locking the page, etc. I'd prefer not to break policy to fight a policy breaker. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone with the username user:djanogly has changed the content of this page, specifically removing referenced material that appeared in the national press. I have reinstated the page to be as it was immediately prior to djanogly's edits—GrahamSmith (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While any inappropriate edits should be reverted, I would remind all editors that WP:COI explicitly does not forbid editors with a COI from editing, it is only strongly discouraged. In particular, this means edits by an editor even one with an obvious COI should not be reverted unless it is appropriate for other policy reasons, which of course includes removing material referenced by reliable secondary sources and making major undiscussed changes that are disputed; and of course these reasons should be the ones cited when reverting. Also when dealing with users with a COI, it is wise to inform them of policy preferably with their talk page (which I've now done) and also in the edit summary rather then continually reverting their edits without explanation since it is likely these editors will be unfamiliar with policy and may not be able to learn otherwise. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a little input on how to handle quite radical changes to a BLP article. Rogue.papa (talk · contribs) is re-writing LaSara FireFox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and, so far, essentially erasing Ms. FireFox's past books and accomplishments before 2006 when she had a "religious conversion experience". Now, the article was not great before this. The current version seems 1) more commercially focused, and 2) rather POV. So far no responses from User:Rogue.papa about concerns about these edits from two editors.

I'm bringing this here because it possibly has the aspect of possibly causing distress to the subject of the BLP article. It seems obvious to me that the article can't just ignore her past work, writings, interviews, etc, but sourcing on her "new" life work seems thin. I don't really have any investment in the article but I have edited it in the past so I feel a bit constrained about intervening too strongly as an admin. Would people be willing to take a look at the article and provide some feedback? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Rogue.papa has no interest in communicating about his revisions, although it's possible he is just too much of a newby to know about the talk pages. The revisions are almost devoid of citations, and ignore every aspect of the subject's past except a passing reference to her book Sexy Witch. Well-cited material has been deleted, all past positions, published works and media appearances, in fact everything the subject was known for before 2006 has been removed... and re-removed when restored with explanations and requests for justification for the action. Except for the book's publisher, the only citation is to her new website, which seems to be predominantly a commercial site for her present endeavors as a life coach, designer of something called "Gratitude Games", and an NLP practitioner & trainer.

In my opinion, without the deleted material (which has been restored by other editors) the subject is not notable enough for an article. With it, the article has survived a nomination for deletion, and has been expanded and better cited since then. I'm sure there are other articles whose subject would like to cherry-pick what information is in their article, but data is chosen by accuracy and support, not the subject's preference at a particular time of life. Furthermore, Rogue Papa's version does seem to be little more than an advertisement for the subject's commercial endeavors. Now commercial endeavors can still be notable, like AT&T, IBM, and Time Warner, but I agree with Pigman that the article without the deleted material is thin, and the citations/references nearly non-existent. I also share his concern about the wishes of the subject. Perhaps something can be added about her "conversion", and some of the rest can be changed to past tense. However, there is a limit to which an article can be expected to be re-written to please her, or whoever Rogue Papa is. An encyclopedia article is comprehensive, not just a "what I'm into nowadays" blog.

By the way, for what it's worth, I created the original article. Rosencomet (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article and added some material. If someone wants to add something about her "conversion" (and DOCUMENT it), it will be easier to separate the activities chronologically. Rosencomet (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rogue.papa (talk · contribs) did contact me on my talk page and I suspect this is mostly a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia and appropriate editing. Since he clearly states on my talk page that "I am doing so on her request, as she wishes to not be related to The Church of All Worlds or her Pagan past in any biographical way," at the least there are [[WP:COI|conflict of interest] issues. If he will communicate with other editors on the article talk page about his concerns, I'm sure the dispute will resolve. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article, and we don't let subjects sanitise their articles in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone may wish to look into both User:Levinstein/Roy Gordon Lawrence and User talk:Levinstein. This has the distinct scent of a crusade on a very touchy subject. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a long, disjointed, slightly snarky, and tedious discusssion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard about the presumed sexuality of David Ogden Stiers. The thread is here. (This could have been posted here in the first place, but I was asked to provide a concrete example of a situation that I felt would be easier to discuss hypothetically.) In short, a low-traffic, little-known blog claims that Stiers told them in an interview that he was gay. The article on David Ogden Stiers contains the following passage: "In May 2009, it was reported by mainstream news sources that Stiers came out as gay, based on an interview published by the LGBT blog Gossip Boy" in the section "Personal life". Stiers has also been added to Category: Gay actors and Category:LGBT people from the United States on the same basis. There is a fair amount of talk page discussion about this (see here) but it seems to have devolved into actually contacting Stiers' publicist instead of examining the sourcing. Stiers has not said he was gay either previously or since. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The blog interview was reported by ABC News in May, and whilst it refers to the blog it describes the coming out and associated details as fact not as "blog claims something but we're hedging our bets", and the story is still on their website. [24]. That seems good enough sourcing to me, in the absence of any contradictory WP:RS. Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If ABC had left out their source there would be no argument at all. That they included it shows that for this story, ABC finds the blog reliable enough to stake their reputation on. Kevin (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today, user:Mattnad removed a passage from the article on Henry Louis Gates' arrest which stated that the Cambridge Police Department and Professor Gates, in a joint press release,

"called the incident "regrettable and unfortunate" and said it "should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department."

• Edit summary: Trim - quote box above has all the detail of the release

Mattnad's reasoning is that it degrades the article to have that wording twice in the article – once in the body text and once in a quote box (see current article status). I am not aware of any style guideline that says text in a quote box must not be repeated in the article proper. We have FAs that include such duplication (example: Abu Nidal).

So I would ask editors to comment on the following question:

• Given that we show a mugshot of Gates, is it overkill, from a BLP point of view, to mention in the body text that Gates and the Cambridge Police Department issued a press release saying the arrest should not be taken to reflect unfavorably on Gates' character and reputation, nor on that of Cambridge Police? Should this be deleted again from the article body? JN466 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This editor neglected to mention he also added the same quote in the lede as well. I removed that third quote given his current effort to duplicate the message. At issue is weight and necessity. Why must we repeat this quote three times (if Jayen466 had his way). Prior to his edits, we had the press release specially quoted. The quote is already treated with emphasis and prominence unrivaled by any other quote in the article. The current quote box is also placed immediately below the photographs that Jayen466 fought to remove earlier to ensure that readers see and understand the press release. Given the quote box is a complete, obvious, given special emphasis, are reasonable WP:BLP concerns met? Mattnad (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattnad, would you please produce a diff where I added the same quote to the lede? I don't recall doing so. Thanks. JN466 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As requested [25]. Mattnad (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is not the same text? I added the "unfortunate and regrettable" part to the lede, and restored the "should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation" part to the article body. What text is in the article three times? JN466 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you got me? Yes, you are not putting the exact same quote in several times. You are repeating the press release with variations of paraphrase and direct quotes and seeking to insert it multiple times in the article. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough. But it's still repeating the same information for reasons that do not serve the interests of the article or WP:BLP.Mattnad (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Being in the news again of late and a subject of some interest, I had hoped that discussion on the Karl Rove talk page would iron out some editing differences and allow for a consensus, but I'm sorry to report that Malke 2010 has used the word 'libel' with reference to material written in the article, which ups the ante much higher than I care to take this matter. I request admin advice and action, if need be.

It appears to me that this is at least an example of indirect legal threats if not WP:LEGAL (made in the talk page at the bottom, section title 'Phony Citations #38 and #39 under heading, George W. Bush Administration'.) At the very least, this appears to me to designed to cause a 'chilling effect', which is also combined with uncivil discussion.

Reading the last few chapters of talk at the bottom of the talk page will quickly show the problem. This is not about 'left' or 'right' in my view, but what is best for Wikipedia. Thanks for your time on this. Jusdafax (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been attempting to edit the Karl Rove article for neutrality. As you will clearly see when you examine my contributions, I am working hard to remove the obvious bias, but every time I do this, another person comes along and reverts back to the old text. If you carefully examine the third paragraph in the lead, and again examine what is written under the heading, George W. Bush Administration, yo will see what I mean. The total lack of credible citations should be cause enough to remove these scurrilous claims. The editors doing this never bother to make the article better, just make it more hateful. It is a terrible biography and violates Wikipedia's rules on Biographies of Living Persons. You cannot claim someone has alleged crimes when no evidence was found to charge that person with a crime. And the section under George W. Bush where it is claimed that Rove increased the threat level during the 2004 campaign whenever Kerry's poll numbers rose, is simply made up. The editor, Chhe, claims it is an 'oft-cited' example of Rove's influence. Oft-cited where? If it is "oft-cited," then show us where it is cited and is that reference credible? But he can't do that. The people editing this page have a negative view of this man. If you carefully examine all the references, many of them are coming from left wing POV sources, such as the book by Wayne Slater and James Moore, "The Architect."

In addition, the entire overall content of the article is focused on painting this man in an entirely negative light. WP:UNDUE It gives undue weight to "scandals" where the special counsel found no cause to prosecute Rove. The third paragrah in the lead gives the distinct impression that Mr. Rove is a criminal who has escaped being charged with a crime to date. Mr. Rove is most famous for getting George Bush elected Gov of Texas twice and President twice, yet none of the methodology the man used, none of his passion for politics, none of his true background is presented in this article. This page is a distortion, as is the discussion on the talk page. Please lets keep in mind that children will be reading the biographies and they need objective facts and legitimate sources, not a diatribe from those prejudiced against this man.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of your edits. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For that matter either do I. However, Malke 2010 utterly fails to address the points I make in my initial observations, and instead attempts to muddy the waters here. To repeat, Malke's use of the word 'libel' on the discussion page appears to be an attempt to intimidate editors, and when combined with a hostile manner both in the discussion page and on my personal user page, seems to establish this brand-new, one-topic editor as someone who requires, in my view, admin action. Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe all of these comments speak for themselves. I did not violate any rules, especially as regards any claim of libel. I did not accuse anyone of libel. I characterized the entry that had no legitimate citation as being one that could be seen as libel. I did not direct this to any individual editor. All encyclopedia content must be verifiable. Inserting words like 'alleged crimes,' is not verified on the page. What crimes? What statutes were violated? Who is his accuser? What was the outcome? What are your sources? If they are second-hand, do they lead back to the original source? And is that source accurate in its facts and assertions? This is the biography of a living person and what is said about him is easily spread on the Internet, especially now that Wikipedia has become such a popular source. It is irresponsible to fill this biography with unverifiable citations or no citations at all. And it speaks volumes about the intentions of the editors who fill the page with negative after negative. This type of editing is clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia which is what draws so many talented, informed individuals who work hard to make honest contributions. Again, I would ask that the administrators take over this page and rewrite it to bring it up to standard and then lock the page for a while so that perspective can be regained. Thank you,Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. First off, here is your paragraph on the Karl Rove talk/discussion page that I vigorously object to. Just because someone 'thinks' it might be true doesn't make it true. You don't have any sources the prove anything. You don't have any source that goes directly to Rove. Anecdotal claims are not references. This is a biography of a living person and Wikipedia rules are very specific. Filling Rove's article with unfounded claims and rumors is libel. And please, no more phony references.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I say again, I take this as an indirect legal threat, and I ask for the admins to at the very least give you a warning not to use this type of tactic here, if not more.

Secondly, it appears you seem not to have read the link I posted in the Karl Rove discussion page. I'll post it here, again: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12firings.html?hp

Notice that the attorney firings are under current investigation. To quote from the article: A federal prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, is continuing to investigate the firings, including whether officials gave false or misleading statements to Congress. Does that indicate anything to you? And how about this editorial in The New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html This itself is notable!

This is not the place to debate changes to the Karl Rove article. That would be, of course, the discussion page. But since you joined Wikipedia as an ostensibly brand-new editor, you have proven disruptive and even arguably threatening, as you pursue the one subject in all Wikipedia you appear to be interested in. I think a warning or a topic ban on you is in order, but thats for an admin to decide.

To the admins: I await a decision on this with considerable interest. My thanks to all concerned admins for your attention and consideration. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The entry you mentioned was not directed at anything you wrote and certainly not at you. You seem to be the only one threatening editors here as you are threatening me with censorship and article bans and next I suppose it will be the boogeymanMalke 2010 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a note - Malke2010's claims of a "total lack of credible citations" have often been shown to be simply false, (s/he really needs to learn how to google), or have been based on attempts to discredit RS sources. It's true that the Rove article has been poorly sourced in several places (i.e. a lot of non-RS, which either needs replacing by RS or the information removed) and is not infrequently weaselly worded. Attempts to go through the article are being disrupted by what seems very partisan behaviour, with Malke's frequent removal of well attested facts (whole paragraphs usually) that all just happen to show Rove in a poor light.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely, and I thank you for your past and current work on the page. Jusdafax (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As per above, VsevolodKrolikov is well aware that I was attempting to rework the sections and I was not aware of the sandobx, which he provided info on. So I did not mean to just delete sections for 'partisan behaviour,' etc. And if you examine my contributions you will see I did not go and do that again, nor have my contributions been partisan. I only came to the page because I wanted to find out where Rove had gone to school. That's it, really. And the first impression of this article was that it is seriously flawed with a disturbing slant against this man. And as to finding out where he went to school, the article rambles on so, it took quite a bit of sifting to figure out he didn't finish. And it doesn't even include that he attended three colleges and that he is nearly finished, etc. I got that from another site.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, Malke, please refrain from your growing habit of interjecting your posts in the middle of others on this page. Intentionally or not, your last interruption makes it look like I'm agreeing and thanking you, which is the opposite of my intent, which is in praise of Vsevolod. You continue, even here on a page the admins read and judge, to prove disruptive and lacking in common courtesy, which does not help your cause.

It is my hope that we will have a ruling on this matter soon. Jusdafax (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To the Administrators: When I first posted my concerns about the overwhelming negativity and bias slant of this article, this is what VsevolodKrolikov answered back on the Karl Rove talk page: I'll be honest. As a real-life individual, I detest Karl Rove with a deep-running passion only to match that of my loathing towards Margaret Thatcher and the toadies who supported her. As a wikipedia editor however, it's clear to me that this article has serious bias problems against Rove. There are too many unsourced accusations and weaselly words against him. I would ask those interested in making this better to put all personal feelings aside and edit to make it a decent article. There are other places on the internet to let your own bile pile forth. On wikipedia we put forth a balanced representation of verifiable facts and notable opinions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can add to that other than to second it(talk) 16:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. The article has had serious problems. Moreover, one must edit without one's prejudices interfering, as my actions in this article have clearly shown. On the other hand, Malke's support is disingenuous. S/he has edited tendentiously: removing sourced material; deliberately misrepresenting sources, and the availability of sources; pleaded with editors to censor the page for the sake of children (I'm not kidding); and insisted that we include hagiographic information. Editors have taken her/his assertion that s/he is new to wikipedia at face value and have sought to coach Malke in how to behave. It has been to no avail, with request turning to warning with little effect. For someone like myself who likes helping new users, it's all been a bit sad.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Again agree with Vsevolod, whose arguments I find to be both candid and cogent. Without guidance and a decision from the admins this discussion is circular. Admins: Please render a decision asap; in the meantime I have suggested editing resume on the Karl Rove article to both improve it and bring it up to date. Jusdafax (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Now we have Malke 2010 (talk) admitting on the Karl Rove discussion page s/he has been a Wikipedian for years, whereas s/he has previously portrayed himself as a newbee here. This then brings up the question, what was his/her previous identity, and why did s/he change it? The question goes to the heart of my contention that Malke is disruptive and has a clear, obsessive and 'far right' interest in Mr. Rove's Wikipedia entry. While I could wish the admins would act a bit faster, in this case the delay has allowed this new info to come to light. Suggest looking at Malke's user page, and since Malke now admits to being a Wikipedian for years (as seemed likely from an ability to quote (and repeated attempts to bend to advantage) numerous wiki-policies, the obvious question is, is Malke not a sock puppet? Jusdafax (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that user Chhe is edit warring. I made several well referenced changes to make the article read better and to make it more accurate and remove the negative slant in the Valerie Plume section and re-added the Scott McClellan section which someone had put in a hidden status and Chhe has reverted all my edits. If it's possible, it might be better if an administrator took over the page, did a top down rewrite and then kept it locked for a few days. Thank youMalke 2010 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please step up to the plate admins. The delay in resolving the ongoing situation with this troublemaker Malke, who clearly has an agenda, is regrettable... intervention is urgently needed here: Malke needs a timeout, in my continued opinion. It appears to me he is trying to agitate this situation into an edit war so he gets what he wants.Jusdafax (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the page for Luanne Rice, it notes that she was born September 25, 1955, and that "her first short story was published in American Girl when she was fifteen." The issue is that if you click on the entry for American Girl, it links to a magazine that "was started in January 1993." Clearly there is a factual error. Luanne Rice was older than 15 in 1993. Unfortunately, I don't know what exactly is incorrect -- the name of the magazine, Luanne's age at the time, or the link to this specific magazine called American Girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawatters (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of American Girl (magazine) it clarifies there was a previous magazine, which I've wikilinked directly from Luanne Rice. [26]. Probably a better disambiguation is needed between the two magazines. Rd232 ^talk 12:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Allo.
So, this is somewhat of an old topic, but it still keeps coming back up again.
The issue concerns whether or not to include categories in her article that identify her as bisexual (or lesbian, or whatever).
The BLP page says that we can't "out" people who haven't already outed themselves, but there's a slight debate on whether or not she's done that.
Like I said, this has come up before, including here. It always ended the same: Don't use the category until/unless the facts change in a way that warrants using it.
You can read those discussions, but the basic facts are thus:

• She probably has a girlfriend (but that fact isn't really of any relevance when it comes to BLP policy, RS, etc.)
• She's said that she is not lesbian, but may be bisexual (her word was "maybe")
• Her only unambiguous statement on the matter has been, "I don't want to classify myself".

That's why the category has always been left out. Because there's enough material on the subject to discuss the issue in the article text, but far below the minimum for adding a category, which is a definitive identification.
I would've removed the category myself, but the article is semi-protected. As such, an editor has slapped the category back up (without bothering to discuss it on the talk page), and I can't revert, even though it's against both BLP and past consensus.
So, (assuming you agree with my BLP concerns) could someone please remove the LGBT Actor category from the article until consensus changes in the article's talk page? 209.90.135.121 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are in the business of drawing conclusions. Frankly, the topic is not really encyclopedic, so the only way we can cover it is to report what reliable sources have said. If what they've reported is that what she's said is "I don't want to classify myself", that's what we say, imho. I'm not a big believer in pigeon holing anyway...Dlabtot (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The cat seems to have been drive-by-added by an editor not otherwise involved in the article. I've removed it and added a hidden clarifying comment in the article above the categories. [27] Rd232 ^talk 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been contentious for quite some time, but varying degrees of protection and some steadfast wp:blp policing has kept it relatively stable for a while. Nevertheless, this morning the subject of the article apparently confirmed she plans to run for the United States Senate against Barbara Boxer, and that's likely to bring in a lot more traffic. Already, this morning, an editor new to the article went through and deleted pretty much any non-critical commentary (and added that he wanted to see more criticism of her added into the article). I've reverted his deletions and brought the issue up on the talk, but I won't have as much time today to watch the article for what may be an onslaught. If anybody out there has any free space in their watchlist and a particular eye to wp:blp, I hope you can take a look. Thanks! user:J aka justen (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerns confirmed re: this morning's editor. He's now saying that he removed all of the (in his words) "supportive" content from the article since there wasn't enough criticism. The wp:undue issues he's creating are pretty serious, and very worrisome from a wp:blp perspective. Unfortunately, he has already decided my concerns aren't that important since I have an "extensive" history of trying to help keep the article in line with wp:blp. Again, hope some objective eyes can take a look... user:J aka justen (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns with the David Stanley Jacubanis and I thought I'd bring them here even though he's only "possibly" living given his age. Since it's obviously a negative biography, given his life as a criminal, is it a problem that it's only sourced by one book (that didn't even list the page number(s) of his biography) and the only other source I could find is this news article that details his capture. Is this sufficient? Obviously there could be more sources offline, but the immediate concern is WP:BLP since, without the book or any extra sources other than the newspaper, it's difficult to verify all the negative facts. I prodded it but someone objected and, while I don't necessarily agree with their argument, I'd rather deal with it here then waste everyone's time in an AfD for 10 days if possible. Cheers, CP 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Liskula Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She has just won a court case to reveal the owner of the blog "Skanks in NYC" Not a huge article, but it needs to have an eye kept on it, and checked for WP:UNDUE. Martin451 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the quality of David Copperfield (illusionist). I made one blunt adjustment.[28] I request uninvolved editors to go over the article with an eye toward WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and general improvements. The article seems heavy on scandals, litigation and controversies. Thank you for any help you can provide. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been edited to include info from a recent news article, but also the accuser's name sourced to primary sources (court documents). I'm not sure yet how this handled, but I have removed it for now. Please help. Flowanda | Talk 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some help please with a BLP which is being reverted back to a version with unsourced text. Challenges: m:OTRS ticket:2009081810035792, [29], [30], [31]. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-19t21:32z

Anything contentious? It looks fine now to me, except not well referenced. I haven't seen the OTRS ticket though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have access to the OTRS ticket either and didn't see anything that bad with the article, it was lacking inline citations and despite the addition of some (not that great) sources, it's clear some of the details remain unsourced (although I couldn't find amy clear evidence of it being untrue) so I've reverted back to the stub. I've also provided a more detailed description of the problems I see in the talk page. Ultimately as Jeandré du Toit has said, particularly when we have a complaint we need to make sure everything is well sourced which sadly this article was not Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your biography of Amanda Redman states that she was once voted one of the sexiest women over 50 by Saga Magazine, beating people such as Samantha Fox. There was no such poll or survey and I should know - I'm the editor the magazine! It's been picked up and repeated a lot by the national press in the UK and I'd like it changed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.150.4 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The content has already been removed by another editor and this source confirms that your magazine has stated the claim is untrue which is useful since it's difficult when claims are made in reliable sources. Is my understanding correct that you believe the claim originated from wikipedia? It was added here [32] which appears to be before any other source mention I can find of the claim. Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I have been drastic enough with this. I removed a large blog extract which was (a) unencyclopedic and (b) copied from a website, and have tagged the remaining article "unreferenced" and asked the author to source it. As it stands it is controversial unsourced BLP, but as she was jointly accused with her husband Brian Jared Smart whose article is linked to and seems well sourced, I did not think immediate removal was necessary. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This woman is named in the complaint the was filed by the US Security and Exchange commision on March 13, 2009. The data that is posted now only reflects what is already posted and accepted on the Brian Jared Smart data page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4waldopepper (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A number of IPs keep adding a link that claims Ms Kassin is or was an escort and keep changing the bio to say as such. As no one IP has made two reverts I think blocks on the IPs are impractical. However I don't think there is enough vandalism to get a semi-lock at RFPP. Is it possible to get the page locked for a month or so, plus have the link blacklisted (I have no idea how to do that). This should give those watching the page a break from the silly vandals. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if she is working as an escort, the link would be a primary source, as well as advertising. We don't include booking agent links in articles on musicians, or speech-givers, or just about anybody else. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

However the link in question would be a good faith edit, not vandalism, and should not be construed as the latter. 96.251.26.37 (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Brent Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I very much like someone to give a third opinion about the extent of coverage give to a controversial court case that this Judge was involved in. The section doesn't appear to be balanced and only presents one side of the case. In also take up over 2/3 of the article and dominates all other coverage (780 words devoted to one court case vs. approximately 250 words for the rest of the article). Even the article on the case itself doesn't devote that many worlds. Another editor is taking exception to the {{undue weight}} tag I added to the section and is defending it stating that the article should focus on Benjamin's allege malfeasance and that he was bought and paid for by one of the parties in the case. --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've when ahead and revised the section to make it more balanced. It is now just 180 words and mentions all the parties, their involvement with each other, and the ruling of the SCotUS. --Farix (Talk) 13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nurse Nayirah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to point out an edit war with the "Nurse Nayirah" article. I have changed it to a more NPOV, but it was edited back, by a user Dynablaster. I would like to point out that the "Nurse Nayirah" article is not in complience with any of Wikipedia's standards, much less the "biographies of living persons". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nurse_Nayirah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be Jenrette made significant changes to this article earlier today. I reverted those changes (some were unsourced, others appeared intended to sanitize the article by euphemizing references to sexual activity). Similar changes were made some time ago by a different username claiming to be Jenrette, and my responsive changes more or less track the response to the earlier editing (I did also add some sources and did a bit of cleanup). However, today's edits also added unsourced claims of a recent marriage, which I think I've managed to RS-verify, but that process led me to note a widely circulating report that her new husband is selling a special perfume commemorating the wedding, which I also added to the article. Anyway, when I read over my final text, I'm wondering if that version comes across as snarkier than it ought to be (it's hard to keep a straight face when discussing a guy who declares himself the "prince" of an Italian city-state that Napoleon liquidated about 200 years ago). A few extra eyes might be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is active again. OTRS activity ( Ticket #2009082210003041 for the record ) confirms that this is apparently the article subject. She had apparently valid complaints about negatively phrased comments in several places and about a focus on the salacious aspects of her past versus subsequent career. I full protected the article for 6 hrs about 2 hrs ago to stop a back and forth over it - but more eyes and helpful discussion on the article talk page could be helpful. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)