Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive35

I have been trying to include some contentious information into the Michael Ledwith article for some time now. Editor Dreadstar has been advising me on sources and content, and I have done my best to get the best sources possible. RTE is the state broadcasting company in Ireland, and therefore I would look upon them as a reliable source. The talk page in question has the details. Dreadstar has asked that I come here and ask someone else to judge the legitmacy of the source and therefore the information. There is also the issue that the relevant information is contained in the Ferns Report, however, while that was commissioned by the Irish Government, it has not been published by them other than in hard copy, and so the best sources are ones such as [1] I understand that Wikipedia tries to err on the safe side to prevent libel etc, but surely when this issue has been broadcast by RTE, and is published in a "freely" (for a fee) available document, no libel can be committed? I will let the matter drop if the general concensus is to refrain from adding the information to the article.r011in (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify one thing, online sources are not required on Wikipedia. If you can get hold of a copy of the report (from the library or pay for it) to check it you can cite it as you would a book etc. However....

The report (assuming online versions are accurate copies, which I expect they are) does not verify the edits you have made in the past. The man had allegations made against him, he denied them, the police did investigations and decided not prosecute. In one of the two cases, the report clearly indicates that it was a false accusation. The fact that these incidents have not been published in other media (apart from one radio program) confirms my thinking that this is not a notable aspect of his life. BLP policy says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records...--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." There are not enough third party sources to make this a notable part of this man's life. Don't include it.--Slp1 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, your point is taken, I will wait for due process before re-visiting this issue.r011in (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Another editor previously started a section on Mitt Romney here at this Noticeboard. However, I have a different and narrower question. The Mitt Romney article presently states: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879." Doesn't this quoted sentence give the strong impression that Mitt Romney's religion condones polygamy? If so, this quoted sentence seems grossly misleading, and seems to be a BLP violation. Even though it is factually accurate, it takes information out of context. None of the reliable sources mention the great-grandparents' polygamy without also mentioning that the Mormon Church hasn't condoned polygamy since the nineteenth century.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see a problem. Lobojo (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo, according to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890."[2] If a Wikipedia article further spreads that misconception, why is that not a problem?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Smearing Mitt Romney, by implying that his religion supports polygamy, is disgraceful, and I wonder if there could possibly be a better example of a BLP violation.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP means that info must be sourced and presented fairly, this info is sourced. As for fair presentation, how does "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884. This was after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879 and prior to the LDS' ban on pologamy in 1890." Then sourced info is presented, and any hint of implication is removed. Mbisanz (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mbisanz, that would certainly be much better. However, the BLP policy says that normal procedure is: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." The appropriate thing here would be to pare back the protected article by removing the disputed material. Then when the article is unprotected, there may turn out to be a consensus for including the material you suggest in the first section of the article, although many editors at the Mitt Romney talk page have objected to having polygamy of paternal great-grandparents in the first section of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt here. It is a true interesting pertinent fact, that isn't even remotrly damaging to him. It is also presented fairly. Lobojo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it fair to falsely imply that Mitt Romney's religion condones polygamy?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I would agree that as it is now, I have no objection to its presentation, I was simply suggesting an alternative. Its similar this statement inEisenhower#Religion "All the men in the household abandoned the Witnesses as adults, and some even hid their previous affiliation" which could be seen as a shot at a religion, but for the fact it is sourced and adds to the context of Eisenhower's religous beliefs. No thing implies that Mormon's condone polygamy, it is merely stated that it condoned it at a specific time in history.Mbisanz (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We agree that there is nothing the slightest bit misleading about the Eisenhower article, so why bring it up? Regarding Romney, if a Wikipedia article says that a person's religion condoned something, then the obvious implication is that the religion still condones it, unless the Wikipedia article says otherwise.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This controversy about the Mitt Romney article has basically been settled, as of yesterday.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can an sdmin please sort this out!!

See this diff. Users are repeatedly adding material from a far-right Israeli attack site that attacks Aviner for his acquiescence to the 2005 Gaza evacuations. They are also adding spurious smears sourced in that site which imply that he sexually abused some of his congregants. Lobojo (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear at the moment. I'll watchlist it for a bit, though I might not be able to recognize more subtle vandalism due to lack of familiarity with the subject. Certainly I can help keep the attack site out. ---Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left him advice. When you say "repeatedly" can you provide all the diffs? - Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This time, I'm making this request as the private citizen being openly and persistently defamed in two Wikipedia articles, and not as a sometime [amateur] Wikipedia editor. Please see this for a good introduction to the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Jordan_Smith_as_Civil_Rights_Activist Jsmith 51389 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no defamation in the article linked to. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While the inaccurate and defamatory comments some of the articles linked to (there are several...which one are you talking about?)have been mitigated somewhat...it is Snocrates' choice of words and innuendo which has become the most defamatory. As I explained, he insists on referring to the 1990 incident as "vandalism" and "arson" while excluding any reference to "civil rights protest" or "protest" or "prophecy." I feel like I'm repeating myself, but thanks for having a look. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks right. I checked some of the sources, and it appears (as usual) that Snocrates knows what he's talking about in Mormonism. Is there any dispute over his identity? Cool Hand Luke 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) No, there is no longer any dispute over my identity. And I know what I'm talking about in Mormonism too...before he tangled with me in this, Snocrates commended my knowledge in Mormonism...and he hasn't even seen most of the good edits I've made to LDS material over the years. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says, "On January 1, 1990, Jordan Smith, a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) who had recently joined the LDS Church set fire to the church building on the Temple Lot.[8][9][10][11]" It's unclear to me whether Jsmith 51389 is denying this.

Jsmith isn't denying that. Jsmith is denying the accuracy of most of the 'mainstream media' reports of the 1990 incident, and Jsmith is strenuously denying the innuendo inserted in the article and on the talk page, by Snocrates, and some others before him. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the second and third of the footnotes do not support the quoted sentence. The second and third footnotes merely say that he was "charged." If he was convicted, then an online source saying so ought to be included if available.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would it have to be online? It just needs to be verifiable. I see your point about conviction though. How about this from Newsbank:

MISSOURI MAN CONVICTED IN TEMPLE LOT FIRE Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) January 19, 1991 "A 26-year-old man has been convicted of breaking into a historic church in Independence and setting it ablaze.

A Jackson County Circuit Court found Jordan Smith of Independence guilty Wednesday of second-degree arson and second-degree burglary. Jurors recommended that Smith serve four years in prison on the arson charge and one year on the burglary charge. Sentencing was set for March 1.

Smith earlier testified that he torched the 88-year-old Church of Christ (Temple Lot) on New Year's Day in 1990 on an apparent directive from God.

He said his dreams the night before convinced him that God wished him to make a public point.

``At all times, I felt I was obeying a higher power, Smith said.

He said he used a cigarette lighter to ignite parts of the church.

Officials saved many church documents and artifacts, but the structure was destroyed.

Cool Hand Luke 23:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If online links are available for footnotes, then why not use them? "Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant."[3] Verifiability is facilitated by links.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we always use links when available, but sometimes they are not. I doubt a reliable online source exists for his conviction, but reliable print sources are fine. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we agree (see my last two words).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[Note: the following reply was written before I saw Cool Hand Luke's reply timestamped 23:49 UTC 10 December 2007.] Now we're talking! You have obviously looked closely at the situation. In the specific instance you raise, the 2nd Deseret News link does say he was convicted. But again, that is not the problem with the article. The problem with the article as it now stands is that it intentionally avoids any mention or reference to the 'First Amendment' or 'Civil Rights' issues involved--thoroughly involved--in the protest, and in its aftermath. For more examples of what I believe the article to be sorely deficient, please read those two 'hurried' examples of what a more comprehensive explanation of the 1990 protest should be like. It is possible that if his name must be included in a public Wikipedia article, then by default the protester may need or deserve a separate article about him, even though this is not his preference. Anyone who interviews Jordan Smith in a formal capacity in regards to the January 1990 incident, will be the first to do so, ever. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any sources for this though. Frankly, it looks like self-promotional crankery to me; comparing Jordan Smith to Joseph Smith, and so forth. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then if it is self-promotional crankery, then any reference to the incident and the protester should be removed from Wikipedia, right? Wrong. The protest did happen, the protester's name is Jordan Smith, and you should quickly move on from any dismissive mischaracterizations based on your opinions of this or that religion or its adherents. IMO, it is not the duty of Wikipedia editors to judge the relevance of religious beliefs, it is the duty of Wikipedia editors to report accurately on an incident, and more especially, on a person or persons involved. Jsmith 51389 (talk)

Thank you all, for your replies. I probably should go ahead and try and make myself more clear, here. I am Jordan Smith, and the number "51389" is the date (May 13, 1989) when I was baptized in the LDS Tabernacle. I neither threatened nor harmed any person before during or after the protest on January 1, 1990, nor was it an anti-government or anti-Christian protest. I am not racist, or separatist, as Snocrates' inclusion of the Joplin Globe article's title, suggest. On the contrary, I protested racism. I protested abusive religious fanaticism....and was promptly branded an abusive religious fanatic by the local press. Things would be so very different if just one single reporter for one single media outlet had interviewed me. What I think may need to happen is that someone ANYONE (a Wikipedia editor?) interview me, either in person, over the telephone, or perhaps in an email series of questions and answer. And THEN....the report that is generated from that information could then be posted somewhere online, and then cited and linked to in the Wikipedia article(s). This is speculation on my part...I didn't just now state what I think is the solution, here. All I know for sure is that the status quo is unfair, inaccurate, and a violation of the spirit and letter of WP:BLP Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you apparently haven't quoted anything in a Wikipedia article that is false or misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure I have, multiple times. A misleading item which precipitated this complaint is

Snocrates' original headline for this thread-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Jordan_Smith_as_Civil_Rights_Activist --was "Jordan Smith as vandal." That is an example of a misleading statement. The article is about "Jordan Smith as a protester" ....claims and characterizations of vandalism and arson are incidental to the protest, not the other way around. Why are you comfortable with a Wikipedia article not explaining what the protest is about? Why are so many people comfortable not having the faintest idea why the heck the protest happened? From my perspective (university-educated, majored in journalism, humanities and anthropology) it's very strange that there are so few inquiring minds, in this. Fortunately, there is at least one other experienced Wikipedia Editor who DOES understand the situation. Otherwise, it would feel like I was on another planet where no one understood anything I wrote. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be saying that the article is undue weight because it doesn't mention him as a visionary and civil rights leader. However, the above paragraph suggests that no sources exist because no one in the media ever talked to him. I've warned him to stop editing on this subject unless there are reliable sources. If he doesn't, I'll block him. Any editors who disagree should talk to me. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to you, on my talk page. You have requested no specific sources, even though I have offered (in the preceding comments) to provide verifiable sources. What claim would you like me to substantiate? Incidentally, I haven't described myself as a "visionary" or "civil rights leader," but merely as a 'civil rights activist' who has said and done some prescient things. Just another example of disparaging innuendo, and not facts.Jsmith 51389 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial comment in this thread spoke of being "defamed" in Wikipedia "articles." Articles are not the same thing as talk pages. And defamation requires a quote of something false or at least misleading. Mr. Smith says that "claims and characterizations of vandalism and arson are incidental to the protest." I think it's fair to say that an arson conviction is not "incidental." I agree with Cool Hand Luke and Orange Mike. The article may be crummy (or not), but I see no defamation in it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This dispute seems to be well in hand, and I don't really want to get involved in the debate any further as I've found my attempts to reason on certain talk pages have not been useful with the complaining editor (who — confusingly for me — has apparently been operating under a number of usernames over the past week or so, including User:CH 82 and User:Ftr (for the record), as well as some anon IPs). I should note, though, that I had no ill intent in my edits and I've tried to simply report what is found in the newspaper articles about Jordan Smith's conviction, etc. Apart from this incident, I don't know Jordan Smith from a hole in the ground and I bear no personal malice or grudge towards him, and that was not in any way a motivation for my edits. I thought calling someone a "vandal" when they were convicted of "vandalism" would not be controversial on a talk page — I was only trying to be clear and communicate the content of what I was writing. Snocrates 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly for me to say, Snocrates is right (and Ferrylodge) when he says "this dispute seems to be well in hand. Speaking for myself only, this thread can be stamped "resolved." Here is what I wrote in reply to Ferrylodge, before seeing Snocrates reply, above:

You know what?...I think you may be right...and have offered the advice which can lead to a conclusion of thread. You're right, there is not a defamatory quotation in the Wikipedia article....two of the linked articles include rebutting information...and my preference that the article contain more info about the protest may be only that: a preference. This all started because I was appalled at Socrate' wording on the Talk Page(s)...but then again, I think he posted that early on, before he realized there was more to the story...I will only be concerned if an 'edit war' ensues and someone insists on mischaracterizing the protest as an act of mere vandalism. Instead, IMHO, it was an act of mere Iconoclasm. :) Jsmith 51389 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but iconoclasm is not the same as conviction for vandalism. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Although user appeared to be satisfied by this discussion, he proceeded to edit Snocrates' talk page comments, resulting in reversions, another dispute, and this user's demand for Snocrates' legal name, among other things. I issued a warning, and user continued his dispute below at #It's official: I'm being 'wiki-stalked'. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

bias writing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.242.11 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing on this article is very bad, which is a particular problem since some of it is contentious. Presumably, editors are adding information they've heard on the broadcasts, but some citations are needed for this. I have trimmed the article of some of the more egregious violations, but additional eyes would be much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I ran across this article while tagging for WP:MilHist. The article is unreferenced at this point and basically calls the guy a terrorist. While it seems like the article may have a point, it needs references and I don't speak Portuguese. Can anyone lend a hand on this one? Burzmali (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on sourcing. Dutch would be the more useful language, though. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced everything except the sentence at the most recent trial. It's somewhat difficult, as I don't read Dutch. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a far cry better than it was. It's always good to know wikipedia won't be showing up on Fox News for calling the President of Morocco's brother a terrorist or something ;) Burzmali (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My recentmost exchanges with 'Snocrates' and 'Cool Hand Luke' are at the bottom of these pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jsmith_51389
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot

(ref. WP:STALK and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:STALK#Wikistalking ) Could a BLP specialist please prohibit Snocrates, Cool Hand Luke and any or all others from perpetrating and perpetuating libel and libelous innuendo about me in Wikipedia articles and Talk Pages and Userpages -- or please refer my case to the appropriate administrator ASAP? I won't have time to 'watch' the pages in question, I need protective measures taken by someone else, I'm at wit's end. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your statements - you are involved in an editing dispute, but that was addressed already [4]. What have Snocrates and Cool Hand Luke done since that that causes you additional distress? I'm afraid that they have merely been including cited information from reliable sources. Re. allegations of stalking - I don't see evidence of deliberate, continued, harassment.

Michaelbusch (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for checking things out. I am not involved in an 'edit dispute' per se, I am a private American Citizen who has been libelled by print media in the past, and am currently being libeled in Two Wikipedia articles (so far). Please do NOT regard my complaint as that of a Wikipedia Editor. I am only a Wikipedia Editor on the side. I am a private citizen who was libeled 18 years ago, and now, more than one Wikipedia Editor/Administrator has decided to perpetuate the libel, persistently ignoring and deleting FACTS about me, preferring to publicly post malicious allegations about me, instead. Mine is a 'textbook case' of what WP:BLP cautions against, as well as what WP:STALK cautions against. If the founder of Wikipedia became aware of this situation, he would be appalled: Editor after Editor joins the fray, only to decide to go with 'first impressions' and continue the libel/defamation/slander of a living person. To answer your specific statement: Evidence of deliberate, continued harassment can be seen at my Talk Page, its archives AND in the Talk pages of the two Wikipedia articles devoted to 'Temple Lot' and 'Church of Christ Temple Lot." Previously until recently, I have had to 'hide' behind multiple usernames, in an attempt to prevent my legal name from being slandered/libeled. I have given up on that tactic, and am willing to pursue redress under my birth name, and complete straightforwardness. Please help me, or refer my case to someone who can. Thanks. Jsmith 51389 (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked this user indefinitely for 24 hours, and have also blocked his sock puppets User:CH 82 and User:Ftr (for the record). A quick peek at Snocrates edit history shows that he doesn't know this person from a hole in the ground and is certainly not stalking. Being a good wikipedian, Snocrates reproduced a newspaper account when someone (presumably Smith) kept removing references to the arson of the (fairly notable) Temple Lot church in 1990. (This structure was on the ground that many Mormons believe a temple will be built which will eventually be where Jesus Christ returns to the earth). The source shows that a one Jordan Smith was convicted of the arson in 1991. That user has strongly objected, brought the BLP, and has edited Snocrates' comments, while berating him for not giving his legal name. User felt that the article was not fair, apparently because it doesn't depict him as a civil rights protester and visionary, not unlike Martin Luther King, Jr. or Joseph Smith, Jr. [5] User posted almost exclusively WP:AUTO, advancing fringe views about himself that appear to be original research. I warned user repeatedly, and ultimately banned him for harassment and disruption. If anyone wants to mentor this user, be my guest, but user does not appear care about building an encyclopedia to me. Cool Hand Luke 06:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE

Someone has posted this vandalism at the Temple Lot Talk Page.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temple_Lot&action=history (CAUTION: don't click on the URL the vandal provides...it shows a mutilated corpse of some kind.)

I don't have any idea who did that but I certainly have an idea of what 'attracted' the vandal to the Temple Lot page. (by the way, I'm the user CoolHandLuke banned for 24 hours, he banned me because he didn't want me to request assistance here, and he doesn't want me requesting accuracy in the articles).

Undoubtedly, there is more where that came from, unless urgent measures are taken to bring the article in compliance with strict Wikipedia guidelines...which guidelines are fully intended to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

For the record, most of what CoolHandLuke states in his comment above is false, as even a cursory glance at the relevant edit history would show. For example, no one ever tried to remove mention of the 'the arson' from the article. Snocrates never reproduced a newspaper account (what's that mean?)...and what's a "fringe view"? Anyway, I'm not going to argue. The vandalism added to the Temple Lot talk page brings things to a different level than me pleading in vain for BLP Wiki-editors to please protect me from an administrator who is harassing me, and getting virtually no response except for that same administrator continuing his harassment in plain view, right here, in this thread in which I asked for assistance. (ref. WP:STALK and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:STALK#Wikistalking )

Dicey situation (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - Dicey situation appears to be a sockpuppet created by Jsmith 51389 to evade Jsmith 51389's block, and has been editing Jsmith 51389's talk page to remove warnings and notice of block sanitize comments and maintain the talk page (see [6] and two other edits). Please forgive me if I've made an incorrect deduction in the heat of the moment, but to me this indicates that Jsmith 51389 is not taking his/her short-term block to heart and is instead perpetuating the dispute even when blocked by editing in bad faith using a sockpuppet. Suggest ban of this sockpuppet, and extention of Jsmith 51389's 24-hour block under the circumstances. Wikidemo (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have 'made an incorrect deduction in the heat of the moment': I clearly admit that 'Dicey Situation' and myself are one and the same, and I correctly allege that the 24-hour block by 'CoolHandLuke' was unjustified, and that his false allegations involving my name has contributed directly to my name being posted on the worldwide web in conjunction with photographs of chopped up dead people (I don't know for sure, I didn't look closely at the horrifying image which comes up when you click on the link provided by the vandal at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temple_Lot&action=history. _

I am, and have edited in 'good faith,' for example, if my posts here were in bad faith, I would not have openly admitted that 'dicey situation' and I are the same user, and I would not have openly admitted that I had been blocked for 24-hours, and only chose another username because of an urgent emergency situation...which I also clearly explained. With all due respect, this is insanity, and not on my part. I don't want to hear about this or that completely-garbled interpretations of the situation, and reference to a growing list of "options for wiki-editors" supposedly at my disposal.

I have learned these options are NOT available to me, in large part because of the willful slander and irresponsibility of at 'CoolHandLuke' and his pal 'Snocrates' (by the way, Snocrates told me on the talk page he was going to 'give things a rest'....and then fifteen minutes later, he posted a provocative complaint on 'CoolHandLuke's' page (check it out, please), and that caused my harasser 'CoolHandLuke' to come right back aboard my UserPage and this BLP noticeboard, posting the same slander and misinterpretations as he had, earlier. I have been in private communication with the one Wikipedia editor who helped me during an identical 'dispute' last August...but I can tell by her most recent reply to me, that the complexity of the situation is finally "over her head" too. Bottom line, people, what would you think if libelous defamatory information generated 18 years ago was repeatedly inserted in a Wikipedia article, and then when you attempt to correct the information with verifiable sources, you're scoffed at as a " naive and irresponsible Wiki Editor"....meanwhile your privacy and that of all your family is suddenly being compromised in the worst possible way. How would you like it if it were your name in this link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temple_Lot&action=history

Again...with all due respect, you have COMPLETELY mis-read the situation, and are invited to study the edit history more fully. I don't know what else to tell you except, please, please, any Wikipedia editor or Administrator with any kind of decency please refer this urgent situation to the appropriate Administrator. Ideally, and OTRS should be emplaced (as it was early last August, before an administrator in the Wikipedia Foundation literally confused me with Joseph Smith, Jr. and his son Joseph Smith III (b. 1832 d. 1914), and told me I didn't have a legitimate complaint, because they're dead. If you think I'm exaggerating as to that incredibly ridiculous bungle, I can refer you to both the public and private comments made by that administrator.

'CoolHandLuke' approaches the same kind of errancy....for example, he states in the comments above, that the Temple Lot is where Mormons believe the Second Coming takes place. Check page history for Temple Lot and you will see that on Dec. 2 (or 3) that I (under username CH_82), added an explanation that Mormons do NOT believe, nor have ever believed, that the Second Coming takes place in the U.S.....Mitt Romney was challenged with the same misconception, and a U.K. Telegraph article clears it up....Snocrates DELETED the edit and citations...and ten days later, his pal "CoolHandLuke" echoes here the same false rumor about Mormon beliefs as I had tried to correct in the article. Snocrates and 'CoolHandLuke' evidently are not LDS (at first I assumed they both were), and under the guise of 'experts' on the topic, are conducting outright harassment of one or more LDS persons.

I am a living person with an urgent complaint. Please do NOT deal with me as if I am an amateur Wiki-editor...that is only incidental to the problem...I have repeatedly tried to assist and help the situation, and at NO POINT, EVER, tried to delete mention of the protest from the Temple Lot articles. It is Snocrates and 'CoolHandLuke' and some others, who have REPEATEDLY tried to remove verifiable, accurate, non-defamatory information from the articles, mainly because they have a 'vendetta' not against me, but against the bizarre non-factual characterizations of me in a single local press report 18 years ago. (most other inaccurate reports have simply plagiarized or 'cited' that original press report, without question, and without any research whatsoever).

It's a Kafkaesque nightmare, and I will be very grateful if you can help resolve the problem, and not exacerbate it.

Jsmith 51389 (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"How would you like it if it were your name in this link?" I would not like it at all. I've removed that link from history because I think it is indeed a BLP violation. There's no reason for what that banned user did. I wish you would appreciate that no one is stalking you.

Neither my nor Snocrates' religious affiliations are pertinent here, although I did notice your threat to have the LDS Church investigate me and imperil my salvation.[7] To emphasize again, we are not harrassing you. Snocrates simply posted a 1991 newspaper account of the arson and Jordan Smith's conviction. Please stop your harassment. Stop demanding Snocrates' legal name, and stop using wikipedia as a forum for your original views. See WP:SOAPBOX.

Once again, we do not rely upon our own original research here. See WP:OR. Cool Hand Luke 19:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As the "infamous" Snocrates from this dispute, I'm willing to stand by Cool Hand Luke's summary of the incidents in the section above. Cool Hand Luke and I are not "pals"; I know him as much as I know "Jordan Smith"; I turned to him for help only when Jsmith 51389 started editing my talk page comments. I did this because he was an admin familiar with the dispute and I didn't know what to do when an editor started changing my own comments. Anyone can review my edits at Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot); I have always tried to only include information that is published in verifiable sources. I've recently given Jsmith 51389 the benefit of the doubt and let him include information that is probably WP:OR on the condition that a {cn} tag be attached to it, but now other editors are beginning to remove the uncited WP:OR that I originally wanted removed, which I think partially, at least, vindicates my past approach. Snocrates 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of questionable claims in this article, and I am unsure of which version is "neutral" (free of said claims). VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 14:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to WT:BLP. That is the correct place to discuss that policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article claims that she is a thief. I am having difficulty finding a reliable source. I tagged it ^{[citation needed]}. The trouble with some references is that they quote wikipedia. These can't be used because then WP makes up an alleged fact, other website copies WP, then WP uses that website as a source. Spevw (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I rushed into action and found several UK newspapers who confirm that she "borrowed/stole" a recorder, at the tender age of 5. I will head on over to the article to add the refs.--Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP had already added a ref, to which I added another. Solved, I would say.--Slp1 (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a group of people that continue to add speculative information regard Elizabeth Kucinich regarding her tongue peircing. Not to mention that I believe it fails BLP issues in general for giving undue weight towards what is nothing more than a triva fashion statement. I ask for some guidance regarding this issue as I keep removing because I feel it violates BLP and general rules regarding undue weight not least of which it is purely speculative in its phrasing. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is not speculative. It currently reads as follows:

She has a tongue piercing. When asked if she would remove it in the event that she became first lady, Kucinich replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so.[2]

Footnote [2] provides a source, an article published in The Independent, a recognized British newspaper, at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3174387.ece, which reads in pertinent part:

But her tongue stud was exactly the thing that the interviewer wanted to focus on. Would Elizabeth take it out, she asked, if she became First Lady? "It's been there 10 years, it's part of me now," Mrs Kucinich replied with as much grace as she could muster. Could she give the audience a peek, came the follow-up question. "No I can't," she answered flatly.

--TJRC (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is speculative, it is dicussing future events and has no context within the scope of the article in general. Arzel (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even a separate article? I don't see any reason why it couldn't be merged with the article on Dennis Kucinich. I don't see any separate notability here. *** Crotalus *** 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually agree, but... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Kucinich --TJRC (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRYSTAL - Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, Arzel, I think you're misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. The phrase you're quoting means, for example, that we shouldn't have articles on movies that might get made, or on elections that might happen, or what have you. Having articles on people in which we include sourced speculation on some element of their futures is fine (see, for example, the couple of dozen articles on U.S. senators in which we report on speculation surrounding whether they'll run for President). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how having a tongue peircing is in anyway comparable to that of runing for president. I don't think you are interpresting WP:CRYSTAL correctly. Future events should only be included if they are notable and almost certain to take place. Whether she has a tongue peircing is certainly not very notable. Whether Kucinich is elected president is very unlikely, thus it does not satisfy the requirement. Arzel (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Earl Paulk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Piles of questionable material and frankly I'm not that invested in addressing it all by myself as I'm not that familiar with the subject and would like others more experienced with bios to lend their expertise in addressing the issues. Any help appreciated. // Benjiboi 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blimely - I'm also not familar with the subject but that article is a lawsuit waiting to happen - crack BLP stormtroopers need to spring into action. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Contains this "It is believed that the cancer attacked him in retaliation for his god-awful elevator music." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.24.189 (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Plain vandalism, and seems to be gone now.--Doc^g 11:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User Hdxstunts1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hdxstunts1 has created a series of articles on the Cavanaugh family, alleging criminal activity. None are properly sourced. One article, George Cavanaugh was deleted as violating BLP. The subjects of the others may be dead (Francis Killian Cavanaugh is unclear) but other individuals are mentioned who may be alive. User:Hdxstunts1 has also uploaded several photos of the subjects of the articles that are claimed to be PD from US Government but no specific source is given, so it is not possible to verify that they are indeed the persons named. User:Hdxstunts1 has blanked notices recently place on his talk page asking for better sources.--agr (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the images as unsourced and deleted Francis Killian Cavanaugh as a BLPvio. I've not reviewed the rest.--Doc^g 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• May Pang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article seems to be in bad shape, with missing citations and citations to poor sources. It needs attention. A banned user, User:Sixstring1965, has edited it, so everything needs checking. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Chad_Douglas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Article provides no reliable resources and is written in fan-site style. Should be deleted. // 74.73.106.239 (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that a newbie's mention of specific living people by name, in an attempt to identify the birthname of this TV personality who uses a pseudonym, may have crossed the line as regards WP:BLP. While I'm clear that an unverified/OR-based claim is unacceptable in the article, of course (and have so advised the anon IP), out of an abundance of caution I'm wondering if even the mere mention of these names on the Talk page ought to be deleted from the history? JGHowes ^talk - 06:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the messages of concern from the current talk page, but it's still here JGHowes ^talk - 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to pursue Wikipedia:Oversight? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Have emailed RFO JGHowes ^talk - 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some serious issues with this article. While the accusations against Marc Dutroux himself may be fine, the article also hints that there may be some sort of cover-up due to the involvement of the royal family, politicians and top bankers. At least two politicians are named. None of this appears to be reliably sourced and I'm somewhat doubtful it can be reliably sources since the article suggests it's an alternative theory ignored by the mainstream media. Some of the accusations appear to have been made by Marc Dutroux so these can probably be mentioned provided they are only attributed to him but the article definitely needs work Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the material. The whole article could do with better referencing, but that part was egregious. Without solid refs we should not include conspiracy theories, and we certainly can't make accusations against specific individuals in the absence of compelling evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the entry for Enrique Fainchtein. The username was created solely to create this article, it appears, and there are serious POV issues with the article. Writer deleted the tag once, but may be a newbie error. The article itself may not even be notable, but I'll let others decide. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've AFD'd it but I've got half a mind to blank most of the content until the sources can be more fully investigated - let's be in no doubt, that article is written by someone with a grudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no disagreement here. Let's see if others agree.

Interestingly, check out the entry directly below - got speedy deleted for basically the same reasons...

Ψν^Psi_nu 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Romney article is becoming a WP:COAT for those that despise the Mormon Religion. User Qworty continues to add negative comments about previous Mormon practices to this article. Arzel (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits are in reference to George Romney, Mitt's father, who has been dead since 1995. Since the content dispute is not about a living person, it cannot qualify as a BLP issue. Further commentary, for those who are interested, can be found on the talk page here: [8] Any input you might care to give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's still a WP:BLP issue, as it's about the subject father in the article of the subject. Secret ^account 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The three subsections labeled “controversies” were originally removed by myself because there was no indication in any of the citations of an WP:RS calling these controversies or commenting on the controversial nature of the material, and as such fail the WP:BLP guidelines. My edits were reverted by user:Will Beback, who then later changed the title to “Notable”, although no indication was given on the notability of these other than to say they had been “noted”. Some of this material should be rolled back into the article, but much of it either does not meet the sourcing requirements for a BLP or the notability for inclusion into the article. Comments. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on this talk page has gotten out of hand and I think some of the comments may violate WP:BLP. Discussion of the credibility of sources is necessary, but some of the still-living sources have been accused of supporting or engaging in serious criminal acts, and these claims are not at all adequately supported. *** Crotalus *** 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Still happening here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if people could keep an eye on this article, a user Special:Contributions/Hereward77 keeps trying to add the various crimes of the Red Army for what seems to be pretty obvious political reasons on his part (he implied I must be a communist for disagreeing with him...). I doubt we are going to go round listing the crimes of all the armies that everyone's grandfathers served in so we should not accept it on this article either. Another user Special:Contributions/Phase4 seems intent on including info on the Lockerbie bombing (which he seems to spend most of his time concentrating on) despite the fact Miliband has made no comment on it whatsoever. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute over the Red Army info has been resolved: see Talk:David Miliband#Compromise_proposal, and I have asked for an uninvolved admin to implement the agreed compromise and to lift protection on the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted Barbara Schwarz per the BLP policy as formulated by Jimbo Wales: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"."^[1]
The Barbara Schwarz article is in violation of these policies and several other parts of WP:BLP. It shows no regard for privacy. It does harm. It pains and embarrasses its subject. Please note also that the article is under article probation per the COFS RFAR case. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

• I endorse this deletion - this is just a poor rather batty woman. We don't need to do this.--Doc^g 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• I took out the link to the article at Barbara Schwartz, which justified the article on the Guiness-book-like claim of "most FOI requests." Well, that's no good. "Tallest dwarf" and "shortest giant" and "most boogers flung" are not appropriate as notability, and this is in addition to the BLP issue. Geogre (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is now on DRV as WP:DRV#Barbara Schwarz. Please comment.--Doc^g 10:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rielle Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - the main allegation is sourced to the National Enquirer, but is clearly defamatory and probably has a political purpose. // JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sbeyewitness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Removing sourced information, while claiming to be "removing incorrect information". I've reverted, as much of the information is clearly sourced by reliable sources or her own publications, but I want a cross-check to see if I may have been violating WP:BLP by restoring some of the information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review the article on Ward Churchill. The writing is extremely subjective and and biased. The article make a number of unsubstantiated claims and refers to this author of several classic books as an "activiist." Not to mention the ridiculous "ethnic background" section. It certainaly brings no credit at all to Wikipedia and at the very least should have one of the warning labels on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheryl Hanna (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the article looks like an attack piece. And there is a lot of "argued" and "claimed", both of which are bad signs. This needs a thorough going over by someone who will not only try to fix it, but stick around to work on consensus about how to handle this. A controversial figure, in the most meaningful sense of controversial (many supporters, many detractors). - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I edit on Wikipedia as User:Cberlet, and in real life have an entry as my non-Wiki identity as Chip Berlet. For several years, editors who have disputes with me on entry pages, or editors who disagree with my politics outside of Wikipedia, have gone to my entry as Chip Berlet and added negative criticsm. I do not object to negative criticism on my entry page, what I object to is allowing editors to add criticsm out of spite or to punish me for edit disputes or my outside political work. In the past Arbcom has ruled that attacking my user talk page or real lfe entry out of spite is not acceptable. Now it is happening again. A pro Lyndon LaRouche editor, Terrawatt, after calling me an Internet Troll during a dispute on the LaRouche-related page National Caucus of Labor Committees, then quickly went to my entry as Chip Berlet and added a nasty paragraph of criticism. See here. Over time this keeps happening. Drive by insertion of criticism. Despite the fact that the overwhelming number of reviews for the book I co-wrote, Right-Wing Populism in America, were positive; the only significant quote on the book is negative on my entry page. This is just unfair. The page is very unbalanced. I really would appreciate an even-handed NPOV approach to this matter.--Cberlet (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Cberlet on this. Obviously, the LaRouchie's dislike their critics, Berlet's work on them is well documented and has been critically well-received. Letting them attack him here is absurd. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bob Cornuke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I am not up on BLP, but it seems that this article should be of some concern. Specifically, it appears that original research may have been done to make the guy look bad (in trival ways). For example, citing claim by the subject that he had thought of something in 1988, but then citing another primary source who claimed to have done something similar in 1984. The implication is that Bob Cornuke is a liar (and he may or may not be)....anyway, advice on how to proceede? // TableManners ^U·T·C 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this schoolteacher was convicted for a series of sex offenses (easily verified by a cited source, and multiply verified by a Google search). But is this really of encyclopedic notability? It's been in the Seattle Public Schools. I first noticed it because I didn't like the tone of the section it was in. For the rest of the section, I think I fixed the tone. This, I'd be inclined to just delete. But I'm trying to avoid my completely taking over that article, to which I've made most of the recent edits.

If others here think this paragraph should be dropped, please go for it. If not, could someone work out how it should best be handled? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'd like to ask you for some clarification. Why do you think this is a WP:BLP concern? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is a discussion on Talk:Walt Disney about Walt Disney sexually abusing children. I don't really know if the BLP policy covers such a discussion on an article's talk page or not. Could someone with experience with these issues please take a look? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It covers it, but only for living subjects (being cryonically frozen wouldn't count, even if Disney really was). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the thread. WP:BLP may or may not apply, but WP:TROLL does.--Doc^g 23:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to edit the entry on Laurence Pagnoni. I placed quite a few links to his affiliations and neutralized the tone so it is not self-serving.

How can we move to get rid of the "This article needs citations" box at the top of the entry?

The article entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_A._Pagnoni Jakilevy (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, actually you've introduced many external links but not references which offer a source that affirms whatever is being stated. They are similar but not the same. See reliable sources as you're on the right track! Benjiboi 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cezanne Visser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Article is currently in the PROD-deletion process. Nominator states "Extreme BLP concerns, non-notable indivdual, no sources for assertions." The article is about a criminal defendant in South Africa defending against charges of sexual abuse against minors. I am unfamiliar with the level of tolerance for the BLP tone exhibited by this article. Your looking at it would be appreciated. // User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a hideous BLP infringement, full of errors, with no real assertion of importance. Thanks for reporting this, and please do bring such things to our attention.--Doc^g 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

• List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Since the deletion discussion of the Dominionism template, this BLP violating list has sprung up. Of particular note and BLP concern is the "Usage not embraced by the subject" section where a number of people and organizations are listed that do not self-identify with the pejorative Dominionist label. // Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: Someone came in and did some preliminary work on removing the BLP offending material. Unfortunately a particular admin came in and rolled it back. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A student group is not a sufficiently reliable source for controversial allegations about living people. I attempted to remove the lists from both List of people and organizations associated with Dominionism and TheocracyWatch but the former was reverted. *** Crotalus *** 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • TheocracyWatch is not a student group, so far as I know, but a research project at Cornell University. The article on TW says nothing about being a student group. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The potentially libelous material has once again been reinserted. Can we please get some action? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And the poorly sourced material was once again reinsterted. This is my third request for assistance in patrolling this and related articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Again, I point out that no reliable third party sources have been put forth beyond the agenda driven TheocracyWatch which does not have any editorial or peer review structures in place causing it to not meet the criteria for a reliable source. It is merely self-published potentially libelous material being posted on a website. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a blatantly false statement. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Because I say so" isn't a compelling argument. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The material that Kyaa is calling "unreliably sourced" comes from (a) a Cornell University project with an editorial board that includes a lawyer and a professor, (b) the New York Times, (c) Rolling Stone, (d) Molly Ivins, and (e) journalists who are acknowledged subject matter experts. In addition, the article does not assert that these people are, as a fact, dominionists, it merely reports notable opinions. Kyaa has also admitted on his talk page that his objective here is to "shake the tree". He is clearly acting in a disruptive and tendentious manner. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that these sources do not actually say, in so many words, that the individuals in question are Dominionists, certainly not for all individuals listed here. Under both WP:NOR and WP:BLP, conjectural interpretations of sources are specifically prohibited. Unless a reliable source (and I am still not at all convinced that TheocracyWatch qualifies) SPECIFICALLY says the people in question are Dominionists, it has to stay out. Our policy is extremely clear on this. *** Crotalus *** 00:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced article, with severe BLP problems at the moment. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

re-deleted as non-notable and BLP violating.--Doc^g 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Koenraad Elst (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There are major WP:BLP attacks against pro-Hindu author Koenraad Elst. One user (Paul_Pieniezny (talk · contribs)) claims that Koenraad Elst has the same stance on immigration as the Vlaams Belang, and Dbachmann (talk · contribs) claims on the talkpage that Elst is a neo-nazi or neo-fascist by any other name.

The facts are that Elst has written that he has helped foreigners to integrate into Holland, that he has written that he has nothing to do with racism and xenophobia, and that he is not anti-Muslim (although he is anti-Islamic). I have added quotes on the talkpage that describe his stance on this: Koenraad Elst talkpage Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

bogus report. Referenced criticism isn't a "BLP violation". dab (𒁳) 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a bogus report. Please add any further discussion on that talkpage. I have criticized Paul's claim of this: he has often defended the party's stance on immigration, and of this: Since this event, he has often been considered the party's specialist on Islam and its link with the new Pagan Movement.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I don't say "alleged" because I completely doubt the person is who they say they are, rather I don't know for sure and thus I don't want to say it absolutely is the subject making the request. The subject article is Arash Markazi, a columnist for Sports Illustrated, and the situation happened thusly: (1) an anon account blanked the page (no clear IP identity from a WHOIS), (2) ClueBot immediately reverted and placed its generic "sorry if I'm wrong" tag, (3) I have the article on my watchlist, so I saw the vandalism and replaced ClueBot's tag with a lower-level warning to not delete content. Last night I received an email that alleges to be from Arash Markazi, simple and to the point: "Hi Bobak, I hope all is well. Is there anyway to delete my Wikipedia entry?" Since this was only a day after the anon IP blanking, I realized it could possibly be related (or an elaborate hoax by someone who doesn't like Markazi... some sports fans can be extreme). The email included phone numbers to call him, but before I replied (or called) I wanted to first check and see if this is even possible --and it if is I'm not sure admins can decide so on their own. Would he have to contact the foundation? I'd like to have a fuller answer before I reply. I'm thinking to initially ask if there's a particular part of the article that he wants removed/troubles him, but I'd first like to have an answer as to whether we can simply delete the whole thing. Let me be clear: the article Arash Markazi has nothing that's either on-its-face objectionable or hasn't been cited --his cancer has been in articles with him smiling in the picture as well as written about by his colleagues. --Bobak (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I noted the same on AN/I, but since the discussion is moved here - there is no opt out for articles, but the request of a subject (verified to in fact be the subject) can be weighed in an AfD. The notability of this guy can be debated, but if I had to guess as to consensus on this one I'd say the Faces to Watch thing probably will make it a keeper. You might direct his inquiry to OTRS, as well, perhaps before filing an AfD. They have experience with these types of requests and the basis on which action can be taken. Avruch talk 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'm going to direct the subject to using that pathway. --Bobak (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I ended up talking on the phone with Mr. Markazi and I now understand the issue. He felt it read like he wrote it (too detailed on trivial matters like college) and that as a professional was a bit embarrassing to have people think he might have written his own Wikipedia page. I am going to take a stab at reigning it in to be more to the point and focused on this professional work. --Bobak (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arash Markazi. Lawrence Cohen 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the previous post? --Bobak (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Parenti tendentious (sp?) editor assertion

Please see the recent edits on the history page. My contention is that 91.148.159.4 is repeatedly and maliciously reverting the biography to a half-truth state. The aim is to promote a political viewpoint, not to enhance the biography. I think the whole sequence of edits, over maybe a year or more, speaks for itself.

Jbowler (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) John Bowler

Not vandalism, I misspoke on the history page. It's a straightforward edit war, it's been going on since the page originated, on 31 May 2004, and, so far as I can determine.

So here's a challenge for wikipedia. Neither NPOV and nor concensus have happened. What now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowler (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)