Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive27

Resolved.

A user called Perspicacite has been repeatedly attempting to vandalize Prof. Cohen's page and portray him as an apologist/tool for and of notorious African regimes. This is patently false. Perspicacite has chosen to use a single, highly biased article as his source. As if this wasn't bad enough, Perspicacite has taken single words from a 2 or 3 sentence quotes and completely twisted their intention and meaning to suit his agenda. I have reverted his edits three times already, and he had the gall to warn me. To see just how biased Perspicacite is, please look at the comments on his page edits in the history section, where he justified an edit based on the fact that the previous version did not sufficiently capture that Cohen was a "evil SOB." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.251.100 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the user and removed that edit summary from the history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the above statement by 128.220, I have not vandalized the Cohen article. I have explained the difference between vandal edits and edits made in good faith repeatedly but 128 chooses to continue his incivility. Comments made in an edit summary have nothing to do with BLP. Jossi, do you not understand what the point of that policy is..? 'No unsourced criticism of a living individual' When I express my opinion of someone and it is negative I am not violating BLP. The most you could complain about is using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Perspicacite 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with vandalism, Perspicacite. Simply put, do not use edit summaries to cast expletives on the subjects of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit summary to gain an understanding what edit summaries are for. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you even reading my comments or are you just mocking me? 128 just accused me of vandalism not the other way around. I have never vandalized an article, not the other way around. Perspicacite 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Elizabeth Jane McDonald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I've nominated this for speedy deletion, but several WikiProjects have jumped onto it claiming as their own, despite no claims of notability and no reliable sources to prove that the person is notable. But on top of that, we should not have articles which claim that a person is transgendered without a reliable source in which they self-identify as such. Corvus cornix 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this shouldn't be nominated for speedy deletion, but regular deletion. It's primarily a question of notability, and should be handled there. I would support its deletion. googling "The House on Sackett Street" (without quotes) doesn't bring it up, and I couldn't find it on amazon, so the "published" claim is dubious, as is notability, but this isn't a BLP concern.

About the transsexual part, agreed; as per BLP, I removed it. Find a reputable source. There are more sources claiming Ann Coulter is a transsexual (note the hyperbole). 171.71.37.29 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I added the project templates in an attempt to flesh out the article. I'm not a member of either WP-Bio or WP-LGBT and if adding the templates was an incorrect move on my part, I apologize. However, in no way did I attempt to claim any ownership of this article. I concur with the removal of the MTF statement. I have no idea if there are 1, 100 or 100,000 MTF authors, but I was working under the premise that this person was in someway notable. I've looked for sources and there aren't any. It seems like this person is an author of quality fiction (electronic, not in book form) in a genre where there don't seem to be many. I too would support deletion. --EarthPerson 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Marking as resolved; there's no article to violate BLP.

Rick Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This article has been the subject of two recent attempts to insert material that is not meeting the WP:BLP guidelines. While the info has been removed in both instances, it appears these attempts have been made by a user who has only edited the one article to insert the concerning information (twice under user names and twice under IP addresses). This appears to be a deliberate attempt at vandalism.

Robbmartinez was blocked for 1 week by FCYTravis. FWIW, I think the IP should be watched as they're obviously the same person, even though the IP hasn't edited since the 7th.--Sethacus 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Phil Hartman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A gossip column is being used to source claims indicating that a living person is responsible for Hartman's death.[1] An editor revised the claim to leave out names, but still clearly makes the cocaine use claim, using the same unreliable reference that makes the problematic claims.[2] Am I correctly identifying this as a BLP issue? // Vassyana 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The material about Andy Dick was a clear WP:BLP violation, in my view, and it was absolutely appropriate that it be removed. I don't see any BLP issues (or mention of cocaine) in the current article, though - could you direct me to it? Sarcasticidealist 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was removed.[3] Vassyana 14:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That latter bit doesn't fall under WP:BLP, as far as I can tell, because there are no living people involved. It may be a WP:V issue, though. Sarcasticidealist 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Christene LeDoux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Singingchris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Otheus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This might be an odd request. Ms. LeDoux (singingchris) is a dear friend of mine for whom I created this BLP article (it was properly sourced). Recently we had a "falling out": She's asked me never to contact her again. Correspondingly, it would be unwise for me to have anything further to do with her article. So I have listed myself under COI. I am requesting the article be on someone's watchlist. --Otheus 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the type of article that would be in any great danger of vandalism, etc. Steve Dufour 05:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aleksey Vayner page should be deleted or seriously re-written using only quality sources such as New York Times, MsNBC interview, and his interview with the Yale Herald. Current Aleksey Vayner Wiki page fails NPOV, contains libelous material, has minimal verifiable information, and “references” are questionable – most are sourced from blogs, which is against Wikipedia policy for living biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.71.175 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no Aleskey Vayner bio page. There is a page about the Internet meme he inadvertently started. The guy was caught faking an entire life history, and the incident became a worldwide phenomenon. It is all sourced, and solid. The anonymous editor who brought this up has apparently not done anything else on Wikipedia. Vayner has made all kinds of ridiculous legal threats and posturing on the issue. The chance of Vayner bringing and sustaining a defamation suit is zero. Wikidemo 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Aleskey Vayner" redirects to Impossible is Nothing (video résumé). The article includes extensive information about Mr. Vayner and, of course, is subject to WP BLP policies even though it is not a biography. I haven't checked out all the sources however. (This article is kind of typical of WP, the Internet, our society (?) Someone does something, well, eccentric and it gets passed around, talked about, and made fun of. But is this the kind of thing that deserves an encyclopedia article?) Steve Dufour 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have my doubts, Steve, but it was featured in Forbes and The New Yorker... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense to remove the redirect from his name? The article is supposed to be about the Internet cultural phenomenon, not about the person behind it. Wikidemo 23:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. People are really looking for the phenomenon, so if they seek it under his name (not knowing what Wikipedia calls it) they will be properly redirected there. Dab pages, as they say, are cheap. --Orange Mike 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And thanks for your work on the article Wikidemo. Based on my experience here the article is here on WP to stay. BTW it did occur to me that the only reason for the "meme" took off was that people violated Mr. Vayner's copyright by passing his resume on. (Hence, in the world of Internet geeks doing something uncool is considered much worse than breaking the law.) Steve Dufour 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. No BLP issue here

Caroline Cox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) she has been called "true Armenian nationalist who would give her life for Armenia and Karabakh." by Frank Pallone. This is the source that is being used [4] My concern is that fund's website can't be considered reliable because they rely on her support and contributions. VartanM 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that website would be distorting the speech of an American Congressman just because the AF recieves funds from Cox. --Grandmaster 06:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple question. Do opinions of other people about the subject of the article belong in the article. In this case Baroness Carline Cox is being called "true Armenian nationalist who would give her life for Armenia and Karabakh" by Frank Pallone. VartanM 07:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the opinion is notable, it can be included in the article. The opinion of Pallone is neither libel nor criticism, in fact, both politicians share the same views on NK conflict. So I don't see why Pallone complimentng Cox cannot be quoted in the article. --Grandmaster 08:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? VartanM 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster is correct, see WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that it is not asserted as a fact, but attributed to the co-chairman of the US Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In this entry as there is a picture of an unknown person - probably from a drama programme with a caption about AT having a nervous breakdown in 1991 - no other supporting evidence or informtaion is given.

Also the section on infidelity reads like a bad and salacious novel rather than informed commentand fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CathyBluecat (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention - the libellous vandalism has been reverted, the article semiprotectd for a week and I've put the page on my watchlist. FCYTravis 12:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

For the past 6 months, someone editing from IP addresses 68-244-xxx-xxx has repeatedly added an unsupported negative claim about why Baltimore resigned the CalTech presidency. These edits have been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, but the person at 68-244-xxx-xxx always returns and adds the unsupported negative claim. The person at 68-244-xxx-xxx has also removed useful neutral information from the article and usually fails to provide a meaningful edit summary. This person seems to have a personal vendetta against Baltimore and does not seem to be able to make constructive NPOV edits to the article. --JWSchmidt 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Article sprotected. Will also warn the user. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Photo removed. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hank Eskin, the founder of the above website (who edits as Henryhank (talk · contribs)), is requesting that his photo be removed from the article. (There is no separate article on Hank Eskin himself.) Personally I think it's encyclopedic to have it there, but would welcome an outside opinion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For some history on a similar matter, including a note from Jimmy Wales, please see: [5] Henryhank 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the website; a picture of the guy is not encyclopedic content. (His wishes are mostly irrelevant, IMAO; but the picture adds nothing to our knowledge of "Where's George?") --Orange Mike 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't see how it's encyclopedic or relevant. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just deleted from the article Artimus Pyle (and pasted on the discussion page) a badly-sourced reference to a child sex offender. Given the seriousness of the accusation: a) I would imagine it needs to be sourced especially carefully, and b) I do not know what the Wikipedia policy is in such cases. --Technopat 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have spent some time sourcing the article, since it was previously unsourced. I am spending some time now looking into the allegations about Pyle's record. I found reference to it in a book review, a biography of the band, and in notes on the Howard Stern appearance in which Pyle allegedly discusses the case. I have recently found the primary source, but am looking for secondary sources still. --Moonriddengirl 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the standards they are held to, I'd say you've got a valid reliable source there. Good work!--Orange Mike 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got secondary sources and have included a section on the criminal conviction, but they aren't readily accessible online, which would obviously be much preferable in this case. The conviction was covered in a number of newspapers in 1993, including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Atlanta Journal and Buffalo News. All of these should be available at good reference libraries, but, unfortunately, can only be found online through pay per view. --Moonriddengirl 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikilaw which says newspaper articles must be available online. If you've got sound cites, use 'em. Online accessibility is just gravy. --Orange Mike 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (a historian by training)

Agreed. Just try to offer as much information as possible (edition, date, page, column name, etc) to allow others with access to quickly review the matter if necessary. As for pay-per-view, specific references can require login, as sooner or later someone with access with be able to access it. It is no different from an offline reference like a book or a newspaper. -- ReyBrujo 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know, which is why I included it. But I like gravy. :D --Moonriddengirl 16:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is concerning allegations inserted by the user Felix-Felix. To give some context, as reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described the British journalist Johann Hari (recently named as journalist of the year by Amnesty International) as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" , inserted into his entry fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced and legally disputed claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about. This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me.

Felix-Felix is currently arguing that he can insert a new section, designed by his own admission to suggest Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously impugned. He does not have BLP or NOTE standard sources for these claims, as three wiki administrators have now told him.

There are four 'sources' felix claims to have.

(1) Private Eye. This is a British scandal magazine, which Hari was attacked by literally a week after he criticised its editor in print. One wiki administrator has said on this page it should be viewed with "a very jaundiced eye", another has said it is "at best 50 percent accurate" and "well below the encyclopedic threshold", yet Felix is insisting on using it as a source. This fails both BLP and NOTE, since Private Eye attacks virtually all prominent journalists sooner or later, as Felix has been told repeatedly both by wiki administrators and other wikipedians who have intervened in the discussion.

(2) A website called Counterpunch, which meets BLP standards, but has an extraordinarily trivial charge against Hari. They complain that he repeated in an op-ed column a story that had been reported in hundreds of newspapers. Even they concede that once it became clear the story was fake, he published an immediate and unambiguous correction which included a link to their own article. This fails NOTE.

(3) A journalist called Nick Cohen, who was responding to a very critical review of his book by Hari. This is (rightly) included in the entry already, since it passes both BLP and NOTE.

(4) An obscure pro-war website, which is written by friends of Cohen, who simply repeated his charge. This fails NOTE.

I believe this is an inadequate basis on which to build a section suggesting Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned by wiki-standard sources. Felix-Felix disagrees.

Several wiki administrators have reversed his proposed changes and told him they are unacceptable; one today told him to "come off it", but still he persists. Any outside comment posted in the discussion page for the article would be very welcome to clarify this once and for all.

// David r from meth productions 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, dave beat me to this noticeboard, which user:Vassyana directed me to. There is a dispute on the Johann Hari page about the insertion of the following passage;

Hari has had quality of his journalism criticised in Private Eye ^[1][2] and in CounterPunch ^[3]. Similar allegations were made by the website Harry's Place,following the dispute between Hari and Nick Cohen, which they were forced to withdraw from the site following the threat of legal action from Hari and the Independent.^[4]

To deal with dave's passage above, in order;

• The personal attacks; dave keeps repeating a number of these personal attacks against me, which I won't deal with here (as it's a BLP board), but I dealt with here [6]

Every one of the quotes has been sourced on the discussion page.David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Admin opinion on the WP:BLP of my suggested entry seems fairly in favour;no-one except dave has suggested that it's defamatory, or false. FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is flatly untrue. Anybody looking through the discussion page can see that several wiki administrators have said exactly the opposite, saying he cannot use sources that fail below BLP standards. Indeed, one has actively reversed the passage, removing it altogether from the entry, on these grounds.David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference of opinion, unless I have it wrong, is that Private Eye (or the front sections, eg Hackwa tch/Street of Shame)may or may not be a reliable source. As these citations were used only to support the statement that allegations were made, I thought that they would be OK. Some admins agreed with this [7], others were not so sure [8]. FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One admin agreed with it, on the basis of misunderstanding another admin's statements about the reliability of Private Eye. Three others disagreed very strongly, as a quick look at the discussion shows. One wiki administrator has said it should be viewed with "a very jaundiced eye", another has said it is "at best 50 percent accurate" and "well below the encyclopedic threshold". Does Felix think this is saying it passes BLP criteria? When Felix inserted his paragraph into the entry, it was immediately reversed by wiki administrators on the grounds it fails BLP criteria.David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Private Eye is a British satire and investigative journalism magazine, which also prints industry gossip, notably from the media. Dave maintains that all prominent journalists get attacked by Private Eye, which is probably an exaggeration, but would make the inclusion of the Eye allegations unremarkable, except that they are both for the same thing, which is the same thing that the CounterPunch and Harry's Place allegations are for.FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry's Place were directly repeating Nick Cohen's criticism, which is already included. Counterpunch's criticisms was for something very different: they complained that hari repeated a story reported in dozens of respected newspapers, that later turned out to be false in a way Hari could not possibly have anticipated. As soon as Hari was informed of this, he ran a correction and linked to the Counterpunch expose. Three unreliable sources making (very vaguely similar) claims doesn't make them suddenly reliable; you cannot add up unreliable sources and get to reliability.

• The 'hundreds of newspapers' assertion that dave keeps making is a baseless one. The story was carried originally by UPI and the Washington Times, and was picked up later (4 days later)by Hari, who is criticised personally in the CounterPunch article by Carol Lipton, which you can read for yourself, here [9]. Again, it is dave's assertion that this is 'incredibly trivial'. (Hari's "immediate and unambiguous correction" can be read here [10], the only place it ever appeared, which it did on September 25th 2003[11], 5 months after Lipton's story (qv) and only after a lengthy email exchange [12].)FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick Lexis-Search finds that it was reported in: The Washington Times, the Washington Post, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Indian, the Mail on Sunday, Le Figaro, El Mundo... I could go on for a while here. Correct "hundreds of newspapers" to "dozens." It is bizarre Felix doesn't realise this: UPI is an agency which supplies thousands of newspapers, so the fact they put the story out is a guarantee it would get into many newspapers. On the other points: Hari did not have "a lengthy e-mail exchange"; he exchanged a few brief e-mails with a reader who e-mailed him randomly to inform him of the Counterpunch piece, which he obviously hadn't seen. Hari printed a correction as soon as he was made aware of the atory. (Amazingly, he doesn't read Counterpunch every day). 'Journalist repeats widely-reported story, corrects it when he's told it's wrong' is indeed an incredibly trivial charge. What could he have possibly done differently?David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Nick Cohen spat is indeed covered in the article; Cohen called Hari 'deceitful' for claiming that his book had said (fairly irrelevant) things that it did not. Hari retracted this claim in his reply.This is covered in a round about way in the article.FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is flatly untrue. Hari retracted nothing about that review, and I defy Felix to find a single sentence written by Hari in which he does. David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Harry's Place an award-winning [13] pro-war blog that repeated the details of the Cohen spat, including Cohen's accusation against Hari. Hari (backed by the Independents lawyers) threatened legal action, with the result that the entire post detailing the spat was taken down. This is notable, not just because it involves an award winning blog, but that Hari himself used to contribute regularly to it, and that the allegation made against Hari was the same type of allegation made by both the Private Eye articles and the CounterPunch article. FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I was careful in the above para not to violate WP:BLP, and I still find it hard to see how it does. FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Then let me explain. You have gathered together unreliable sources that fail basic BLP criteria according to several wiki administrators, and bunched them together to, by your own admission, create the impression that Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously impugned. You are trying to create an impression for which you do not have wiki-standard sources.David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTE doesn't apply to sections in articles, although I appreciate that the principles do-if the allegation was just one in the Private Eye, then i would be forced to concur that it probably constitutes trivia at the most. However, the allegations are all for the same thing, are from multiple notable sources and the events are at least partly current. The article's subject has made an ORTS complaint which is, (I assume) everyone is super twitchy about the article, but is the passage a WP:BLP vio?FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By Felix's own admission, he is trying to create the impression that Hari's journalistic credibility has been seriously questioned. Three wiki administrators have now told him his sources fail basic BLP and NOTE criteria, and he cannot do it. The sources he is offering do not meet BLP and NOTE. Putting together three sources that fail to meet BLP and NOTE doesn't make them stronger. An unreliable source is an unreliable source. Adding them together in aggregate, as thigns worthy of inclusion in a wiki entry, does not suddenly make them pass BLP criteria. People are not "super-twitchy"; they just don't want you to insert material that fails basic wikipedia rules.David r from meth productions 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I'm presuming that you're going to try and insert line by line rebuttals into this body of text. Please don't-it will quickly become impenetrable. I appreciate that on the talk page, I have been doing it too, but on this notice board, we're trying to get people who aren't familiar with the ins and outs of this to give an opinion and we should be as clear as possible, if we're going to ask them for their time.FelixFelix ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand that you do not want people to hear your claims rebutted, Felix. I think experienced wikipedians are more than capable of following this, and seeing what you're up to. Three wiki administrators have upbraided you for inserting non-BLP and non-NOTE standard sources into the entry. It is plain to see why you want to prevent the facts becoming clear. David r from meth productions 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Felix, your edit made my replies incomprehensible. It could not be seen which points I was responding to, so, for exmaple, when I said "that is flatly untrue," no reader could see what I was discussing. It is clear why you want to prevent people hearing ym factual rebuttals, but it's not acceptable in any way. It's no surpise that under my formatting, people commented; under yours, nobody did, because it was impossible to read. Do not change this again.86.157.118.58 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, point by point;

• The only admin to do this referred us here.

In fact, three admins have described the sources you are trying to insert as unacceptable, joined by a fourth here, as anyone who looks at the page discussion can see.David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• So, as I said, no one has sugested that it violates BLP criteria.

That is simply untrue. Look at what Vassyana said on the page, and her reasons for removing your passage from the item.David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• All the allegations relate to Hari's journalism, and more specifically the unreliable nature of it. To say more, would, I believe violate BLP.

The sources do not meet BLP or NOTE, yet you, by your own admission, are lumping them together and linkign to them to give the impression to readers of wikipedia that this impression has encyclopedic credibility. You even admit the content of the sources you are linking to breahces BLP and NOTE rules.David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hari retracted the (irrelevant)statement about Cohen's parents aspirations regarding Orwell, he later ascribed this to a drunken conversation between Cohen and himself.

That is flatly untrue. He did not "retract" the statement about Cohen's parents, he sourced it to a conversation with Cohen, where Cohen was drunk. (Hari is a tee-totaller so he was not drunk). That is the opposite of a retraction.David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Got a link for that? I'm aware what UPI is, and UPI running a story does not automatically mean that it is immediately covered by hundreds of other papers. More to the point,however is that Hari did not reprint the UPI story, he wrote his own piece about Joseph [14], which is why Lipton singles him out for criticism in the CounterPunch article, along with Reed Irvine, who also wrote a piece on Joseph based on the UPI article without meeting him, or checking his sources.

They are on Lexis-Nexis, which I can't link to, but you can look up the individual newspapers if you like. What on eartyh do you mean, "Hari did not reprint the UPI story"? He touched on it in article. He is not a newspaper himself, he is a newspaper writer. You complain he "wrote a piece on Joseph based on the UPI article without meeting him, or checking his sources." This shows you know nothing about how newspapers work. If something is sourced to UPI, a prestigious wire service, then a journalist +has+ checked his sources. No opinion journalist anywhere in the world interviews everyone whose words have been reported in newspapers and wire services to check they said them.David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm aware of your reasoning, dave-I think that its wrong.

That's your argument? A statement that it's wrong, with no reason given?David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have admitted no such thing. No-one has told me that the proposed para violates WP:BLP, the sources may or may not be reliable, although I contend that to support a statement that 'Private Eye' criticised hari's journalism, a citation proving that (as a primary source) is OK. That's why we're here, I suppose.

Even here on this page, you admit that you are trying to create a section based on the premise that Hari's journalism is "unreliable", yet you do not have BLP or NOTE worthy sources to create that impression. You cannot describe an unreliable source's statements and link to them, and hide behind them by saying 'well, they said it.' If I set up a blog libellously calling you , say, a paedophile (which you aren't), we couldn't link to it from a wiki entry about you, and hide behind the claim 'oh well, I'm just factually describing the allegation.' David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, dave, even a cursory reading of my edit will show that the idea was to keep it clear for admins here.FelixFelix ^talk 09:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Personally I would never cite "Private Eye" or "Harry's Place" in a bio here. I do not consider either of them to have the verifiability required of a high quality source. Whether a link to "counterpunch" is valid or not I'm not so sure, if the subject of the article is notable then any link to a verifiable source of information may be worth including, however the assertion that the link supports must be worded so as to reflect the link - there's a lot of difference between saying "x was one of several journalists misled into reporting a hoax that appeared on a wire service" and saying "x reported a pack of lies", and I suspect that in the case in question the former statement may be a more accurate representation than the latter. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how many wikipedians need to tell you you are wrong before you listen Felix?David r from meth productions 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nina Totenberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Someone has repeatedly removed material about her educationaal level, which is relevant to her ability to do her job, and which is routinely included in other wikipedia biographies of media personnel. E.g., for Sean Hannity: Education Hannity attended St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary in Uniondale in Long Island, graduating in 1980 with a high school diploma. He dropped out of New York University and decided to pursue a radio career.[2]

Kindly restored the deleted educational info on Totenberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.100.197 (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The information removed reflected badly on the article's subject and was not sourced. It was also worded in a very POV fashion. Removing it is entirely compliant with WP:BLP. Sarcasticidealist 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Also, the phrase "In the opinion of a wikipedia editor" comes perilously close to violating our policy on personal attacks on other editors.--Sethacus 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think someone has vandalized George Brett's profile. It says Mike Schmidt is a homosexual who gave blow jobs to George Brett. It also has the famous Pine Tar incident as the Cocaine Tar incident. There are also lots of derogatory comments about Brett's family and racist and sexist quotes attributed to Brett.

Insert: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your username: Weshwee53Weshwee53 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill, everyday stupid vandalism that was removed. User was warned and hasn't edited that article in three hours.--Sethacus 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be a notable bad guy, but his article could be a bit more neutral. Steve Dufour 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He is more notable for his role in the "boy band revolution". It seems he's "hit the skids" lately. That pic isn't helping matters, either.--Sethacus 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree to that. "Boyband revolution"? It wasn't even Lou's own idea, but copied from Maurice Starr. What Pearlman did was simply take that idea and buy whatever expertise could be bought with his stolen money, to promote the Backsteet Boys etcetera. Allegedly (still) he stole about half a billion dollars from his victims!! Talkin bout notability... --SooperJoo 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok So, he stole from Starr, and created some popular (if sickening) bands. Starr stole the basic principle from Motown. Pearlman also allegedly stole a boatload of money. But, does THAT need to take up so much article space?--Sethacus 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the article will probably become a lot slimmer (LOL), once the ponzi case is done. At this moment it is most usefull and informative about actual developments. --SooperJoo 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin Sdano seems to be a pure attack page. --Pleasantville 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The page has been deleted, with the following deletion log entry: 18:08, September 26, 2007 Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Justin Sdano" ‎ (WP:CSD#G3). --Darkwind (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The entry for Adam Applegarth has been vandalized several times via IP edits; also the same IP# have twice added him to the page Impostors. I suggest protecting these pages from IP edits. --Pleasantville 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP editors who have inserted this information (there are three) have been warned. Maybe this will address the matter. If not, protection may be appropriate. The article on the whole violates WP:BLP, however. It's completely unreferenced, and BLP requires that all information--neutral, negative or positive--in bios be sourced. I have very limited time at the moment, but will see if I can dig something up. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Referenced now, which also may make it easier to explain referencing requirements to any other editors who try to insert unreferenced, controversial information. --Moonriddengirl 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

His page claims he died today, although there is no source and no mention of his death anywhere else. If the sad news are indeed true any source would be appreciated. If it's not true, the person who wrote it is a truly sick and creepy puppy. swede 02:06, 27 September 2007 (CET)

The information has been removed as unsourced by User:Sethacus. I have issued notice to the editor who introduced the claim regarding Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Melissa Farley - There is a history here going back over a year of people trying to correct factual errors and add new material to this bio, but almost all edits are reversed by the user iamcuriousblue. This user has a clear bias against the subject of the article, and has written extensive attacks on her on various web sites including his own. Multiple people have come in to try to remove the bias and make this a simple bio article, but their work is reversed and the user is quite uncivil in his conversations. We tried mediation a few months ago and were finally able to delete one item that he had argued about for months. He was also asked by mediators to cool it on the uncivil behavior. The situation has reached a standoff once again, he simply reverts anything anyone else writes now. Can this article be knocked back to the most recent neutral version of Sept. 19? Can the user be banned from editing this article?

The subject of this biography is in the media quite frequently lately including the New York Times and U.K. Guardian, and is having to correct reporters who are picking up false information from Wikipedia. This is not good for the subject or for Wikipedia's reputation. The situation is becoming quite serious.

There is an extensive talk page for this article.

Please advise. Thank you.--Axiomatica 09:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Axiomatica continues to utterly misrepresent the situation and their role in it. The fiction that Axiomatica attempts to maintain is that I am somehow uniquely biased against Melissa Farley and that Axiomatica is unbiased. In my opinion, Axiomatica is a fantastically biased editor and is pushing a point of view in favor of the views of Melissa Farley. Hence, we have a disagreement. In spite of my views against Farley, which I'm quite open about, I've endeavored toward an article that respects WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY by airing both Farley's views and the views of Farley's critics in an even-handed manner, while respecting the guidelines of WP:BLP in clearly referencing such criticisms to published, verifiable sources. Axiomatica feels that the mention of *any* such criticism inherently represents bias against the subject of the article, a fundamental (perhaps even willful) misunderstanding of basic Wikipedia rules, in no small part based on Axiomatica's clearly favorable view of Farley and desire to defend the good name of Farley against all comers.

This user also misrepresents what took place in mediation – this user simply dropped out of the mediation process (now claiming they "went on vacation") before anything was settled. I have been trying to reopen this case, a move that is continuously now rejected by Axiomatica. Now I see that Axiomatica simply wants to have some authority figure intervene in their favor, to the point of having me banned – unbelievable!

I'll note that the September 19th version is only neutral in the opinion of Axiomatica – I dispute the neutrality of that version. If WP administrators want to go back to a truly neutral (if very limited) version, I suggest knocking the whole thing back to the lead (that is, the first two sentences) and the infobox. Otherwise, I invite editors to look at the present version for themselves, compare it to the September 19th version, and judge for themselves if the version in which all mention of controversy is excised is, in fact, truly neutral. Iamcuriousblue 10:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to much of what Iamcuriousblue posted above. For a full and complete understanding, please read the talk page at the Melissa Farley entry and take a look at the history of the article. Almost any edit made by anyone except himself is reverted by Iamcuriousblue. The result is that there are factual errors in the bio of a controversial figure who is currently getting quite a bit of media attention, and no one can get in and fix these things because Iamcuriousblue will simply revert them. In addition, Dr. Farley's views and work are not accurately represented. For some reason, Iamcuriousblue seems to think the NPOV means we only get to know what the critics think, not what the subject of the bio thinks. I do think this can be solved by cutting out the contentious material and beginning a discussion about what to add. But a third party would be more welcome and is, in fact, urgently needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axiomatica (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article is protected, and this noticeboard is not designed to accommodate content dispute discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. It would be nice, however, if other members of the WP Biography project might actually step into the dispute over at Talk:Melissa Farley and straighten out some points of disagreement about the relationship between WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, an issue of fundamental disagreement between the two warring editors (myself and Axiomatica). The idea that if the two of us just punch it out long enough, some kind of consensus will emerge is not working and some third-party opinions are definitely called for. Iamcuriousblue 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow WP:DR, such as making a request for comment, request a third opinion, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

• Brian J. Ford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - My attempt to improve this article has descended into an argument and I'd appreciate some outside attention. I began thinking the article is more press release than readable, gave it my best shot at a rewrite, and this somehow inflamed two users. Attempts at discussion have got nowhere - they're just starting to be abusive of me on the article talk page and my own talk page now. Happy to be told if I got it wrong, but this feels more like abuse than constructive, and they seem intent on protecting the article from all changes. Andy Farrell 22:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned the article a bit and placed appropriate tags on the different sections that are either unsourced, or that rely only on the subject's website. I have also added that article to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Soanya Ahmad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article should be deleted in accordance with the following wikipedia policy: Articles about living people notable only for one event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP1E This person is currently taking part in a event of questionable value and is known for nothing else. As well the information contained is self provided through a third party. This article is the equivalent of: having my cousin Bob create an article to describe my girlfriend that I am taking on a travel expedition. If this article stays then we should open autobiographical articles for the thousands of other people who are companions of someone sailing around the world. // Mmoes 04:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you feel an article needs to be deleted, then nominate it for deletion using one of the processes listed in the deletion policy. This is not a BLP/N issue, since there's nothing in the article that's an egregious violation of WP:BLP (a case can be made that the person is notable, the article is not excessively biased, critical, or unsourced, etc.), and the AfD process is better suited to handle this kind of discussion. --Darkwind (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am relatively new to this and haven't figured out how your complex system of things work here. Sorry I put it into the wrong place. The only source for the information is her "boy friend;" And your policy states... If a person is known for only one event they then should not be included. Thanks for the direction though. Mmoes 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have received a complaint regarding Howie Nave (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). I could use some help with it, from an administrator or trusted user. I will need to email you privately regarding the problem in order to protect the privacy of the subject. I have deleted the history and protected the article in a version which omits the troublesome allegations and the link to them, but do not see a way clear to unprotecting the article with the current editors in their current frame of mind. Fred Bauder 13:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Long Bay Correctional Centre has a huge list of unreferenced notable prisoners. I have seen other articles with a few names. How should we handle this?--BirgitteSB 19:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Under a similar discussion on Vehicular homicide (subsection (famous people convicted), I personally deleted all of the redlinked with a hidden note requesting <!--please provide reliable references to avoid potentially libelous misinformation-->. Subsequent editors with one exception have respected that and included such notes. I wonder if a similar approach would work for Long Bay Correctional Centre? Certainly, I believe that all unsourced redlinked should be immediately stricken for violating WP:BLP. If they are bluelinked, I would probably go to each and find a reference supporting the allegation. --Moonriddengirl 20:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that. One reference still missing.--BirgitteSB 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a parliamentary source that puts Adler at Long Bay, apparently baking bread. :) I've added that. --Moonriddengirl 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lisa Olson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) No sources. Claims footballs players sexually harassed this woman and names them. --BirgitteSB 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just did a messy cut job that removes the incriminating information (the trouble is that without this information, the page loses most of its purpose). Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sarcasticidealist 22:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add some sources to the talk page --h2g2bob (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Layla Kayleigh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Unsourced and vague section on "sexual orientation" being added by recently-registered Brucewhorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Gimmetrow 00:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominator appears to have used a number of ad hominems in their reasoning which perhaps should be removed?:

"This particular person does not appear to me to rise to the level outlined there. In particular, he does not seem to be any more distinguished or well-known than an average professor -- indeed he may be considerably less accomplished than your average tenured professor."

We can ask whether an indvidual is consistent with WP:PROF, but not suggest that they personally do not "rise to the level ", nor that they are "less accomplished" than others. This is negative speculation. --Muzzlik 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an issue, at best it is borderline. Noting that someone does not meet WP:PROF is fine, and noting that someone substantially fails it is also fine. That's all that appears to be going on here. Note also that this isn't an ad hominem in the sense of the fallacy. JoshuaZ 18:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved party comment I think all the nom was trying to do is show their interpretation of policy. Nothing wrong with that. Some of us have been guilty of doing the same. I think, though, the nominator is being shown the error of their ways.--Sethacus 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Cody Lister (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a supposed bio that makes claims that are really hard to swallow (ie his name is a registered trademark of the "Deny-a-Wish" foundation. At best, it's unsourced and hardly notable. At worst, it seems like a hoax. Is there something I'm missing?--Sethacus 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's been heavily vandalized. The original is an autobio which doesn't meet with notability. I'm taking it to Afd.--Sethacus 00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

... actually, the biography is written, using the format of an article, at User talk:Fatonkrasniqi.

It's Fatonkrasniqi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s only contribution, apart from three edits changing place-names from Serbo-Croatian (the form commonly used in English-language publications, and thus in Wikipedia articles) to Albanian. The biography is bilingual, written first in English and then in Albanian.

Is there any impediment to make this use of user-space ? Should the content be moved to main-space ? If so, does this actor meet our notability criteria (Google search for "Faton Krasniqi" ; and note that from the three external links listed, only the one to MySpace.com may be genuine) ?

I leave the issue in your capable hands. Best regards, Ev 04:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

... actually, the biography is written, using the format of an article, at User talk:Presioni.

It's Presioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s only contribution to Wikipedia. The biography is written almost entirely in Albanian.

Is there any impediment to make this use of user-space ? Should the content be moved to main-space ? If so, does this rapper meet our notability criteria (Google search for Presioni) ?

I leave the issue in your capable hands. Best regards, Ev 04:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a bit of a dispute going on with regards to the deletion of material from the Star Wars kid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) talk page. User:FCYTravis deleted some comments from the talk page here. An IP reported this deletion at WP:WQA - this report and the subsequent discussion can be found here. I responded to the alert and raised the issue with FCYTravis on his talk page here. After a great deal of discussion, it emerged that:

• FCYTravis's justification for removing the material was that it violated WP:BLP because it "maligned a living person";
• The three other people who commented at the Wikipedia alert (besides myself and FCYTravis) felt that the material did not malign a living person, and should not have been removed;
• FCYTravis was not prepared to accept this as consensus, partly because there were too few editors and partly because he felt that it ought to be brought up here, since in his view it had "nothing to do with Wikiquette".

In light of the above, I am bringing the issue here in the hopes that it can be dealt with and consensus reached. Sarcasticidealist 10:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The comments were inappropriate, disgusting and entirely unnecessary comparisons of a kid dancing on a video to the actions of a mass-murdering dictator. Wikipedia talk pages are not free speech zones and may not be used to make attacks on the subjects of Wikipedia biographies. It is up to you to demonstrate why the comments in question should be allowed to remain. FCYTravis 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The same point can be made without bringing up hitler or blowjobs. Fighting to include the original comment is just bizarre and a waste of time. Leave the comment deleted and do something productive. Unproductively, R. Baley 19:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the same point can be made, and the point was a pretty inane one to begin with. Still, editors can't remove each other's comments from article talk pages solely for inanity. That's why we need consensus on whether there was actually a WP:BLP issue there.

As for productivity, I'm a WP:WQA volunteer, so I consider it productive to try to resolve the issues that were brought there. This was one such issue, so I'm trying (so far without success) to generate a consensus on it. Sarcasticidealist 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The day "Wikiquette" is deemed to require us to publish disgusting insults about living people is the day that Wikipedia dies. How many times do I have to tell you that the people we write about are not fishbowl subjects to be gawked at, but actual living, breathing, feeling human beings who deserve to be treated with our utmost respect? How on Earth can you claim to stand for "good etiquette" while defending someone whose borderline-slanderous post violated every single rule of good etiquette? Sad. FCYTravis 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be miscontruing my position: I understand, accept, and support that insults to living people can and should be removed per WP:BLP. If consensus finds that the material you removed made the Star Wars kid look bad in any way, then that consensus will also have found that you were right to remove it. My position is not and never has been that we should allow insults to living people to remain on article talk pages; my position is that the material you removed was in no way insulting to the Star Wars kid. And that question - not the question of whether it is permitted to remove material insulting towards living people, which is already very settled - is the one on which we need consensus. Sarcasticidealist 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The analogy in the comment was more than a little melodramatic, but it compared concepts, not people, so I don't see how it could be a BLP violation. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what the fuss is here. There's no way this is a BLP violation or even a civility violation. It's clear from reading the post that the editor was talking about what's occurring in other articles and that the same principle should be applied in this article. Renee 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The civility complaint was against FCYTravis for removing the comment. 69.12.143.197 05:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Renee meant that the material that FCYTravis removed wasn't a BLP or civility violation, but I could be wrong. Sarcasticidealist 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that a boy dancing in a video is even close to the same principle as a dictator's mass murders is the very insult I refer to. It is spectacularly out of line to consider the two to be remotely equivalent. I'm sure I could find something slightly embarassing that you did when you were a 14-year-old child and splatter it on the Interwebs if I really tried. Does wanting that part of your life to be quietly forgotten make you into Hitler, too? FCYTravis 06:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that I've done that I'd like forgotten, and I've had the good fortune to have very few of them turn up on the internet (and even for those that have - hey, my name is Steve Smith, just try to google me). And if any of them became internet phenomena, I'd be very grateful for people like you cracking the WP:BLP whip about how much really needs to be in the Wikipedia article about them. Whatever my opinions on whether Star Wars kid's name should be in the article (and, to be honest, said opinions aren't fully-formed), I think you're fulfilling a very important function by making the case for the no side as forcefully as you are. But suggesting that invoking Hitler's name is the same as likening the subject to Hitler is nearly as silly as invoking Hitler's name in the first place.

I have sincere admiration for the work that you do in upholding WP:BLP. But in this case, I think you erred, and User:Sxeptomaniac, User:Reneeholle, User:Cheeser1, User:Bsharvy, and User:69.12.143.197 agree with me. That's rapidly approaching consensus territory, if it's not there already. Sarcasticidealist 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know how to put this to you, but that comment is not going back in. The fact that the person who posted it hasn't even tried, should have your clue-phone ringing off the hook. The comparison is not necessary to make the point. All of this is a battle being fought over a matter which is already settled; to wit, the non-inclusion of a then-minor's name in an article about an Internet meme. Talk pages are not free speech zones, and material which is not relevant to improving the article or which is libelous may be removed. I believe that it is both borderline-libelous and completely irrelevant to improving the article to claim that the actions of a 14-year-old are analogous to the actions of Hitler. It is uncivil and unbecoming of us to allow such vitriolic attacks to remain on Wikipedia - talk pages are not free speech zones. I invite you to take this case to ArbCom and argue to them that we must allow random, pseudonymous users to suggest that the acts of a dancing child are the same as, and thus deserve no more protection than, those of Hitler.

The burden of proof is on you to show why the comment should remain, and I've heard not a single cogent argument to that end. Why does it need to remain? What important point does the comment make which outweighs its inflammatory and insensitive nature, and why can that point not be made without reference to Nazis? FCYTravis 07:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When you violate standard procedures on Wikipedia, Travis, the burden of proof is on you, not others, to justify your actions. The comment was stupid, inflammatory and insensitive; but so are millions of posts on talk pages. That doesn't give your, or me, the right to remove them. "I don't quite know how to put this to you, but that comment is not going back in."? Sounds like you need to read WP:OWN, among other articles. You cannot make that decision. --Orange Mike 15:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with OM. R. Baley 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent and comment to both) I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. FCY, please don't use BLP as a club. And SI, it was an inappropriate comment, about a settled issue, that does nothing to further the discussion or improve the page. Leave it out, move on . . .spend time constructively. You're both really good editors and should spend your time here more wisely. Really my last comment, R. Baley 07:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Guess not. . .R. Baley 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was an overly dramatic analogy. It wasn't a BLP violation but I can understand the "how does it compare?" question being raised. The comment shouldn't have been made, it shouldn't have been removed, and it shouldn't go back in. We should leave this now. violet/riga (t) 15:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with VR, R. Baley 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a bit melodramatic, but regardless of how effective an argument it was I am still able to grasp the underlying point that BlueLotas was attempting to make there. More importantly though, it in no way compared any living person to Hitler; I'll admit the wording was a bit dodgy, but I simply cannot understand how the comments could be construed that way. The point that BlueLotas was trying to argue was that regardless of what the subject of an article wishes, at a certain point the merits and notability of the facts outweigh how the subject might feel about them. Regardless of the merits of that argument, it's a perfectly rational argument all the same. There was no reason to remove it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The user who originally posted the comment has apologised. He has shown far more grace and good judgement under these circumstances than anyone else here has. I consider the matter closed. FCYTravis 06:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote FCYTravis:

Thank you for the apology - and just consider your words more carefully in the future. Words are powerful, and they can be easily - often inadvertently - misused. I appreciate your grace and good judgment on this matter. FCYTravis 06:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

True, and something we should all remember. Likewise, FCYTravis, please remember how serious removing others' comments from talk pages is, and be open to debating removals.

I know some people thought this was a waste of time, but there were lessons learnt, and hopefully they will make us better editors in the future. 69.12.143.197 08:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those comments had no place on Wikipedia and leaving them on the wiki was hardly an option. FCYTravis is to be applauded for removing them, --Tony Sidaway 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Three separate registered editors, all members of The Opera Project have provided 4 verifiable references for Domingo's 1941 birth date. An anonymous editor (all ISPs resolve to the same city in Germany) has edit-warred over the last month to post a 1934 birth date - to such an extent that the page has now been protected from anonymous editing. However, he/she now posts the same information including rumours about 'a secret birthday party' and how Domingo knowingly 'covers up' his 'real' birth date on the article's talk page. What's the BLP policy? Should I delete those comments? Thanks Voceditenore 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Clarification. I'm not particularly concerned about someone posting an actual alternative birthdate on the talk page, provided they can can back this up with at least one verifiable source (published, reliable, authoritative, and not corrected in later editions). My basic concern is about the rumours (above) which are cited as 'evidence' instead of a verifiable source.Voceditenore 17:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the material is derogatory and unsourced, it should be removed, even from the talk page. "Derogatory" may be a bit subjective. I wouldn't regard it as derogatory if it were said of me (silly, maybe), but perhaps Domingo would feel differently. Even the IP said he "does not like to speak about it." The misreported birthdate is not as much the concern as the suggestion that Domingo is covering his birth date from the public and on his passport. In my opinion, I think one could make a case for its removal, since one could argue that this suggestion of dishonesty impugns his honor. For all I know, it might even imply criminality, since it seems like lying on your passport would probably be against the law. --Moonriddengirl 20:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Yes, it is tricky. In my view, a different birth date (whether older or younger) is not derogatory at all. But the unsourced suggestions of dishonesty, knowingly using a passport with false information, etc. probably are. I'll wait a day or two to see if there is any further advice from the Bio Project here, and then remove the portions of the anonymous poster's comments that make suggestions about dishonesty and deliberate false passport information. I'll leave the portions that just refer to the earlier date. Voceditenore 07:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl; this should be removed if impeccable sources are not found for it reasonably soon, even from the talk page. If all credible sources give the 1941 date, that's what Wikipedia should report. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now removed the unsourced rumours from the Talk Page. Voceditenore 10:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone review recent edits to this article? Criticism added to the article takes way too much space and the critics have clear bias in this issue, considering that one of the critics Teymuraz Denieyev represents authorities of Chehcnya and accuses non-governmental organizations of being Western spies, and the other one represents one of the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. None of the criticisms come from neutral sources, which might prejudice the neutrality of the article. Grandmaster 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Paukrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) – (s)he repeatedly categorizes Akhmed Zakayev as Chechen terrorist (8 episodes since August: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]), disregarding other opinions and BLP warnings on the talk page and providing no reliable sources. // Colchicum 11:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(S)he continues: [23] Colchicum 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Henning von Berg is an internationaly well-known photographer from Germany. His photographs are published in many coffee table books. As one example, his photo STAIRWAY is featured in the book „NAKED MEN – 90 of the world’s greatest photographers“ (http://www.henning-von-berg.com/shop/en/bild2.htm and http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Men-Phil-Braham/dp/1852426896/ref=sr_1_1/002-1676216-0977648?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191156792&sr=1-1) and also in the book „EXPOSED“ (http://www.amazon.com/Exposed-Celebration-Worlds-Greatest-Photographers/dp/1560253010/ref=sr_1_1/002-1676216-0977648?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191156861&sr=1-1).

His whimsical group shoots with naked models in public are featured in many books and magzines (i.e. at http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/072105/diverscite4.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germany2799 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• David Lamm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a new article that is under attack by numerous ip editors, adding blp violations. I reverted to the second version of the article, added living people category to article and blp template to the talk page, and gave level 1 blp warnings to all the violating ip editors. I'm not sure this subject is even notable enough for a biography. Needs to be watched. // Dean Wormer 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)