Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive28

This article is lifted word for word from The Eagle County Board of Commissioners website, a board on which Mr. Menconi serves (http://www.eaglecounty.us/electedOfficials/commissioners.cfm). According to Wikipedia's rules for biographical entries: "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." This article seems like an obvious violation of that rule. Nojoke89 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am reopening a WP:WEIGHT complaint in the John Stossel article after a new subsection has been added to the already very long Criticism section. The previous complaint is here. I have expressed my complaint here. I am hoping to get some input from neutral parties, especially an administrator. There has been no edit warring. I took my complaint to the talk page before attempting any edits. I fear any edits will result in an edit war. The debate has been civil. But again, I would like some neutral parties to look at the article. --JHP 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT refers to the quality of individual sources, not the balance of the article as a whole. What you have is a WP:NPOV dispute, not a WP:WEIGHT dispute. And the way to correct it is to add reliably-sourced information to other sections of the article to make it more comprehensive, not deleting material in a section you think is too big. It is perfectly reasonable to leave a {{POV}} or {{POV-section}} on the article until it is brought in to balance. ←Ben^B4 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a subsection of WP:NPOV. If the criticism is all sourced to a couple of partisan organizations, which may or may not represent a significant minority view, and that criticism dwarfs the rest of the article, then it is a problem of undue weight specifically, and NPOV in general. - Crockspot 19:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. If a criticism section grows out of all proportion to the main part of the article it ought to be trimmed back until and unless the rest of the article catches up. Sometimes, as in this case, the criticism section is so long that it's hard to imagine an article of any length about a living person deserving such a long section. There's no rule of thumb, and more controversial people probably deserve longer criticism sections, but here the criticism is half or more of the entire length of the article. Worse yet, the criticism is not over any unique or special issue, merely a laundry list of specific incidents in his professional career as a journalist in which he was accused of reporting improperly or inaccurately. If he is an upstanding, accepted professional who is still active and not fallen into great disrepute I would say that's worth about 10% of the total career at most, not half the article. And if this is run of the mill stuff for a journalist in his position, perhaps no criticism at all or at most a couple sentences. I'll take a further look after posting this and may or may not act accordingly. Wikidemo 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. I redid the criticism section to overcome the balance problem (but without removing any specific examples). One big issue to address was that it read like a litany, trying to make the case for each incident of criticism. As relevant to his biography, the issue is that he was criticized for various incidents of controversial and allegedly/apparently faulty reporting - NOT to have mini-sections about each controversial subject. In the course of doing that I saw the whole article was sloppy so I cleaned it up, reorganized material, retitled sections, reformatted, etc., again trying to adjust the balance but not removing any broad points. I think it's much better now overall, so I removed the various article tags. There is still a heavy amount of controversy described in the article, but I think that's fair because his job at ABC is apparently to challenge conventional wisdom, which inherently makes him a controversial figure. Wikidemo 20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Wikidemo's comments and also affirm him/her for the excellent job. The article definitely needs building and improving, but it's on the right track at the moment. --Maniwar (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My WP:WEIGHT complaint has been resolved. Many thanks to Wikidemo, Morphh, Maniwar, and any others who have worked to fix the article. They have done great work. I do fear that there is still a very low bar set to prevent very minor criticism from being added to the article in the future. However, I feel this is not just a problem with the John Stossel article, but is systemic to Wikipedia biographies in general. Some biographies have entire articles devoted to criticism which, quite frankly, would never happen in Britannica or World Book. I believe it is an unbecoming feature of Wikipedia. --JHP 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. The apparent truce only lasted a day or two. 2-3 editors are now adding all the criticism they can source, and aggressively reverting attempts to prune it under a bold claim that BLP does not limit the scope or extent of critical material they can add as long as the source is good. I've cautioned them that the article is heading for edit protection, mediation, and possibly arbitration if they can't restrain themselves but I doubt the warning will do any good. I've probably done all I can do; if someone else wants to give it a try or can speak with more authority than me, perhaps that could help. Wikidemo 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemo here. The article has made some good progress and Wikidemo has done a great job trying to address the issues but there is significant dispute to the article structure, formating, and content. More editors that are familiar with BLP, NPOV, & MOS would be helpful in trying to address the issues. Morphh ^(talk) 3:03, 02 October 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Joseph Wallace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I know there was a lot of talk about children who died as a result of crimes as well as their surviving siblings. I never followed that talk enough to learn how it was decided such things would be handled so I thought I would bring this article to this noticeboard and hopefully the attention of editors who are familiar with result of that talk.--BirgitteSB 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have stubified the article and was surprised to see a recent AFD ended in no consensus. It should have been deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Normally AFD survivors get a note on the talk page and I didn't check the history. I will see if can find out which template that is and add it.--BirgitteSB 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've meant to work on this article since the AFD. This was a highly significant case in Illinois that influenced child welfare regulations across the US. It was not just a notorious and lurid murder that attracted attention for the usual "If it bleeds, it leads" reasons. Officials were held accountable and laws were changed. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this. This article probably needs to be watched closely for a while.--BirgitteSB 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Today unregistered user removed large sections from Tacita Dean, that deal with sensitive issues. Much work was put into nPOV and to fully cite, being revised by several users, the citations are trustworthy. After reversion the same unregistered user made large additions of un-sourced, containing much personal info that had to be removed (to talk page); info that appeared to "counter" the issues they appear to contest. While the addition does add to article it was totally unsourced and had too much personal info. Artlondon 23:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material removed on the basis of WP:NOR and WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

you've misunderstood the problem. I had already removed the personal unsourced text to the talk page. Your bult edit took out sourced material. (granted it isn't cited correctly yet), Artlondon 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the material in question has been "removed" by hiding the removal in large addition of unsourced material. A good 1000 words have now been just copied in. Artlondon 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

the occurrences of recent edits are questionable. First, over the weekend, repeated attempts were made to remove - well sourced - but perhaps not fully positive material. Today, in the space of an hour, the article has increased by 500% it's length. The material is, in the main, unsourced, and reads like a press release. Artlondon 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

it should be noted the user in question has been INACTIVE on wp for a year! Artlondon 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

all the additions are COPIED from http://stammtischforum.org/synopsis_Dean.html Artlondon 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neal Winter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The information in the article was sourced from media reports and alledged incidents only. The authenticity of this article is debatable, this could be considered defamation. // 218.185.73.168 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Media reports, if from reputable publications, are generally the sort of sources we look for. The article is lacking inline citations, which makes it difficult to verify each allegation, however. I'll take a look at it. --Moonriddengirl 11:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through and sourced inline every allegation, tightened the language a little bit and replaced the single dead source with two new ones. Every fact is verifiable now. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Moonriddengirl 12:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article is a criminal, now in prison, with no other notability. Should he have an article at all? Steve Dufour 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nominated for deletion. - Crockspot 04:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) appears to suffer from frequent insertion of what I consider to be poorly sourced references supporting allegations of criminal activity by a living person. As such material is potentially libellous, I've been in the habit of removing, for example, material based solely on the websites easybackgroundcheck and rickross for which those websites do not cite any primary sources. SooperJoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to feel that these websites are suitable references (Talk:Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi#Restoring_Changes_2). I'd now like some guidance on whether material sourced solely from easybackgroundcheck can be considered authoritative for allegations of criminal activity on WP or not. I believe we have managed to resolve the rickross issue by identifying an alternative reference. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any legal effort to have the mother's depo removed for it being a forgery. Easybackgroundcheck can be charged if needed, via subpoena Automation Business Corporation. The depo can be obtained via the court at a fee. Imho the link only would need to be removed in case one shows the depo is forged. --SooperJoo 11:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

easybackground check and rick ross websites cannot be considered reliable sources in this context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article in question and my assessment is that the article is 99% original research, using primary sources such as court cases dockets, and listing websites about which there is no certainty of its origin or author(s). The article is currently in AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The page continues to have the appearance of an edit war. I am concerned that large amounts of poorly sourced material are being added, for example this section and, despite concerns voiced about the sources and (imo) valid reasons to remove such material as discussed on the talk page, attempts to do so are repeatedly reverted. I am concerned about unsourced assertions of the use of aliases by the article subject; the assumption that because a lawyer has on one occasion represented a person, any other action by that lawyer is carried out on behalf of that same person (I believe that in the USA lawyers are permitted to have more than one client each); the assumption that all persons receiving mail at a single street address (which might be a message forwarding service) are linked without any verification that such a link exists; and tenuous assumptions about the ownership of internet domain names. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Daniel Wallace (plaintiff) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article does not read like a biography. Instead it mainly focuses on the two lawsuits filed (Wallace vs FSF and Wallace vs IBM et al). I think that a more reflective title is in order. I can only think of "Wallace vs FSF and Wallace vs IBM et al", which is rather lengthy... Any suggestions? --Iamunknown 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't see an issue. If there were only one lawsuit it might make sense to have them split up as separate cases, but given that there were multiple all along similar lines, having a single article makes more sense. JoshuaZ 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that a single article is appropriate. I disagree that there is no issue. (I am concerned that this article is named "Daniel Wallace (plaintiff)" when it is not actually a biography.) My question is: What would a more appropriate title (i.e. one that reflects the article content) be? --Iamunknown 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. That is a problem. The solution may be to just add more biographical detail. If my memory serves me correctly, there were a few interviews and articles that discussed him and his motivations. JoshuaZ 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • How about Daniel Wallace's lawsuits? That is more what the article is about. Steve Dufour 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that the only important aspect of the case is that some litigation reached the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, who decided that the question to be answered was:

Does the provision of copyrighted software under the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) violate the federal antitrust laws?[1]

Thus the best name for this article is probably something like "Wallace versus International Business Machines et all" (IBM was the primary defendant by the time the case reached the appeal stage. The case can probably be written up from legal reports. This is a very important case, actually. The circuit judge decided that

"the GPL and open-source have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws." [2]--Tony Sidaway 22:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any subsequent comment so I've taken the liberty of moving the article to Wallace versus International Business Machines et al and rewriting the lead section. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, barring one thing (which I should have mentioned earlier) ... would you mind if it were at Wallace v. International Business Machines et al instead? Most of the United States supreme court cases, at least, use "v." instead of "versus" (see Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases). --Iamunknown 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was deleted earlier this afternoon by Swatjester due to BLP violations. Was the entire article unsalvageable? It has been recently linked from The Inquirer and Apple Insider, and there is a section in this article that I found to be quite informative, about the reasons someone with untreated paranoid schizophrenia would be prone to going off their meds while in confinement.

I'd like to make sure this article absolutely had to be deleted instead of having a few sections reworded. Could we restore from the original and make changes to help it better conform to wikipedia standards? For reference, the article can be viewed in the Google Cache. Thank you. 216.19.180.137 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Jonathan Lee Riches is a notable individual. Restoring the article from the original seems unacceptable because much of the material was in extreme violation of BLP. I have written an article on Riches that relies on secondary sources, is (or at least greatly attempts to be) neutral and avoids synthesis or original research. --Moonriddengirl 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

the "k" in their last name is not a capital —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.33.16.2 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Links: Jack MacKell, Fleming MacKell. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Checks out with references. Moving to lowercase --h2g2bob (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'Personal Life' section has ZERO sources and includes graphic references to drug use & depression. Badly needs looking at. Exxolon 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the incriminating material pending the addition of sources. Sarcasticidealist 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tania Head‎ was president of a 9/11 survivors group, but did not appear to have had much notability until the New York Times ran an exposé questioning her claims, and questioning whether she had a fiance/spouse killed in the collapse, questioning whether she really worked in one of the towers, whether she was burned in the event, whether she was rescued by a heroic martyr of the collapse, etc. The article was created after the exposé ran. It was immediately tagged as CSD-7 for speedy deletion [3] , that was challenged, then I nominated it for AFD as a WP:COATRACK, and as being contrary to WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The article bears watching because it has had vicious vandalism [4] and because she was for a time categorized as an imposter, which was later judged a premature label [5]. Edison 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion, but was kept [6]. Edison 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an alert that I have removed potentially libellous material about Betty Dodson from her Wiki entry. I want it on record that I have taken this step in case there is future edit warring about it. Timothy Perper 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor JoshuaZ has reverted my deletion. I communicated with him about it. I question the wisdom of his decision. Timothy Perper 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The material appears to be well sourced and in any event, isn't libelous. JoshuaZ 18:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up, the source doesn't seem to be reliable. I've removed the information until it has a better source. JoshuaZ 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank JoshuaZ for his agreement with me in removing the material. For now, the issue seems to be settled. Timothy Perper 09:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jon Kennedy and several related articles have been the subject of repeated BLP violations for many months now. I have watchlisted all the affected articles (that I know of) and semi-protected Jon Kennedy indefinitely. But not being that familiar with Wikipedia's BLP policies as it relates to deleting the offending edits, I'd like someone experienced to take a look and see if the edits should be deleted from the history (many of the edit summaries contain the offending accusations). Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. BTW I put a notability tag on the article. Steve Dufour 10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I've gone ahead and made the deletions, but there were quite a few articles targeted, so I may have missed some. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Perverted-Justice (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs) - An IP user added this information to the talk page. I believe this information, being both unsourced and contentious, merits immediate removal per WP:BLP. Swatjester (talk · contribs) disagrees and has reverted said removal twice. I bring the issue here for further discussion. // Powers ^T 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Shannon Selberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) claims this guy did some strange stuff. No sources. Notability questionable.--BirgitteSB 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's tagged as non-notable now. I'm not sure if throwing a mic stand into the audience, etc. is negative material, otherwise I would remove it. Steve Dufour 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was more thinking of the claims he kicked and spit food on them. Those things would be assault.--BirgitteSB 19:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a BLP issue, other than the statements are unsourced. As for the kicking and spitting, it seems like part of his act. And being the lead man in two notable bands is notable.--Sethacus 20:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing is a BLP problem, but the article is sourced now. Nothing on his kicking or spitting food, which has been removed. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No sources. Criminal allegations against various members of this family.--BirgitteSB 19:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a summary article; sources are asserted in the subarticles (chiefly the book whose cover is the illustration). Better to move them in than remove.

This does have the flavour of Spam for the book; but that's not a BLP issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

STOP POSTIN DEFAMATORY AND LIBELOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT LEOPOLD AND THINGS YOU CLAIM HE SAID. THERE IS A PUBLIC RECORD AND HE NEVER, EVER SAID HE WOULD OUT HIS SOURCES IF HIS STORY WAS WRONG. THAT IS A MYTH PERPETUATED BY THE BLOGOSPHERE AND BASED ENTIRELY ON SHODDY FACTS AND SOURCING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.153 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - seems to refer to this text currently removed by 76.240.83.153. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the section. It has good references, although it is a little biased in tone. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the specific bits saying he'll out his sources, which are not supported by the references. It all seems well sources, but the overall tone of the article is quite negative, especially with the controversies section. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional material was reverted again, and I restored it. Someone else please have a look. ←Ben^B4 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The bias is so blatant and obvious on the Jason Leopold biography and I fully intend to report it and have it either removed permanently or corrected if it is not addressed. there is absolutely no balance to this entry and it comes across as a hit piece on Leopold and his work. The language needs to be objective and right now it comes across as if Wiki has taken a position on Leopold. While it's abundantly clear that many of the people who worked on the Leopold article are blatantly biased toward him and his work it is wrong to allow that bias to become part of the story.

PLEASE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, CORRECT THIS. Someone needs to do more research than the first two or three pages of google. How about a little more information on his groundbreaking work on Enron and the California energy crisis? Then that can be set next to the so-called controversies and allow readers to make their own opinion.

And to include a section that says "FIRINGS" is libelous as well. He was not fired from Dow Jones. He was fired from the LA Times. And having a separate section on that is RIDICULOUS! People get fired all the time. That does not make him controversial.

I suggest the people who work on Leopold's bio go to the library and read his book which has a ton of documents and supporting material.

This is bad and IT MUST BE ADDRESSED! --Herb Cantonowitz, Newport Beach, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.153 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It often happens that a Wikipedia article about a controversial person attracts much more attention from one side than from the other. The result can be a bio article that reads like either the subject's own press release or an attack piece. If there are specific statements that aren't supported by reliable sources, you can remove them (or specify them on the talk page if you're unable to edit the semi-protected article).

If, however, the complaint is merely that one side or the other is presented more thoroughly, that's not a basis for removing valid information to achieve a spurious "balance". We don't count the kilobytes of favorable and unfavorable material and compute a ratio. You write that "Someone needs to do more research". Well, feel free. If the article suffers from imbalance, go ahead and do the research, so that you can provide the information on the other side. Just make sure that it's properly sourced, complies with WP:NPOV, etc. JamesMLane t c 09:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Libelous material on Jason Leopold bio again

the article that the people who prepared this horribly sourced entry have quoted comes from an article that quotes an article as opposed to the original source.

In the KARL ROVE section of the entry it says that Marc Ash said the information Truthout obtained stating that Rove was indicted was based on a single source. THAT IS BLATANTLY WRONG and SERIOUSLY LIBELOUS!!!!!!! That is not what Ash was speaking about, if anyone took the time to read the original article.

Ash was referring to a sealed indictment, 06 CR 128, in which he has single source information. HE WAS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE KARL ROVE STORY INDICTMENT STORY. HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT A SEPARATE INDICTMENT THAT WAS SEALED, AND THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION WAS REFERRING TO THAT, NOT TO THE ROVE STORY!!!

THIS MUST BE CORRECTED IMMEDIATELY! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF HAVING TO FORCE YOU ALL TO CHECK YOUR SOURCES! YOU ARE WORSE THAN THE VERY PEOPLE YOU EXCORIATE.

Look at the original article that Ash wrote as opposed to quoting from an article in CJR in which the author of said article was forced to make serious corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.83.153 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post in ALL CAPS. It's considered shouting. – ornis⚙ 07:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite the rather off-putting way in which this is brought up, I find the complaint valid so I've removed the Columbia Journalism Review source and replaced it with a fact tag. As per WP:BLP#Reliable Sources, derogatory material about living people that's only available in a questionable source needs to be removed. This particular source is an opinion piece that starts off in its lead paragraph describing Jason Leopold as a "serial fabulist" and goes downhill from there. Whether that is a fair criticism or not, it is not a proper article to source the simple claim that Leopold's editor backtracked on a claim made in an article. I put the fact tag on because if there is no other source for this claim the claim itself should be removed too. If there is a source, then the better source should be used. I also note that Leopold's lawyer has apparently posted a rather serious cease-and-desist letter to the Columbia Journalism Review's comment section, with a serious accusation that the piece of being libel. Wikipedia is probably protected from libel claims, and the article doesn't constitute libel, because we don't actually reprint the material that's the subject of the legal threat. Also, the project probably has safe harbor protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Nevertheless, we don't need to be using sources that are under serious libel accusations.

To the person posting the complaint, you could have just done this yourself, and come here if that leads to a dispute that can't be resolved on the article talk page. None of us are the "YOU GUYS" you shout about who make you "SICK AND TIRED", so I don't see why we should do it instead of you. Also, I second the request to use lower case, at least until we come up with a new WP:MOS confirming that anything worth saying is worth saying in caps, and there can never be enough punctuation. Wikidemo 08:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Update. Could someone please add a second (or third) pair of eyes to this? In poking around I see the original anonymous editor who posted the request has made a WP:NPA edit to the article talk page contentious here. An editor with an apparent penchant for edit warring has reverted my deletion. Nevertheless, I am seriously troubled about using a source that calls a living person a "serial fabulist" (i.e. a habitual liar) and gets a published legal threat. BLP advises that such material is not subject to WP:3RR, so I reverted again. I'm conflicted here and want to make sure I'm doing the right thing. On the one hand we shouldn't spread libel. On the other I don't want to play the fool to someone if they're playing wikigames. Wikidemo 08:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FIX THE LIBELOUS SOURCING IN JASON LEOPOLD BIO ONCE AND FOR ALL

This information in the jason leopold biography IS FLAT OUT FALSE! [4] On June 13, Truthout's executive director Marc Ash backtracked from that position, saying that the story was based "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts."[citation needed]The grand jury concluded with no indictment of Rove.[5] THIS REFERS TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY ON ROVE! THIS IS ABOUT A SEALED INDICTMENT! That story, and not the rove indictment story, is what Ash is saying they had one source for FIX THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.61 (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to say:

On June 13, Truthout's executive director Marc Ash said that the identification of the indictment as a particular sealed court document was based "on single source information and general background information obtained from experts."

Ash, Marc (2006-06-13). "06 cr 128". Truthout. Retrieved on 2007-10-01.

Mrmr 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As improbable as it may seem, I believe the issues raised have been addressed. Might as well leave it open a week though, just in case. 1of3 02:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding material from this webpage: [7]. It says about itself: “This page is a collection of resources and opinions others have posted on the web about Barbara Schwarz, as well as information she provided herself either via newspapers, court documents, or Usenet. As such, each item is up to the reader to decide how accurate it is, and draw their own conclusions.” That does not seem like a reliable source for information on a living person to me. Steve Dufour 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The material has been readded to the article and I am told that there is a "consensus" that this is a reliable source. It would only take a few improvements in the article for me to leave it alone. Steve Dufour 23:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a crazy consensus. Quatloo 23:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this article reach a stable form so I don't have to spend so much time watching it. (Ms Schwarz asked me to check it out since she feels its purpose is to attack her.) Steve Dufour 23:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Can fellow wikipedians tell me if the following edit violates WP:BLP:[8]

If it does can you please quote the part of WP:BLP that it violates? A wikipedian has reverted the edit citing "BLP" concerns. Thanks in advance.Bless sins 01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, I would say that the edit may have given a disproportionate amount of space to critics, which is a BLP violation. It's not a slam dunk, though, and I think further discussion is needed. The material should be left out during this discussion. Sarcasticidealist 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have left it out during discussion. But I would like discussion to take place on this as soon as possible.Bless sins 21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you and others quote the part of WP:BLP that determines what constitutes "a disproportionate amount of space to critics" and disallows it.Bless sins 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)The first place to look is at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. As part of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy, it's incorporated by strong reference in the second sentence of WP:BLP: "must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: Neutral point of view". Further down, under WP:BLP#Criticism, it is addressed in more detail:

Recognizing what constitutes a disproportionate amount of space, obviously, requires some individual judgment and consensus amongst involved editors. We are urged to construct BLPs conservatively and reminded that "[a]n important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". --Moonriddengirl 15:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that most of my edit constitutes of listing facts. If facts are notable (in this case they are because they were published by TIME) and undisputed, then I see no violation of BLP in adding them. Please compare that with Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais where a third of the article is devoted to critics discussing his alleged statements. Bless sins 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This administrator [9] has added what I think is libelous comments about Tom Cruise, Justin Timberlake and Wentworth Millar. Should this be allowed?

I think he said that he has suspicious that those people are gay. He didn't say that being gay is a bad thing. Lol.--Tasc0 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what matters is whether there is the potential for the living person to find it to be a bad thing. Lots of people consider an allegation of homosexuality insulting. What is more, since Cruise and Timberlake both have extensive and public histories of being in sexual relationships with women, calling them gay is also calling them, by implication, deceptive (towards themselves and/or their partners). My understanding of WP:BLP is that the comments should be removed, but I'm not nearly confident enough in my position to risk a revert war over it. Sarcasticidealist 05:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments. I don't think they are particularly harmful in this context, but one of the points of clearing talk pages is to avoid these things being picked up by search engines. The discussion is gratuitous, in my opinion. -Jmh123 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

The only thing notable about Eric Robert Hume, James Kovalesky and Harry Kirk Elarbee is that they're accused in Europe of being CIA pilots who ferried Khalid El-Masri into CIA custody. (No word on whether the janitor's name has yet been determined.) The source appears to be Sourcewatch, which is another wiki. Sourcewatch's article does have some real sources, but I don't think they're substantive enough to be making such charges against a living person, particularly when this is the sort of thing that could change that status. -- Randy2063 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP1E I don't think any of these individuals warrant articles at all. Quatloo 05:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I tagged each article for speedy deletion as each three-line "bio" is poorly referenced and exists only to make an accusation against the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh123 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Drac2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Background: Sharon Weinberger is a journalist who wrote a book on the topic of nuclear isomer weapons in 2006. The book described how a researcher, Carl Collins, received a large amount of money from various government sources to pursue claims that were eventually deemed fabulous by a large portion of the scientific community, notably the JASONs. Collins and his wife have spammed her amazon page and created a site, [10], consisting mainly of rambling diatribes. He also has a history of using sockpuppets on blogs and forums discussing the subject.

Anyway. User User:Drac2000 is a single-issue editor, only editing topics related to nuclear isomers to defend the concept. He has two main objectives for the Sharon Weinberger page: to remove the link to her homepage and to insert the claim that her book is "fictionalized." His source for this claim is a link to Collins' website. My interpretation of this claim is that it is libelous, as it implies she knowingly misrepresented material to produce the appearance of non-fiction. Drac2000 insists on this phrase instead of merely calling the book controversial. He also has some frankly bizarre semantic argument about how this is not a defamatory statement but I don't understand it. // Bartleby 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what can be done here. If the homepage is hers, it can be linked in the EL section even if it contains material that is dubious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Her homepage isn't dubious at all. That is why Drac2000's removal of it is so bizarre. Sorry if I was unclear, but the main issue is his claim that her book is fiction. Bartleby 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Such claims have to be based on a published and reputable source and attributed to the person that makes the claim. If that information is not forthcoming, delete, delete, delete! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jennifer Garner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

DCBA-25 has violated the 3RR by repeatedly reinserting a link into the Jennifer Garner article three times in five hours [11]. The link contains a website which is self-published by DCBA-25 and contains unverified claims of Garner getting her ears "pierced", along with photos that were taken from numerous Garner sites and Photoshopped by the site creator to give the appearance of "pierced" ears. She also uses an article which she claims to have obtained from a British magazine that claims she got her ears "pierced" [12], but I searched the web for proof of this magazine and found no proof of its existence, leading to the conclusion that she created the "article" herself.

The site contains self-created research and clearly falls far short of meeting WP:BLP and verifiability and its link should be removed and kept off of the article. Creativity-II 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the person adding the link is the same person who created the website, or that the website in question contains any Photoshopped images, as can be verified by comparison to identical pictures held by other websites. Also, not all magazines do have a web presence, so it is possible that some may not show up in web searches. Your conclusions therefore are simply an unsubstantiated personal opinion, and the link has been restored. Gidz 13:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — Gidz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A page hosted on Geocities is not a reliable source, most especially not for otherwise unreferenced BLP material, and on principle should not be allowed in a <ref> tag on a BLP article. As to the magazine, if the magazine cited in the link were a WP:RS compliant source, one would expect that it would have been cited in other Wikipedia articles or elsewhere on the web, causing search results to appear even if the magazine itself is not online (which is actually pretty unusual for most current publications of any note.) When searching for "Hot Style magazine" in quotes, there are exactly three Google hits, none of which are about a magazine of that title. The link needs to go. --Darkwind (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

John Bockris is a tenured professor who has made many controversial claims, and I personally don't think much of him. But his article is an inadequately-sourced hatchet job, and I think it could invite problems in its current form. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out some of the uncited statements. There is still a negative tone which I don't think is needed. The facts about him speak for themselves. Steve Dufour 18:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it's fine now. Thanks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Passent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) In the polish version of the article is a sections entitled "Oskarżenia o współpracę z SB". It is to a large extend based on speculations and hearsay and as such may lead to legal problems. Nirrod 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Michael E. J. Witzel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Long-running dispute about whether a sentence that says he has an "anti-Hindu" bias, based on an op-ed piece, should be included in the article. Previously mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#More_eyes_needed_on_Michael_E._J._Witzel; current details are at Talk:Michael_E._J._Witzel#Sandhya_Jain_material. // --Akhilleus (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Piece by Sandhya Jain has since also been supported in an article in the Oakland Tribune [13]. Akhilleus keeps claiming violation of BLP to delete these properly referenced sources which meet WP:BLP and WP:RS criteria. Both the Oakland Tribune and the Daily Pioneer are mainstream newspapers with editorial oversight. Kkm5848 06:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"has since also been supported"? The Oakland Tribune piece is dated Jan 30, 2006, which was around the time of the Board hearings and before the issues went to court. Sandhya Jain's column in the Pioneer was on July 24, 2007 [14], long after most of the dust had settled. rudra 11:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, I deleted two articles about supposed CIA pilots who took part in an abduction, because the only source was a Wiki, which is by definition not a reliable source. The author of those articles has complained on my talk page, requesting undeletion... and he has given better sources, but they aren't in English. The claims about these two people, that they are involved in some big conspiracy/crime, seem to be exactly the kind of thing BLP exists to deal with... so I'm reluctant to undelete, given the apparrant nonexistence of sources in English.

So, if possible, could I get an outside opinion here? --W.marsh 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to tack on a rider here, if I could. I deleted one of the pages by the author as well, and as he wants the article posted as a subpage, I can't in good faith do so because it could very well be an attack page as German is not my forte. the_undertow ^talk 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A is a featured list. However, there are several people listed who are not referred to as "gay", "lesbian", or "bisexual" in any listed source. The first example I found was Christina Aguilera. The source listed notes that she kissed a woman in a media event, and said women's lips were soft. The article did not refer to her as gay or bisexual, and she has never referred to herself that way. No source claims she is gay or bi, and no source claims she has ever had sex with someone of the same sex. I claim that calling her gay or bi is OR, and could be seen as slander by some people. I removed her from the list, but my removal was reverted, and the page was protected (with the unsourced allegation kept). There are probably many more people listed who were never called gay or bi in reputable sources. (Jane Adams, for instance, is listed; however the source given specifically does not say she was gay or bisexual, but only that she had a long-standing friendship with a woman which was probably non-sexual.) What should be done? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone should scrub these and delete everyone without a source. THF 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they all have "sources" -- the problem is, some of them have sources that don't support the statement that the person is gay or bisexual. I've looked through the first 20, and Jane Adams and Christina Aguilera are the only problems I've seen so far. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since lists are often used as an alternative to categories, I am inclined to apply the BLP criteria for the use of categories to lists. That might be considered a bit harsh by some. - Crockspot 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists should agree with the articles, IMHO. The issue is also popping up at List of bisexual people, so a solution is needed. Maybe WP:LGBT should be alerted too, since that list is sort of their major brainchild. Circeus 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that sexual orientation is rarely related to the reason that a person is notable. Simply listing people by purported sexual orientation makes just about as much sense as listing people by hair colour. The only individuals who should be on this list would be ones whose corresponding article describes their sexual orientation, and the reason that it is noteworthy. I tend to agree with Crockspot, though; a category makes a bit more sense rather than a list. Risker 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not being heterosexual is normally considered unusual enough to make such lists pertinent,but this noticeboard is not the place to argue over this. Circeus 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Risker's point, being Polish or Mormon is rarely related to the reason a person is notable, yet we have List of Poles and List of Latter Day Saints. In any case, I don't seewhat objective determination we could make as to whether a person's notability is related to their nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other defining characteristics. So long as we have adequate sources I don't see a problem with these lists as they are. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, unsourced allegations should be quickly deleted, it seems to me, and especially so in sensitive topics like this. It's especially complex for sexuality. One British MP was apparently a closeted homosexual -- after his death it was revealed that several people saw him at gay bars with attractive men, and one man claims to have been his lover. But he never called himself gay, and his family objects to the characterization. Another comedienne had a romantic relationship with a lesbian, but calls herself "straight". Another actor claims "I'm a bisexual who has never been with a man". These are are actual cases, by the way. The source for one woman casually mentions that another woman is her "life partner", but doesn't go into any detail on what that means. It's very thorny, and it's especially difficult because of the negative stigma that many perceive. I've kept all those cases listed, but I don't know where to draw the line. The Christina Ag case is pretty clear-cut, but others aren't. Keep in mind this is a featured list -- the best that Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Christina case is by no means clear cut or we wouldn't be having an argument on her talkpage. All of these people are sourced with reliable sources about their sexuality, yes it is "sensitive" to some, yes, it is complex, but you seem to think we just found the first available source and chucked it in, when we have spent months, literally, looking for the source that says it clearest and most succinctly. The cases you have all mentioned above are fine, people in relationships with same sex, people who have come out regardless of their relationships, someone happily mentioning their same sex partner without feeling the need to say "yes, she's my life partner, we're both gay and have gay sex together, because we're gay" (which as far as I am concerned is a good thing). If you wish to slaughter the article because of some perceived stigma, that's your problem, not the problem of the people on the list, and certainly not the problem of WP:BLP. We're not making accusations, we're not inferring, we are placing people on a list and providing a source for other people to look at, sources that WP:LGBT considered convincing. And as that's what we do on Wikipedia, I rather think we ought to be congratulated for hunting down 113 separate references, not hounded because not every person on the list didn't say "I'm here, I'm queer, and I'm fabulous!". We have to face the reality that it's precisely because people's sexuality can be a sensitive issue, something people don't want to explicitly talk about, we're not always going to get the perfect source, the interview with the Advocate, the news article covering a civil partnership, sometimes we get sources we might not be best pleased with, but that doesn't change the stark truth that it conveys. Of course we observe WP:BLP, you will not find Jodie Foster, Tony Slattery, or Kevin Spacey on our list, even though we all know who they are. Just because a source isn't as top notch as we would like it (and believe me, if every LGB famous person lined up to tell the Advocate they were LGB, it would make my life SO much esier) doesn't mean we're trying to make people gay. But if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and has a reliable source stating it to be a duck... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So. . . Ms. Aguilera has never referred to herself as gay or bisexual. . . no reputable source has ever referred to herself as gay or bisexual. . . and no source has said that she has committed an act that would be unambiguously gay or bisexual (e.g. had a romantic or sexual relationship with a female). And yet she is listed as "gay or bisexual" in a featured list, due to some editor's interpretations of her comments. Am I the only one troubled by this? Isn't this just the sort of thing that could lead to a libel suit against the Foundation? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quadell, you know very well what a fatuous statement that is. You know that as a host, as long as the Foundation promptly removes libellous material on request we can't be sued for libel. You know that being referred to by a different sexual orientation than one's own is not in any way defamatory. And you know that Christina Aguilera, even were she straight, would not be so utterly outraged by claims she is bisexual as to drag a not for profit to court for everything they have. That's just stupid, and you know it.

And you should know, to judge by the numbers of times I have now told you, that one does not need to explicitly refer to oneself as gay or bisexual in order to be so, or have a relationship with the relevant sex. Michael Stipe is bisexual, but refuses to define himself as anything in protest of labels. Similarly Jim Carroll. There is no difference in the eyes of Wikipedia between someone who says "I like both girls and guys", and someone who says "I'm bisexual". In terms of categorisation, they are the same thing. I have provided you repeatedly with quotes where Christina Aguilera makes explicit reference to being attracted to both men and women. The entry which you so abruptly and nonconsensually removed from List of GLB people/A was cited - and in fact that citation had been changed during the FLC to a more explicit comment in order to satisfy the FLC reviewers: and they were satisfied. So your gumpf about how we shouldn't be allowing this sort of thing in an Featured List is so much straw, because that entry was explicitly endorsed in the FLC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect on a number of statements. First, we absolutely can be sued for libel even if we promptly remove it when it's brought to our attention. WP:BLP does not allow us to keep potentially libellous information just until someone complains. Second, many people would find it defamatory to be called homosexual or bisexual, and there have been many successful defamation suits brought for that reason. And thirdly, just because FLC didn't spot the problem, that doesn't mean BLP should ignore it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly does BLP says that that all information that could be construed as libellous, even when it is reliably sourced to the subject's own words, needs to be removed immediately? Please point that out to me, that's sounds a fascinatingly silly idea and for the life of me I cannot find it it anywhere in WP:BLP. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you put it as "reliably sourced in her own words", you wouldn't list her as bisexual. I know two different women who look at soft-core pornography of nude women as a sexual turn-on, but both adamantly identify as straight. I know a gay man who has occasionally had sex with women, but would be quite offended if someone calls him bisexual -- and I don't think Wikipedia should be applying a sexual label to anyone that they object to, unless the use of that particular label is sourced. Look, here is an entire page of letters from gay men who like to watch cunnilingus porn. You or me or some random Wikipedian might judge "he's not really gay, since he gets turned on my watching a woman receive oral sex", but it's not a judgment that belongs on a Wikipedia page unless it's sourced. There's no source that applies the label "bisexual" to her, and we shouldn't be the first. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, one could easily see Bob Allen or Larry Craig listed on the same list. Even though neither member of Congress has ever referred to himself as "gay" or "bisexual", and even though no reputable news source has ever said they were gay or bisexual, a Wikipedian could reasonably claim that "straight men don't solicit anonymous sex from men in public restrooms" and place them on the list. But this is the exact sort of thing that WP:BLP was created to prevent. How is the Christina Aguilera case any different? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they've both denied being attracted to other men! Larry Craig's article has a long quote from him specifically denying he is interested in other men! Bob Allen claims he was in that bathroom because he was scared of the other guys in the park - at what point in either of these men's lives did they say "I think it's hornier staring at men more than women", or "God, I love experimenting my sexuality - men are so hot"? Do you see either of those two men on the list? But Chistina Aguilera DID say that about women and I am starting to be utterly mystified why you're repeatedly ignoring that fact and babbling about lawsuits; Aguilera is not going to sue us for pointing out she said she is attracted to women! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, I know we disagree, but let's try to keep this civil. I think that we shouldn't call someone "gay or bisexual" unless they have referred to themselves that way, or unless a reliable source has referred to them that way. It's really very simple. I don't think it's prudent to put people on a list of bisexuals based on your interpretation of "these bisexual-sounding comments mean she must be bi". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "I find women more horny than men" is bisexual sounding at all, but then I've said this to you four times already and there's no point rehashing it again. I'm going to bring it up with WP:LGBT and open the debate on the matter. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Quadell, you're saying that a person must use the words "I am bisexual" in order to be considered bisexual, right? The question Dev is asking is - how does "I'm attracted to both men and women" differ from "I'm bisexual"? Do they mean the same thing?

On that same issue, if we were to require the words "I'm gay", we'd have to remove everyone listed that lived before 1914 when the word was first used to refer to orientation. That doesn't seem right, as I'm sure most people would agree that Lord Byron was bisexual, even if he never said the word. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a subject must say "I am bisexual" in order to be listed. I'm saying that a reliable source must refer to someone as bisexual for the person to be listed as bisexual. If no reliable source says it, we shouldn't be the first. Even if you made exceptions for those cases where the person has had relationships with both woman and men (documented by reliable sources), Ms. Aguilera still wouldn't count. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this list troubling. First, while being labeled as gay does not upset me at all, some people do not share my open mindedness and would consider being labeled gay offensive. Some people could legitimately argue that being labeled gay could cause actual damage regardless of whether is it offensive or not. Consider an assistant to a conservative politician who could be fired from his/her job.

Second, being gay is a state of mind. I'm not debating if you are born or decide to be gay, but I'm saying that unless you can read someone's mind you cannot determine if they are gay or not. If you see two men having sex, it does not mean they are gay, even if the both agree that it was pleasurable. Certainly kissing another woman does not make you gay. I'm not clear on how this whole list is useful at all, and certainly putting people on it just because someone thinks the person is gay is plain stupid. People should be placed on the list if they have made a documented declaration indicating that they are gay. (Equivalent statements would be fine as long as they are not ambiguous.) Doing it based on observations, or hearsay is improper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Temp432 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a report on user Dseer using the Adi Da Talk page for constant denigration of Adi Da and publisher ( Dawn Horse Press) , putting long strings of poorly sourced rumor , hearsay and negative propaganda into every sentence he writes user -202.63.42.221 (me) has consistently asked him to desist as per WP:BLP with no effect, could someone kindly point this out to him, and look at archiving or removing offending material

Adi Da Talk --202.63.42.221 09:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No courtesy notice of these charges was given. Several editors have requested via RFC without results on the Talk Page that User 202.63.42.221, an advocate for the controversial guru Adi Da and his organization Adidam, not overload the article with flattering information sourced only from organizational materials which are self published and self serving. User 202.63.42.221 considers information from published newspaper articles and other secondary sources which present a more balanced and less flattering view of the leader and his group "rumor, hearsay and negative propaganda". As a result, User 202.63.42.221 engages in rampant editorializing and mischaracterization, such as this complaint from the talk pages about using more balanced, secondary sources: "What difference does it make how well sourced the material is , if it has an over-weighted negative impact on the whole article? And in truth the refs are good by WP standards but the articles themselves are appalling , nothing more than sensation seeking scandal mongering ( and at the time riding on 1980's anti guru and new religion hysteria ) , the today show report is a terrible example of biased reporting , absurdly so Why would anyone want to promote this tabloid style reports as fact? Why would they not see them for what they obviously are in 2007- an embarrassment to ethical journalistic standards."[15]. Such misunderstanding about BLP and editorializing about the so-called "tabloid" Today Show and newspapers like the SF Chronicle is inappropriate for an editor when affinity with the group and proponent editorial actions does raise clear, Conflict of Interest concerns. User 202.63.42.221 also does not wish to acknowledge the implications of the sourced and proven statement that Dawn Horse Press was founded to be and is simply a publishing and promulgating arm for the leader Adi Da and his organization, and is not an independent publisher. While I have systematically provided sources backing up my statements on talk, User 202.63.42.221 makes broad charges, but has not. --Dseer 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The charges by editor 202.63.42.221 are baseless. He's confused about the difference between article and talk page guidelines; nothing Dseer said at Talk:Adi Da violated WP:TALK. IMO, editor 202.63.42.221 is simply upset, and understandably so, since a lot of work that he put into Adi Da has turned out to be noncompliant with WP:SELFPUB. Still, this isn't the proper way to air his grievances. A wikibreak would probably be a better idea. Comesincolors 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well we can always reverse engineer this - Is it ok to write huge rant style long strings of negative material on the talk page of a living person ? If it can't go in the main article because it is derogatory and poorly sourced, is it ok to put it on the talk page then ?

From WP:TALK

Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.[1]

and here

Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people.

again here

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space

That seems to be a resounding no to me, but again would like to hear from a non partisan editor(s)

If non partisan editors think I am in error (with reasons given ) will happily drop this report.

--202.63.42.221 10:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

202.63.42.221's position is based on being an advocate for the subject of the article, whose biggest claim to public notoriety is in fact the widely reported negative information from the 1980s which 202.63.42.221 is most concerned about. 202.63.42.221 should note WP:COI before such making such baseless charges. Self-published Adidam material, with its extraordinary, contentious and extravagent claims about the subject, may be positive, but is simply very poorly sourced and questionable advocacy (even WP:FRINGE) material, and should not be given undue weight in an encyclopedia or even on the talk pages. Whereas, well sourced but negative information about the subject, such as that widely reported in reputable news sources, which 202.63.42.221 improperly editorializes as being "an embarrassment to ethical journalistic standards", is in reality better sourced and more NPOV than anything else, is perfectly appropriate for sourcing and discussion, represents the majority opinion regarding the subject, and deserves commensurate weight, despite being in conflict with 202.63.42.221's personal beliefs regarding the subject. Discussions regarding improvement of the article must take this into account regardless of the impact on advocacy for the subject. 202.63.42.221's baseless charges, and apparent violations of WP:COI, repeated mistatements of the import of WP:BLP, flagrant violations of WP:SELFPUB and WP:FRINGE in assessing relative weight of sourcing, and the admission of WP:OWN [16] violations, warrant dimissal of this "report" with prejudice.--Dseer 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• What you written above has nothing to do with the purported violation, try and keep it WP:Civil Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress and on topic , rather than attacking me as your defense.If you think (which you obviously do , otherwise you would have removed the content you added already) the material you added to the talk page does not contravene these points listed above , I am willing to go through and strike out the text I think fits these criteria and you can then argue to keep it if you wish , again within the strict criteria of "Biographies of living persons-WP:TALK that means no "soapboxing" personal views (also)WP:SOAP --202.63.42.221 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reports of 202.63.42.221's violations of WP:COI, WP:SELFPUB, WP:FRINGE, and WP:OWN, are relevant and based on sound evidence, unlike 202.63.42.221's claims of incivility and BLP violations. I'm simply trying to restore NPOV and compliance with Wikipedia given 202.63.42.221's repeated violations and extreme bias towards the subject. 202.63.42.221 got no support during the RFC, but pursues a shotgun approach, accusing others of incivility, soapboxing, and personal attacks, while (without notice to other involved editors) trying to remove unflattering SF Chronical articles [17]. Now, 202.63.42.221's response to notification of seeming WP:COI is not to comply with WP:COI, but to non-collaboratively announce that "I am willing to go through the text and strike out the text I think fits these criteria, and you can then argue to keep it if you wish", yet another flagrant WP:COI and WP:OWN violation under the pretext of WP:BLP. 202.63.42.221 should comply with WP:AGF and WP:COI instead of trying to artibrate for us all self serving and selected interpretations of Wikipedia policy. I again ask that this report be dismissed with prejudice based on the evidence and apparently pretextual BLP claims which none of the other editors has supported.--Dseer 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read over the talk pages and I don't see what BLP issues are involved there. So long as talk page (and article) assertions about living people are sourced there is nor reason to avoid mentioning negative info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• West Coast Ryda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This user seems to not understand or read the official guidelines of Wikipedia about citing reliable sources and living persons.

I have encountered this problem in not only this article, but in very few. This is the situation: I remove the unsourced material from the articles, the user spots this and somehow he doesn't like my action and revert it. He explain his action with something similar like "you can't remove the article because there are no source". Or "just put the unsourced template and let people find the references for their self."

I have warned the user and told to read the official guidelines, so this is really the last option I had because it seems he just won't get it. He made some type of statement of this problem in my talk page. I really did not understand what he wanted to say there.

Let me include just some of the articles: 213 (group), Young Noble, Raw Footage, B.G. Knocc Out.

I had another problem with this user, he created the article Westside Slaughterhouse that is a song from the rapper Mack 10, the song is in Mack 10's album. This artists is a member of a group which the other two members are featured guests in this song. I think that as being a song from a solo artists featuring two other guests it's not necessary to put the group's template. What I spoke with the user is that the three members are not in the song as the group, but he just keep adding the template. I don't know if the user may think he owns the article or what. It's getting into an edit war.

I know the above problem may have nothing to do with living persons, but I just don't know what to do and if any administrator takes action in both problem I would really appreciate it. Thanks.--Tasc0 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: searching around, I encountered with this two messages between two users: User_talk:Dead_Wrong#Report_User and User_talk:Real_Compton_G#Reporting_a_user. In the first one, it's clearly that the user Real Compton G it's ready to participate in an edit war no matter what are my true reasons of removing certain material.
  • I do add an explanation on the edit summary every time I remove unsourced material. In fact, I only have a few "empty edit summary" in my edit history.--Tasc0 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Is it me, or Dead Wrong is personal attacking me in User_talk:Real_Compton_G#Reporting_a_user?--Tasc0 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I only said you made a stupid comment when it wasn't needed, I was talking about the DJ Pooh AfD. None of the other stuff was supposed to be a personal attack either (I was talking about editors in general), and if you think it is, too bad, shouldn't have posted that comment in the first place (I never even said anything to you, but you had to be a smart ass). --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, i don't think he is - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not stupid or blind, i see the guidelines and understand. But you can't just remove all the biography because it doesent cite sources. What u left out is actually that this is Name Name and he is born this year and just a discography.

Another thing when it is a group what u left out would be "NAME" is a group who was founded by bla bla and they released .... and a discography then end everything. For me your just a disgrace to edit in wiki rather than help u just keep removing stuff because doesent cite sources. Not a personal attack but that's what i think. U think u know the right edits but they are all annoying which adds nothing but just removes. West Coast Ryda 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not only assuming bad faith and personal attacking me by saying I'm a disgrace. You are also saying what I'm not aloud to do according your point of view. If an article has no reliable sources and it happens to be the 90% of the article, then according to the official guidelines and policies this should be removed.

Basically, you're telling me what to do just because you think it's right. I do understand your point of view and I'm trying to have a NPOV here. But, sadly for you, there are certain guidelines you just have to follow and me too. If you don't like, and it appears that you have read and understood them, I guess your better choice is to leave Wikipedia. That's just what I think if someone does not agree with the rules and don't respect them.

You may find annoying my edits, but it's what the official guidelines say it's right.--Tasc0 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But "things" stating like the group appeared on this music video etc.. shouldn't be deleted. Because no sources is needed for such things and it is stated many times in the 213 article. West Coast Ryda 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that information is considered as encyclopedic content.--Tasc0 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: WP:REF#When adding material to the biography of a living person, WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material--Tasc0 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• The user West Coast Ryda keeps adding unsourced material to the article as can be seen here. The user has been warned several times through the edit summary; also in his talk page.--Tasc0 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The user removes the warnings diff.--Tasc0 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating me/my account

Please read this message. It is relevant and actions should be taken. What the hell is this?--Tasc0 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. listed on AfD

Does this article violate WP:BLP? Corvus cornix 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources look reliable, but the article should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS and/or WP:COATRACK. 1of3 01:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

This bio of a religious scholar cites no sources, though it is fairly detailed. There are many publications in a bibliography, but it is my impression that they are not sources for the bio itself, but rather a list of the subject's publications. --Pleasantville 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Does not seem to be a BLP violation. You can improve the article by finding additional sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

A particular user persists in adding a section claiming that Pérez de Cuéllar was witness to an alien abduction, referenced by a non-credible source. Per Wikipedia policy controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. The user in question has not responded positively to discussion on the article's talk page. HiramShadraski 19:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced trivia has been deleted. If the user persists, please report at WP:AN/I. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the names of people convicted of offences. Theses offenses were subsequentlt quashed. There is a BLP spat going on. I do not see a problem. Please advise. Aatomic1 21:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Falls under WP:BLP#Privacy of names. The names of most of the people were not widely disseminated. They add no context to this article. Their names were not included in secondary sources such as the book about the organisation Harry Kirkpatrick belonged to, only in news coverage at the time. Some notable people were involved, and there's no problem with them being mentioned. There is also confusion about the number of people involved in addition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has a very hostile tone to it. I can imagine that its purpose might be to incite someone to go out and kill the guy. I'm not sure how to handle that, for one thing I am using my real name here. :-) Steve Dufour 09:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is acceptable for the opening sentence of a WP bio to say that the subject "turned supergrass." This was put back after I removed it. Steve Dufour 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

At least this is now corrected. Still, to me he seems to border on being a person known only for one thing. Steve Dufour 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Steve, if you google Supergrass Trials you will hopefully see the signifcance of the term Supergrass and hence the notability of thoses informers involved (Wiki's current coverage is not great and Supergrass alone will only give you information on the Rock Band). In addition to being an informer, Kirpatrick also killed five people. Aatomic1 07:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't question that he is a bad person. I just question the motivation for the article. Steve Dufour 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given my opinion of the article, here and on its talk page. If no one else wants to get involved I don't blame you. Have a good day. Steve Dufour 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not a professional writer, neither am I a great cultural critic, but I am simple man, who might be insulted too easily. The page of Gustav Schäfer, same as other pages of members of Tokio Hotel, is insulting my subjective intelligence. As i said, i am not too smart, naeither am I a musical snob. I'm not a fan of Tokio Hotel, but I have nothing against them as a money machine with some talented kids. What is humiliating about this page, and maybe i'm too radical, is that as aspiring musicians, the page defines their style, and i quote -Style Georg's style consists mainly of casual jeans and tight t-shirts . His hair is shoulder length with layers, and he straightens his hair daily. or "Personality and Style Despite favouring skateboard-orientated brands, such as Element and Vans, it is unknown if he participates in the sport at all. He is also known to wear an extensive collection of Metallica T-shirts on various occasions.

Gustav is the only member of Tokio Hotel who needs glasses, and he can sometimes be seen in interviews wearing his fashionable, square, thick black frames. Although he reputedly drinks on occasion, Gustav is the only band member who has expressed a dislike for the taste of alcohol"

these pieces of extra information (which is, if you ask me, not really important, unless you want to make clones of the band, and you define your prototype) might be OK as extra information about their lifestyle, but as i see it, i can't see Muddy Waters' "Style" as being defined - "second hand cloths from pawn shops and cheap tobacco, wearing old shoes". It is just not serious, it's an immediate slope to what is Wikipedia's worst nightmare - making people dumber. It's a back door entrance to ignorance and i think it should be considered. MarkRabWegner 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if these are BLP violations, but the fact is the article is unreferenced and poorly written. I removed all irrelevant, unreferenced material. -Jmh123 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for deleting the article, then there would be no need to worry about it. Steve Dufour 09:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What's left is not worthy of an entry. Perhaps a merge to Tokio Hotel??? -Jmh123 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected Schäfer and another band member with Tokio Hotel. Two twin brothers who are the other two members have a more extensive bio (one bio for both) and lots of activity on their talk page so I left those alone. Some editing could be done there as well: Bill_and_Tom_Kaulitz. -Jmh123 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Paul Danan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While our most egregrious slur on Mr. Danan has, after a month of publication, been removed,[18] the rest of this mostly unsourced article is distinctly unflattering. I believe it should be deleted to protect Mr. Danan from further attack.Proabivouac 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletions are taken care of in WP:AFD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came close to speedying it myself after removing another insufficiently sourced, negative comment, but concluded I don't know enough about the topic to make the judgment. AfD is not the only vehicle for deletion when an article suffers from supervening BLP concerns. With the egregious comments removed, I believe this one can remain for now, but hopefully the writing and sourcing of the article can be improved quickly. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at google news shows there are enough good-quality references to make at least an adequate article. He's most famous for being in Hollyoaks, a long-running soap. He was also on Celebrity Love Island, but was the least well-paid of the celebrities,[19] which reflects that he's not a huge star. Hollyoaks and Love Island are broadcast on C4 and ITV, which are in the main 5 UK channels, rather than an obscure digital channel. My opinion is that the article just requires more sources. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think everything is sourced now - shall I remove the {{BLPsources}}? --h2g2bob (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The current entry on Sultan Catto is a travesty, it is riddled with whole cloth fabrications, misinformation, bad judgement, and bad English. Your article glosses a career that is thoroughly unremarkable. The article's very existence is inexplicable. I have watched this entry go through a series of completely misleading revisions. In the current version, which is by far the most moderate, one can easily identify misrepresented information with little effort.

First, fabrications: Professor Catto is not the author of over a hundred publications. He is according to the Spires database (http://slac.stanford.edu/spires/) the author or co-author of 28 papers. Many of them are unpublished or appear in proceedings as talks based on previous work. His citation record is unremarkable. I invite you to study the list and see for yourself. If this is not a complete list, has the author of the entry seen and confirmed such a list to substantiate the 100+ claim?

Catto is not a professor of physics at Rockefeller University. He is an adjunct faculty member there.

Have you checked to see what his precise relationship is to the Krumb School of Mines at Columbia? I don't think there is anything to it, but check.

Second, the misrepresentations:

The Benjamin W. Lee prize is a prize given to a student at the annual summer school held in Erice, Italy every year. I was a student there myself and I know how the award decision is made. It is not based on the brilliance of one's work. It is based on (supposedly) the quality of one's participation in the school. There are around ten prizes handed out each year to student participants. The Nobel Laureates who, we are told, thought Catto worthy of this prize were probably speakers at the school that particular year. They presumably awarded the remaining prizes named after various physicists to other graduate students and young postdocs in attendance at the school. Isn't it an elementary journalistic duty to check the accuracy of such a claim and to see if there are other recipients who can confirm the existence and basis for the prize.

What is the "prestigious Josiah W. Gibbs fellowship" your article speaks of? Who else has been bestowed the same honor?

I seriously doubt the statement "He is widely considered to be one of world's leading authorities on higher dimensional algebraic structures". How do you substantiate something as vague as this. Is there a person you can quote who remotely thinks this? I very much doubt it.

Third, bad judgment, bad English:

Why Catto? There are physicists far more brilliant and influential at CUNY than Catto.

In its many revisions, the article maintains fanciful, unsubstantiated relationships to everyone from the Tolstoy family, to Pushkin, to all other manner of connections that show a remarkable level of credulity as well as lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the author - what are the sources for these connections? Even in its current manifestation, an irrelevant connection to a soccer star is mentioned along with the fact that this person "played for Cosmos with great Pele". Even the soccer star's own entry makes no mention of playing with Pele.

The article is riddled with bad English: the style, grammar and spelling show a lack of scholarly seriousness. Just two minor examples: the word "monogram" instead of "monograph" appears in the entry, as well as the aforementioned "[he] played for Cosmos with great Pele".

In conclusion: This article concerns a rather irrelevant physicist and contains statements that are at best misleading and at worst fabricated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.86.7 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears there are some ownership issues going on here, and possibly a WP:COI. Steve Dafour's tag regarding subject's notability was immediately removed. There are few sources for the claims made. -Jmh123 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also a substantial copyright violation of this source. I should remove the copyrighted information immediately, but given the active monitoring of the page will take the lesser path of noting issues on the talk page. If the material is not reformulated, I will remove it, unless somebody scours it before I do. --Moonriddengirl 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that large portions of this article have been written by someone with a personal relationship to the subject. If some citations don't show up soon, I'll start taking out the unsubstantiated assertions. The only reference for any of the personal info is the subject's personal bio at CUNY, and that's probably written by the subject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan Catto --h2g2bob (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've pruned the vast majority of the unsourced biographical content, and found a reference or two for his current CUNY position. Not everything else is checked yet. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean Salisbury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — I'm concerned about the "Controversy" section in this article. The cited sources are blogs, except for the CBS Sports entry, which does not mention Salisbury's name. A relevant Google News search comes up empty. This New York Post column (see the last section) appears to confirm the Deadspin report, and I've added it to the article. However, since we generally don't rely on blogs, particularly for something controversial like this, and since the Post column doesn't mention the specifics of the prank, I'd be grateful if other editors could review it. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned it up to this:

In the fall of 2006, Salisbury was suspended by ESPN for one week, for alleged misconduct at ESPN.[1]

That is really all the Mushnick source says, anyway. • Lawrence Cohen 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ipankonin raised some concerns on the talk page, and it's such a smallish group of people working there I wanted to air it out here to make sure nothing is missed. As mentioned in this section of the talk page, the Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations#Blackwater USA Background section, is a possible BLP violation. Would more eyes be willing to take a look at this, and at this article? The background section was intended as just that--a short background on Blackwater USA for this article, so that someone could gain all the relevant info on the subject contained in Blackwater USA arms smuggling allegations without having to click anywhere else. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any BLP issues there. Could you be more specific? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please read the background section on that article, then this on the talk page. I agree there is no BLP issue, but I think I'm explaining correctly to User:Ipankonin on talk there. Would you mind helping? • Lawrence Cohen 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw no problems either. I did some work with the references just so the sources would be immediately clear to anyone glances at the reference list, and checked them out as I did so. They all appear to me to be compliant with the guidelines of WP:NPOV, verifiability, and reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh123 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The concern was WP:SYN, mentioning political office holders in an article about a crime when no source put the two together. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it applied, since that paragraph was about Blackwater USA the company, and it's owner, Erik Prince, not any alleged crimes (keep in mind as a sole ownership company in America, Prince functionally 'is' Blackwater, so it's fine to mention him as well here). Simply mentioning an innocent, uninvolved politician in a background section of an article about someone's possible crime doesn't implicate the uninvolved politician. If (pure fiction), a mayor named Jeb Smith was accused of running iguanas illegally, in Jeb Smith iguana smuggling allegations, it would not be wrong or harmful to mention that Jeb Smith's brother is George Smith, US President. • Lawrence Cohen 06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As Blackwater as a company is being investigated, information about the company--including potential COI issues--is relevant, but it doesn't appear to me that these individuals are being associated in any way with this particular accusation; the section is clearly marked background. -Jmh123 06:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem relevant to me. The information isn't even in the lead section of Blackwater USA. It makes me wonder why somebody chose to insert it. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)