General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Page importation • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board Shortcuts: WP:BLP/N WP:BLPN WP:BOLPN This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period. It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators taking actions they consider to be "special enforcement" may wish to note this in the enforcement log. See also: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people When posting: Make your comments as concise as possible. Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Familiarize yourself with the Biographies of living people policy before reporting issues here. Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. To report a possible policy violation: Make sure that your report really belongs here. Common vandalism should not be reported here; instead, revert it yourself and warn the user; if it recurs, report it at the vandalism report page. If an article is being persistently vandalized, request page protection. Create new incident with the article name linked in the title ==[[Article name]]== Describe the dispute using {{La}} and {{Userlinks}} templates in the following format: * {{La|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~   and/or * {{Userlinks|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ Add new entries at the bottom of the page, and sign your post with "~~~~". IMPORTANT - do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Please link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. To mark an incident as resolved Use {{Resolved}}, {{Resolved|~~~~}}, or {{Resolved|Error corrected in article. ~~~~}}. To close an incident Use {{subst:Blpt|[[article name]]|RESOLUTION|~~~~~}} and {{subst:Blpb}} to close an incident that has been completely resolved and no longer requires outside intervention. Archives To archive an incident Routine archival is automated, but any issue that has not been edited for 7 days may be copied to the appropriate archive page. Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns are manually archived to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Monitor Biographies of living persons : Categorize: Potential BLPs Check new BLPs: Recently-created unreferenced BLPs Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist (may be long to load) Remove BLP violations: Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content Possible vandalism or libelous edits (as detected by edit filters 39 and 189), Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)

Contents 1 Tim Kaine 2 Repeated addition of unconstructive, venomous quotes at Steven Spielberg 3 Richard Tylman 4 Reliable sources repeating blog accusations 5 James Frey 6 Categorization at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming 7 Daniel Lapin 8 Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 9 Gareth Thomas (rugby player) 10 EDL 11 Peter Woo 12 Former religion 13 Rajendra K. Pachauri 14 Isaac Bonewits 15 Jim Inhofe (again) 16 Review request (Alina Cala) 17 Review request (Ellen Cabaniss Bawcom) 18 Can an admin please delete this edit? 19 Ian Plimer 20 I can't see this ending well 21 stdcarriers.com - lists of people with HIV 22 James Stacy 23 Tinsel Korey 24 Dr. Luke 25 Gary Patterson 26 Libelous postings on Linda Morand biography 27 Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident 28 Dispute over birth year on Foxy Brown (rapper) 29 Sharla Cheung 30 Yair Garfias 31 Ellis Lankster 32 Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal 33 Mr. Tyminski 34 Thomas McDermott, Jr. 35 Arthur Payson 36 Victor Keegan 37 Omar Amanat 38 Dave Salmoni 39 Jim Leavitt 40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schiavo 41 Jenny Shimizu / Jenny Lynn Shimizu 42 Sister Vincenza 43 Coyote Shivers 44 Arielle Dombasle 45 John Rosatti 46 Chris Moneymaker

[edit] Tim Kaine

There has been quite a kerfuffle going on over at the Governor of Virginia's article. Themoodyblue has continuously removed Kaine's signature from the infobox, with vague assertions that someone from Kaine's office told him to, because Kaine "doesn't like it", and because it is "illegal" (I can find nothing whatsoever in the Code of Virginia which addresses this issue). After some back-and-forth edit warring, I contacted Themoodyblue on his talk page - this proved fruitless. I then sought input from an impartial party at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Warrior4321 replied, but his edits were summarily reverted by Themoodyblue. Road Wizard tried to diffuse the situation by leaving a message on both Themoodyblue's and my talk pages, but not with great success. Themoodyblue has now resorted to personal attacks and legal threats. Frankly, we're at an impasse, and need some uninvolved editors to sort this out. Thanks, faithless (^speak) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal threat should be reported, and I have done so. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Themoodyblue has been blocked for legal threats. – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on the AN page. The editor first complained, on the article talk page, that the signature came from PAC literature and therefore was not in the public domain. When that went unheeded, he started arguing that posting the facsimile signature was a felony, yet no one could find any citation in support of that claim. He then indicated that he had talked to the governor's office about it, which of course is original research. He's either well-meaning but misguided, or he's trolling. Either way, he engaged in increasingly intimidating behavior, hence the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - and are original research which have not been verified to the source's authentication and permission (Tim Kaine). One file claims it is "Own work by uploader, traced by hand from" the other taken from an e-mail. Neither meets the claim for "contains no original authorship" as presented, because they are stolen. Both violate the authenticators copyright. They should be deleted for violating copyright and OR. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see that adding someone's signature to an article adds much value, and it certainly has the potential to cause trouble. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment - I traced the SVG from the raster. The signature can't be copyrighted as far as I know. If you could provide another source, I'd be happy to put up a new version. I just trace what's there for me, in good faith. I apologize if I have caused such trouble. Connormah (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Signatures are useful to forgers/identity thieves. They are also completely unnecessary to all of our encyclopedia articles about people (versus articles about signatures). Thus, in accordance with the spirit behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information, they generally should be deleted from biographic articles on sight. They certainly should not appear in infobox templates as a desired item! That parameter should be eliminated from the infobox posthaste. GRBerry 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with GRB, I see no encyclopedic value whatsoever to including someone's signature on their wikipedia article. It may (or may not) be copyrighted, or public domain, or illegal, or whatever, but including doesn't seem to add anything. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Tim Kaine's office told me the same thing about a year ago. I tried to remove the signature, but someone else reverted and I forgot about it. It is probably a very bad idea to block Themoodyblue (talk · contribs) for the entirely appropriate effort to limit our legal exposure here. causa sui× 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While the concerns Themoodyblue raised were worthy of consideration, the way the user went about acting on them was entirely inappropriate. Edit warring over several days, breaching 3RR and issuing a legal threat in response to a request to discuss their concerns was a guaranteed way of getting blocked. In the end the user was unblocked after less than 72 hours. Road Wizard (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the consensus here, that it adds nothing of encyclopedic merit, I've removed it. GRBerry 20:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed the signature from this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed that the signature parameter be deleted from the template, discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Proposal to delete signature parameter – ukexpat (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we keep removing the signature? Unless we plan on removing all of the signature images on Wikipedia, why should this be the only exception? If he sends a letter/email out containing his signature, surely he is taking a risk with it. Encyclopedic value isn't everything, also. This is for aesthetic value, and many things have that very same purpose on Wikipedia. Connormah (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats aesthetic about a signature. It clearly add nothing more of encyclopedic value than his shoe size would, it seems intrusive imo.Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated addition of unconstructive, venomous quotes at Steven Spielberg

• Steven Spielberg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - MeatTycoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a near single purpose account whose primary goal is to maintain two unconstructive and venomous quotes at Steven Spielberg. His beliefs on this matter approach ownership, to the point where he claims:

  …as long as I have access to the Internet, it definitely stays on the Spielberg page.

[1]

I've explained my position on the talk page, and suggested he take it here, a proposal he rejected, likening the board to the Leninist Young Communists Organization. I'm looking for input on this. I recognize that the criticism section as a whole is legitimate, but no matter how "reliable" the source, calling the person an "asshole" or expressing frothing hatred rather than legitimate critique, e.g. "If I can kill Spielberg, I will kill Spielberg" does not seem to be appropriate for Wikipedia. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: MeatTycoon has been reverting repeatedly, then switching to editing as an IP in a weak attempt to bypass WP:3RR. I believe my own changes are permitted under WP:BLP, which explicitly grants an exception to 3RR for the purposes of removing controversial, poorly sourced material on living people (at least one other editor has been helping revert). But edit warring accomplishes little; this needs to be sorted out by consensus. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacques Rivette, aside from being a hugely respected filmmaker, has a professional background in film criticism, and I imagine that he has somewhat more authority on how his thoughts on cinema and filmmakers should be expressed than ShadowRangerRIT.

Alejandro Jodorowsky, while not a professional film critic, is one of the world's most renowned and respected filmmakers, and his opinion on Spielberg is of definite interest.

After all, the "praise and criticism" part of the Steven Spielberg page should be expected to accumulate as many opinions from the relevant people on the work on Steven Spielberg as possible, and the opinions of Rivette and Jodorowsky are very valuable, no matter the form in which these Great artists chose to express themselves. Also, I'm sure we can all agree that their contributions to the art of cinema have earned them the right to choose the words they want to use, and be heard.

I'm eagerly waiting for the decision on this, and I hope it's going to be wise and pro-freedom of speech.

MeatTycoon (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

Ummm... Wikipedia articles are not a collection of all known facts about a person. The criticism section should accurately reflect critics' main points, but we can't and won't include all quotes that criticize very famous people. On the Rivette quote, that one notable person called another an "asshole", without anything else to it, is the most minute speck of trivia. If Speilberg had punched Rivette in response, or it was Speilberg's mother, or something more substantial to make this non-trivia, then there would be some possibility of seriously considering including it in the article. As it stands, it's practically the definition of an "ad hominem" attack. Furthermore the bulk of the Jodorworsky quote really isn't about Speilberg's work, it's about Jodorworsky's antipathy and who he hates more, Speilberg or Disney; perhaps it should go in Jodorworsky's article, but the full thing doesn't belong in Speilberg. Personally, I find Jodorworsky's actual criticism, in that quote, not very clear. "...none of his movies are honest. His violence is ill, it's not honest. He shows an ill violence, as though he was the father of history. He hates Jews, because he is Jewish. He is making business with that, with Europe. He is fascist, because America is the centre of his world." This frankly makes almost no sense to me; what little it tells me, it tells me about Jodorworsky, not Speilberg. Studerby (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

When I come to the Steven Spielberg Wikipedia page and come across the section called "praise and criticism", I expect to find out as much as I can about what people working in the film industry like and dislike this man. Besides, the Rivette quote makes much more sense when presented along with the paragraph about Godard, so the readers may see the tendency of the Nouvelle Vague filmmakers holding a grudge against Spielberg. Whether they criticize him for the lack of long takes and primary colors in his films or they simply call him "a money-grabbing prick" (not my words) is a whole different issue, and it's up to them. As for Jodorowsky, well, I hope that you're not expecting his movies to "make sense" (which is the most nonsensical expression ever, anyway). So, is anyone going to give me another opinion on that? I guess it's up to the administrators to make the final decision, anyway, and if they don't, it's about time for the quotes to go back on the Spielberg page. MeatTycoon (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

These quotes are flagrantly and unambiguously inappropriate. Do not re-add them. Steve Smith (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All the people who commented here yet were just other Wikipedia users, of which there are billions. Where are the administrators who can make a final decision on that? Unless they speak their word, this conflict of the pro-censorship and anti-censorship camps can last a very long while. MeatTycoon (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

(ec) Administrators, like me, have no privileged position in making content decisions. We do have a privileged position in blocking editors who engage in flagrantly inappropriate editing, however. Do not re-add the quotes. Steve Smith (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Steve... So censorship wins after all, huh? Well, I guess life is not a Spielberg movie, so there is not always a happy ending. I'll go and drink some brandy for the health of the free speech, which seems to be getting weaker and weaker lately. Cheers, everybody!MeatTycoon (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

I agree as above that the quotes don't belong in the article, which is where the consensus appears to be so far. Wikipedia administrators don't make consensus, WP editors do. However, WP admins do have the authority to block users and protect pages, which is why this BLP issue wound up here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others (as an editor rather than an admin, although I am also an admin) that the quotes are inappropriate. MeatTycoon appears to be in violation of the section of WP:BLP that says criticism "should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability ... Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." See also the line in WP:TE "You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts"." Although this does not yet seem to have risen to the point of needing administrative action, if MeatTycoon continues to ignore consensus he is likely to be blocked, especially in view of his singular focus. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "consensus" will be appropriate to use only when the majority of the people who have ever edited (or, even better, read) Wikipedia will leave their comments on the issue. Until then, it's just several people who voiced their own opinions that are interesting, but should decide nothing. And they are not even respected filmmakers, which Rivette and Jodorowsky most definitely are. MeatTycoon (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

So your contention is that, so long as you are respected in the field, you can say whatever you want about other people in the field, and Wikipedia is obligated to parrot your quotes? Shall I make a quick trip around to the various sports team and player pages and add smack talk quotes from their various opponents? Wikipedia does not regurgitate trivial information, and personal grudges without substantive content are trivial.

Beyond that, demanding consensus of the entire user base is beyond the pale. Read WP:CONSENSUS; your definition and Wikipedia's diverge quite substantially. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the "billions", but one who has taught English at the college level and has been, by avocation, a critic in a minor way. If I want to read what color underpants a notable person wears or weather he puts milk or beer on his Wheaties, I'll buy a National Enquirer. I expect more of Wikipedia than that and when I read a section involving criticism of said NP, I expect to find criticism of his/her work, not of his/her person. I especially don't expect to find profane and jejune quotes from his/her business competitors. The administration opinion seems sound and in the traditions of Wikipedia. Tredzwater (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Tylman

• Richard Tylman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – the quoted below paragraph of text with 10 confirmed secondary sources has been deleted from the article Richard Tylman (-2,491) by user Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Please note that the article is written about me. – The 10 sources (see reflist) were drawn from footnotes to a Narrative featured at my official webpage linked from the article. (The Wikipedia internal links were added later.) User Pantherskin first run into this article recently due to his participation in ArbCom talk, where he learned about my real life identity. There's a strong suspicion of ulterior motives since my interaction with Pantherskin at ArbCom was negative thus prompting my complaint to ArbCom clerk about his behavior.[2] Pantherskin responded by attacking the article about me instead, and accusing me of misconduct at ANI (case rejected). I myself still believe that we both can edit on good terms in the future, and I left a note to that extend on his talk page, which he didn't answer; however, Pantherskin did achieve his objective by upsetting me greatly,[3] and I resent that. The most popular American and Canadian magazines are not primary sources, obviously. Earlier, at Talk:Richard Tylman I explained to a dynamic IP that my clearly visible signatures are featured there with my illustrations. The IP went to his neighborhood library (that's a lot of trouble to settle a Wikipedia score) and used a microfilm reader to find these artworks. He did find them; and, although the microfilm resolution was too low for the signatures to be readable, the IP agreed nonetheless that the sources should be considered valid.[4] Now, Pantherskin resurrected that argument for the sake of argument, and engaged in a revert war with another editor. Please look at the paragraph in question. The information is totally uncontroversial, plus the artwork has been seen by a third party already. The illustrations in Time, Chatelaine and Maclean's, are examples of my assignments as an artist. There's absolutely no reason to cast – what Pantherskin calls – a "doubt about the verifiability of authorship". All artists routinely list their work along with their biographies, and so do writers, inventors, etc. There's nothing special about this one list of confirmed releases – quite acceptable by policy. The real dispute belongs to yet another unrelated internal feud at ArbCom.[5][6][7] At the bottom are names of publications, issue dates and page numbers, featuring full-page color-separations.

  ---

While in Canada, Tylman pursued a career in commercial arts as an airbrush illustrator. His illustrations have appeared on billboards, bus shelters, the covers of several corporate annual reports, and in brochures. His work has been featured in advertisements published in newspapers and magazines such as Time,^[1][2][3] Maclean's,^[4] and Chatelaine.^[5] Among the corporations for which he provided illustrations are Petro-Canada, BCTel,^[6] and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Canadian Pacific Airlines^[3][7] with Wardair,^[7] Pacific Western Airlines^[1] with American Express,^[8] Energy Mines and Resources Canada,^[9] Tourism British Columbia for Expo 86,^[10] West Edmonton Mall, Tetra Pak, Sun-Rype,^[5] and The Province.

Poeticbent talk 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• It does seem a bit weakly cited, and also that there is a doubt that you are actually mentioned by name in these citations, I am sure you know that this content is correct, but is your name actually notable as regards the content or is that your knowledge, is it correct that the work is more notable than the connection between your work and your name? Why not to get over this hurdle consider a reduction of the comment including the strongest of the citations in relation to any references to your name? Something more like this: In Canada Tylman worked as an airbrush illustrator, his illustrations were used on billboards and in magazines and corporate brochures. [1][2] . Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The real question is why, out of so many artists’ biographies in Wikipedia listing noncontroversial print media where their artwork previously appeared (including shows and installations without print whatsoever), suddenly, because of being an active Wikipedian I'm advised to abandon that right, as described in our policy in a following way:
"Such material may be used as a source only if: (3) there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; (4) the article is not based primarily on such sources" (which it is not).[8]
I challenge anybody who's in doubt (meaning angry) to get a hard copy of Time (not a microfilm) and look for themselves. Or, would I have to scan my own signature from there and upload it here (which is just plain silly)? People who ask for this, obviously never dealt with real artists in their lives. Why such extremes? --Poeticbent talk 04:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An explanation why the claims about the authorship of Richard Tylman could not be very verified by an uninvolved editor has been provided by Poeticbent himself, see [9], quote "For your information—and for the information of those other Wikipedians like you, who might be reluctant to believe what they see—the actual artwork is always signed by the author, but not necessarily within the area reproduced by the client.". It should also be noted that it would be rather unusual to see an artists signature in published advertisements.

Furthermore, the way the sources are used qualify them as primary sources. They would be secondary if Time or Maclean's would discuss the advertisements, but they do not.

Lastly, I find I rather strange that you claim that we could edit on good terms in the future, and in the same post you continue to attack me and spread blatant lies about me. What rejected ANI post please - I never initated or commented on you at ANI? And how could I have responded to your complaint to the Arbcom clerk on November 21 already on November 1 by "attacking" the article on you? Pantherskin (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem that this is the appropriate board anyway as the issue is not the addition of badly controversial material. An appropriate board would be rather the COI board as the subject of the article is unwilling to let others edit or discuss the article, as is evidenced by the rather aggressive initial post here. Pantherskin (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to escalate the issue, the content has been removed and not replaced, I stand by my previous comment, that a rewrite trimming the fluffiness out of the comment and leaving whatever is strongly citable is a solution. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob – what if I scanned at least one serious artwork (and the signature, separately), and uploaded it to Wikipedia under the fair-use for this article's illustration? We both know that these are extreme circumstances triggered by in-house conflicts and not by the biography itself. As an active Wikipedian with an article I will always remain a ready-made target for my opponents especially those hidden behind anonymity and eager to pick an easy fight. For example, the fact that I extended my hand to user Pantherskin does not change who he is, and there will be others just like the ones before him. I'd like to resolve this merry-go-round not by backing away from simple facts about my life; but, by providing an actual real solution for everybody else to feel satisfied with. In an open-source format anything can be questioned including my identity (see the proof of Barack Obama's birth certificate story for the newest extreme absurdity), but an image with a signature usually speaks for itself (per above). I would not want to have to upload a printed certificate in order to have the right to list even a single noncontroversial detail about my former career, because most WP:BLP attacks are irrational by design. --Poeticbent talk 17:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: With regard to scanning and uploading of artwork, I would reproduce a complete page in Time (or Chatelaine) using a high resolution scan (~ 600 dpi). The originals are not in my possession. --Poeticbent talk 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not even have the decency to retract your most blatant lies and then you are coming here and claim that you extend the hand to me? Come one. A real solution would be if you would give up your bad faith towards anyone who wants to edit or discuss the article you created ourself in a way you do not agree with. That is the real problem here, not any imagined BLP attacks. You say that you want to upload the artwork, and the signature separately, but then how does this help in verifying that the artwork was published in the Time magazine or any of the other magazines? Pantherskin (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pantherskin does appear to have a point, it is hard to be an editor and edit it yourself and not recommended, attachment is guaranteed, about the actual content, I do find it weakly cited and fluffy, of course having been there and done the work you want to have the details here but the fact is the citations do seem to be weak, my suggestion to you Poeticbent would be to throw your biography to the wind and stop editing it, set it free so to speak, take it off your watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind serious editors taking over any article, but the reason why we have to constantly watch after everything around here is because there’s a lot of misdirected anger and desire for revenge going round, not to mention ignorance and plain silliness. Just look at the things this guy throws at me (as an individual) here in talk. One has to grow a thick skin to deal with this level of WP:HA, WP:HOUND, and WP:EQ, so please see things as they are. --Poeticbent talk 01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am see here a 50 50 dispute with you guys, the whole thing about the wiki is that it is never over...if you let it to the wind you will perhaps be surprised, if an editors removes something it can get put back later and if the is a editor making poor edits to an article, a random editors comes along and for no good reason starts improving it, it is only a suggestion..trust wikipedia policy and guidelines and look at the long term picture. It will be ok Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering how long this is allowed to continue. There is a patterns here of Poeticbent not only assuming bad faith whenever an editor comes to "his" articles and dares to add/remove/question content. It is evident from the editing history of the article, the Afd discussion, and also Poeticbents first post here on this board. I am not the first, and I will presumably not be the last. "Just look at the things this guy throws at me (as an individual) here in talk." - indeed look at what you throw at others, for the simple reason that they disagree with you. If that is what happens if someone dares to remove rather unimportant content, I do not want to know what happens if someone wants to add controversial content to your article. Pantherskin (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes your right, there has been enough discussion here as regards this issue, if there are personal issues unresolved the best place is WP:DR , if either of you needs a neutral go-between feel free to ask me on my talkpage. As regard BLP issues and as far as this noticeboard is concerned I will mark this resolved if neither of you object. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument needs to be taken to a different place. We exhausted our abilities to resolve it here amicably. User Pantherskin is trying to make a point at my expense. – Please note that the list of selected clients and jobs featured at the end of a living artist's WP biography is compliant with our policy. The policy states that a primary source (i.e. the subject's official website) can be used to draw on examples of his work, quote, if: "there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it" (hence the references provided); (4) "the article is not based primarily on such sources" (which it is not, take a look). I repeat, the article is compliant with our policy set at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and for as long as this policy is valid, acting against its spirit is unacceptable. The matter could actually be better addressed at RfC, because it involves Pantherskin's personal interpretation of a Wikipedia policy guideline, triggered by an unrelated dispute. For different examples of artists' clients and assignments listed in many other Wikipedia articles please browse through the following categories Poster artists, Graphic designers, Finnish graphic designers, Russian graphic designers, Iranian graphic designers, Lithuanian graphic designers, Albanian graphic designers, Czech graphic artists and others. There are hundreds of articles in main space which feature selected assignments by their living subjects. If you think that it’s not OK to include them in my biography, than please request a policy change. Otherwise, you cannot remove them unilaterally from this one article among many. Thank you. Off2riorob, if you decide to close this thread would you please indicate at the top, where in your opinion this matter should be taken next. I’d appreciate that. --Poeticbent talk 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at this....Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:1: it is not unduly self-serving. and 2: the article is not based primarily on such sources. These two seem to apply to me, it reads a bit like a CV application for a job (self serving), and number two, the section is totally sourced to you, (sourced only to you) . I am minded to stand by my comments, here..Write something , condense it, a sentence about it and I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable, (I offered an example earlier) and as I said consider ceasing to edit your own biography unless there are any BLP issues with content, you'll notice Jimbo doesn't edit his, and the community voted to delete User:Shankbone 's biography and as for where to take this next, personally would not take it anywhere else, I would write a smaller less pushy comment and add it back...

• "While in Canada Tylman worked as an airbrush illustrator , his illustrations were used on billboards and in various magazines such as Time and Chatelaine and corporate annual reports and brochures including BCTel and Energy Mines and Resources Canada.^[1] .. I am adding this to the article as imo it complies with all policy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Would it be OK to bring back the references there as well? --Poeticbent talk 18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I definitely wouldn't add all of them, chose the best and strongest and add them, it is a small comment and we don't want a citation farm to support, you could add the citations related to the links that I chose., that would be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the wiki is open ended and that perhaps in the future stronger third party citations will appear and can be added then. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC

• Looking at it a bit more..for now I wouldn't add any citation to the edit unless it specifically mentions your name, lets see if there is any opposition to the addition as it stands. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that a single link to my webpage where your examples were found is sufficient, but would you be willing to expand on your link to include a quotation from the same page mentioning where in these magazines your examples are featured? Below is the preformatted expansion of your link:

---

<ref>{{cite web |url= http://richardtylman.atspace.com/painting.html/ |title= Gallery and Narrative |author= Tylman, Richard |date= 2009 |location= Vancouver BC |accessdate= December 20th, 2009 |quote=List of selected print media: [[Time (magazine)|''Time'']], November 24, 1986, Vol. 128. No. 21, pp. 62-63 / December 8, 1986, Vol. 128 No. 23, pp. 8-9; [[Chatelaine (magazine)|''Chatelaine'']], September 1986, Vol. 59 No. 9, p. 165; ''Business in Vancouver'' Magazine, June 18-24 1991, p. 7; ''The Official Guide to Expo 86'' published by [[British Columbia Magazine|''Beautiful British Columbia Magazine'']] with [[Expo 86]] Corporation, Victoria BC, 1986, p. 5}}</ref>
And this is how your revised link would look like on the page:
^ Tylman, Richard (2009). "Gallery and Narrative". Vancouver BC. Retrieved December 20th, 2009. "List of selected print media: Time, November 24, 1986, Vol. 128. No. 21, pp. 62-63 / December 8, 1986, Vol. 128 No. 23, pp. 8-9; Chatelaine, September 1986, Vol. 59 No. 9, p. 165; Business in Vancouver Magazine, June 18-24 1991, p. 7; The Official Guide to Expo 86 published by Beautiful British Columbia Magazine with Expo 86 Corporation, Victoria BC, 1986, p. 5"
Thanks again. --Poeticbent talk 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not, and it adds some detail to the citation but does not add excessive detail to the comment. Y Done Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources repeating blog accusations

An issue has come up regarding a specific WP:BLP. The individual in question has been accused (primarily in the blogosphere) of a number of improprieties, including making "sex tapes". A number of new/IP editors have been adding the individual's biography these accusations (and links to the blogs), or alleged uploads of the tapes on various sites. I have insisted that none of this can be used in the article, per WP:BLP. However, a couple of reliable sources have now repeated the accusations of the bloggers, citing them to the blogs; for example, this link. I have also stated that because the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has reliable editorial oversight, the information can now be included in the article, as long as it's written in an accurate way, e.g. "the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that bloggers had written etc." User:Zsero has insisted that, since the JTA is merely repeating what bloggers have claimed, it cannot be used either. As this isn't a simple issue, I've brought it here for further input. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that what counts for a reliable source is the publisher, not the specific sources that were used for a story. For example, if The New York Times said "According to sources, Mr. Jones has misappropriated funds and was relieved of his position," we could use this in a wiki article. We trust a reputable reliable source publisher to do the vetting for us, regardless of the actual provenance of the information. Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would go so far as Crum375 does, but here we have 1) reliably sourced claims that the article subject has resigned/been removed from a significant position relating to his notability, and 2) discussion in those reliable sources of the circumstances surrounding his departure, including allegations made against him publicly by identified persons/sources whose credibility can be independently evaluated by a Wikipedia user. In the absence of any indicators of particular unfairness to the article subject, I think the content generally does not violate BLP, although the phrasing could be improved a bit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in the case of sensitive BLP issues, we should be extra careful with the presentation, and include in-text attribution unless there are multiple high quality sources. Crum375 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it's still clear that citations or links to the blogs or alleged tapes are inadmissible, because the sources aren't reliable, per WP:BLP. However, I do think that we can cite/link to the JTA article, and reference its allegations. One could make the argument that since it's only one source, it's not good enough, that one needs multiple sources. So far, however, I have not heard that argument made. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the blogs should not be linked directly (for one thing, they may change over time), and also that a single reliable source is marginal for derogatory BLP information. So I would ensure that if there is only a single source, it is a high quality and reputable one. Crum375 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit lost here. If all the "reliable" source did is cite the unreliable source, then what has it added? All we know now is that the unreliable source made these allegations; and we already knew that! As I see it, having ones scurrilous rumours repeated by a news agency may make them more notable, but it doesn't make them more reliable; it all still comes down to the same scandalmonger. Only when the reliable source repeats the claim as fact, in its own voice does it become a presumably true and verifiable story, which we can report. -- Zsero (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But what matters is that a reliable source found these accusations to be legitimate enough to be mentioned. The statement that the accusations have been made is a reliable statement. Notability and reliability are interwoven. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no such thing as "facts", only better or worse vetted information. Reliable sources are publishers we trust to do a good job of vetting their material, and are therefore considered verifiable. That they choose source X or source Y as basis for what they write is immaterial; it is the point that a reputable publisher deemed to publish the material that makes the difference. What a publisher adds to a blog (assuming that's their source) is their reputable vetting process, which is what we care about here. Crum375 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But there is no vetting process. The "reliable" source is simply quoting the blog. It hasn't done any checking on whether the allegations are likely to be true. Only if it makes the allegations in its own voice can we begin to suppose that it did at least some checking. -- Zsero (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Quoting a blog can get you in a heap of trouble if you have deep pockets and the blog alleges libelous conduct. So a reputable publisher would only do so after ensuring the continued safety of its reputation and financial stability. In other words, if a blog published that Jones was a sex molester before he became President of Smith College, The New York Times won't publish it (unless there was very good proof). So the vetting which reliable publishers perform to protect their reputation and assets is exactly the one WP needs to make its own content reliable and verifiable. Crum375 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the NYT simply repeats what the blogger says, it is in no danger. After all, it's perfectly true that the blogger did say it, and the paper isn't itself saying anything.

But you also seem not to know much about US defamation law, and especially NY defamation law. In NY a public figure cannot sue for defamation, no matter what; that means the NYT can say anything it likes about NY public figures, so long as they can't find grounds to move the case to federal court. And anywhere in the US, a public figure can only recover for defamation if the defendant had no reason at all to believe that the story was true. That's an almost impossible burden of proof; all the NYT has to say is that the information came from a confidential source who had given accurate information in the past. -- Zsero (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say, if in doubt leave it out, there is no rush to add it, so as a way of protection, wait and see how the story develops and if it is taken up and widely reported. Off2riorob (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is, am I justified in removing such material when others add it? I think I am, so long as a reliable source has not reported the information in its own voice. -- Zsero (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO yes, for the time being, if the content is added revert it and link the editor to this discussion or the talkpage to discuss, if the content is repeatedly inserted or the content is reported in additional sources ask here for comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article or the issues involved here, except that evidently it concerns a person who is not a public figure. In such situations I'd hesitate to add derogatory and controversial content of any kind unless it's related to their notability, as is required, and if it is reported in multiple reliable sources. That doesn't seem to have happened here. The fact that the allegations originated in a blog does not help at all. I agree that the principles of "do no harm" and "when in doubt leave it out" apply. I think that we need to interpret these rules broadly, giving the benefit of doubt to the living person.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are now at least four reasonably reliable sources that refer to the blog allegations:

• "Outreach Rabbi Resigns Amid Cloud Of Scandal", The Jewish Week, December 15, 2009.
• "Conversion agency founder quits amid controversy", Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 17, 2009.
• Paul Berger, "New York 'tight conversions' rabbi resigns", The Jewish Chronicle, December 17, 2009.
• Reuven Blau and Melissa Klein, "Tal-mood for love: Sex-tape rabbi tries to 'share' hottie", New York Post, December 20, 2009.

That's probably good enough to resolve any WP:BLP concerns specifically about multiple reliable sources, though the question of whether or not we should be referring to blog accusations even through reliable secondary sources remains unresolved. I've semi-protected the page, because there were far too many IP and WP:SPA/new editors adding BLP violations. I'm also going to take another run through the article and remove any material cited directly to blogs; anything of note can be cited to reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are to report these details that have been reported in wiki reliable sources but attributed to weaker unreliable blog citations, we should imo make that very clear and only add a comment that is encyclopedic in nature and not titillating and tabloid-esque. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Man oh man, I just don't like this whole situation. First of al, why does this person warrant an article? There is scant evidence of his notability. If this new tittle tattle is added, the article may turn out to be tantamount to an attack page: several paragraphs of dull biographical detail followed by titilating "blonde bombshell" allegations. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been notable in Orthodox Jewry for several years now; his EJF has been creating waves and making headlines, and until now he's been the moving force behind it. If it develops its own notability now that he's gone, then eventually the article should be renamed Eternal Jewish Family and his role would become one section in it. But I doubt that will happen. -- Zsero (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This story has now been picked up in a number of other mainstream sources:

• Paul Berger, "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox", The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009
• Yair Ettinger, "U.S. rabbi involved in sex scandal led fight against Israel conversions", Haaretz, 24 December 2009

There are others, but it ought to be clear that this is entirely usable material, done in the proper restrained and precise way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

These comments are still of no value, they are simply un named women claiming to be the woman in the telephone conversation, considering the blp implications it is very weak indeed. There is already a small comment regarding the incident in the article at the present time this is imo plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 09:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob is apparently encountering reading difficulties in evaluating these sources. There aren't "unnamed women" -- there is one woman and she is named: the whole thing is laid out without the slightest degree of hedging in the NY Post, here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• To help make it clear, this is the addition Nomoskedasticity is asserting is of encyclopedic value...

• The woman whom Tropper was helping to convert has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/25321/sex-tapes-rock-orthodox "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox"], The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009 . Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so this doesn't go unanswered here, the point is that this is some woman nobody has heard of before, who told the NY Post that the female voice on the recordings was hers, that the male voice was Tropper's, that she had made the recordings, and that the conversation was genuine. Now all of that may be true; or she may be some random woman who had nothing to do with it. We have nothing but her word on any of this. It's not as if she had been publicly identified first as the woman involved, and then the Post had contacted her to get confirmation. So her statement adds absolutely nothing to what we knew of the case before she emerged. The recordings still haven't been authenticated, as far as I know; and of course if they are fake then even if we had independently identified her as "the" woman her word would mean nothing. The plain truth is we still don't know what the truth of the matter is, and we won't know unless and until some real evidence comes out. Without that all we really have is the circumstantial evidence of his abrupt resignation and his failure to issue a full denial. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Frey

Hello, Stewartnetaddict - I just had to chime in on contributor JamesAM and his self-proclaimed authority over the James Frey wiki entry - thank you for bringing his behavior up here. JamesAM indeed does not take even close to a neutral position on James Frey, and then bullies anyone else from balancing out the James Frey entry of his negative slant.

Frey has released a best-selling novel and has a new one in the pipeline since the Oprah uproar, plus he has signed another 4-book deal with HarperCollins and is even writing screenplays for Steven Spielberg now - so clearly everyone except JamesAM has moved on from the incident with A Million Little Pieces (an amazingly original piece of literature if you've read it) - yet JamesAM insists on making that episode the overriding import of the James Frey wiki.

My beatdown from JamesAM occurred as follows - I attempted earlier this year to balance out the Wiki for James Frey, and ran right away into JamesAM's bullying. At JamesAM's urging, I justified my edits in the comments section - and no matter what, JamesAM by fiat still repeatedly deleted all of my edits. From that point forth, I became soured on Wikipedia altogether, frankly, by the belligerence of JamesAM - there's no point trying to contribute with unreasonable editors like JamesAM around. I didn't bother tangling with him further either, as I don't have all day to sit by and lord over Wikipedia pages with an iron partisan fist, as JamesAM apparently does.

The sad part is, JamesAM probably thinks his thuggish tactics are maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, when in fact I contend they are the precise reason why Wikipedia has suffered such a drop in its credibility over the last year. Everyone knows now that Wikipedia is being gamed and distorted on nearly any controversial entry by people with some fetishistic axe to grind like JamesAM, and so people are trusting Wikipedia less and less. It's a shame.

It would do Jimmy Wales and the elder-statesman of Wikipedia well to purge intolerant and clearly biased editors such as JamesAM altogether, if you ask me. Thanks again for bringing the issue up. Littlemunk (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The article on James Frey skewers him. It's the worst example of a non-neutral article I've ever seen on Wikipedia Frey made up parts of his memoir, he didn't make it up entirely or worse, he didn't plaglarize it or forge it.

I'm going to be writing and contributing many articles on literary controversies, hoaxes, forgeries, scandals and adding to ones already in existence. I'm fascinated by this and James Frey's Wikipedia article is interesting because of it's so villainizing.

There's a contributor, JamesAM, who seems to almost have a personal vendetta against Frey. Throughout the article's history pages he seems to not do anything but make sure the article maintains it's overwhelmingly negative slant (and also speaks to other editors in a manner that isn't very level-headed to put it mildly.)

There are countless memoirs whose credibility was questioned or discovered to contain fabrications. Frey made up parts of his memoir but he didn't make it up entirely, or worse, plagiarize or forge it. Other Wikipedia articles on people who have straight-out plagiarized aren't anywhere as harsh Frey's. Martin Luther King Jr. authorship issues anyone?

Of course the scandal must be addressed but there are positive aspects which should be played up but aren't even included. Already I've found many like that Frey intended the book to be fiction but publishers said they would publish it only as a memoir. That the book was already a times bestseller before being on Oprah's book list, etc.

Furthermore it hurts the eyes. It needs broken into more sections/categories, a neutral tone that is consistent with the facts, to include links to articles other than two that link to people who completely faked Holocaust Memoirs (!!!) It could also use more relevant internal links, more references, and a trimming of superfluous words or sentence parts (if not entire sentences that are superfluous) because it's too long.

I'm going to get started on this as well as on other articles related to Literary Scandals but I already see JamesAM is going to be a problem (it seems like he thinks he is the Editor in Chief of that article) and I would like administrative editors to please oversee his agenda (and impoliteness) as I commit myself to all topics I can find involving literary scandals and try to keep them as neutral and non-disparaging as I can. StewartNetAddict (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is work to be done on this article. About 70-80% is about the controversy. It should be explained of course, but that is way too much about one issue. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look and agree, imo the content regarding the exaggerations in his book could easily be cut in half. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway his book was the autobiography of a recovered drug addict. Not exactly the place where people would go to look for absolutely accurate information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The James Frey memoir fabrication scandal largely played out in the media in January 2006. The scandal is responsible for the lion's share of Frey's notability. Over the next few months, the article's discussion of the scandal was crafted by a number of editors, many of them experienced. I was not one of them. The media moved on and apparently most of the editors did as well. If you look back at the edit history, you'll see around November 2006, new editors without any track record began engaging in massive removal of text about the scandal without any justification on either the Talk page or edit summaries. Look at the first edit on 8 November 2006 for what may be the first examples. The edit removed all mention of the scandal whatsoever. A couple of veteran editors began reverted the unexplained massive deletion and pleading with the new editors to discuss the changes before reverting. I first edited the page on 10 December 2006 when I became aware of the massive unexplained deletions and began reverting them as well and noting that massive changes had been discussed. The editors claim that information was untrue and I noted that the deleted materials were cited to reliable sources. I tried to compromise and was greeted with personal attacks (e.g. 21:26, 14 December 2006 edit summary). I'd appreciate if the topic starter would refrain from personal attacks against me. I endured a lot of personal attacks regarding this page and made a really big effort to show forebearance in the face of those attacks. When disinterested editors move on to fresh stories and fans of a person emerge, POV problems crop up.

If you examine the Talk page, you'll see that I took the time to assemble evidence to justify maintain the information about the controversy. For instance, Frey drew many times more media coverage in the month of January 2006 (the month of the controversy) than he did in all of 2005 (even though he released a book in 2005). I encourage other editors to search databases like Lexis-Nexis to confirm for themselves to verify that Frey has received much more public attention for falsifying information in his memoirs than he ever did for writing the book and making the bestseller list. I think a good analogy is Bernie Madoff. Madoff had 50 year career in finance ascending to a very prominent role of the industry (e.g., Chairman of NASDAQ). Yet there's lots about his Ponzi scheme and legal troubles in the article, because despite prior arguably "positive" notability, the thing that he's most recognized for is the scheme. Frey didn't have much of a public profile before publishing his memoirs. Then, the main source of his fame became undermined by the scandal. His name recognition among the public went from moderate to huge.

Past changes cutting out information about the scandal have been problematic. For instances, one edit removed a media criticism of Frey but kept Frey's rebuttal against that particular criticism! Another simply reduced the descriptions of the fabrications to a phrase (something like "changed details about his criminal involvement"). It didn't inform readers that his several month incarcerations was actually less than a day or that his supposed assault on a police officer was an orderly arrest with no resistance whatsoever. I reverted StewartNetAddict's edit because he removed the fact that Frey fabricated part of his memoirs from the lede with zero explanation for the edit. Frey's biggest claim to fame deserves one sentence in the lede paragraph. Frey admitted fabricating the incarceration and assault so it's not a controversial point.

At a minimum, I think the following should be mentioned. The major specific fabrication (jail term, assault, Lilly's suicide/question of her existence, lack of connection to the kids killed by the train) most of which he admitted were false. The initial uncovering by the media and Frey's appearance on Oprah (including noting what he admitted). The publisher's apology, refund offer, and editor's note in future editions. --JamesAM (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The main issue with Mr. Frey seems to be honesty in our modern culture. Please show the honesty and sincerity of your statement by taking out some of the negative material that goes on and on in the article. Thanks.Steve Dufour (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

At least five editors have agreed at the above article that the present categorisation scheme is presently distorting the views of a very large number of living scientists, that the article suffers through its categorisation scheme badly from original research and synthesis. The editors opposing are William M. Connolley, Kim D. Petersen and Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I have made three goes at removing the categorisation, only to have the reverts removed. In the case of some of the scientists, e.g. the Australian scientist Bob Carter, the views are being badly distorted, and in other cases the views are being mildly distorted, but there are no exceptions.

As editor Ronz pointed out, we should not need overwhelming support to remove so many BLP problems, but the situation is difficult, given that one of the opposing editors represents Wikipedia as an Administrator (i.e. SBHB). Sorry, my mistake. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed three separate versions, each of which would largely resolve the problem, and would have the added benefit that many future arguments about "which category to put the latest skeptic scientist X in". The simplest version is the uncategorised version, here: [10].

An uninvolved administrator is required to please enforce Wikipedia's guidelines with respect to living people. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hot potato anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking this game myself. I see three issues here. (i) BLP. If something is sourced well, then there is no BLP issue. That does not preclude problems with WP:WEIGHT, style, etc. I see a lot of sourcing there. (ii) misrepresentation of sources. If the sources do not support the content, or are being misread, just fix the content, which in most cases on this page would be to delete it. I sympathize that that can be difficult, because of the unweldiness of the third issue (iii) the inclusion criteria for this list is quite poor, in that it is so inclusive as to include nearly everyone who ever worked much in the field, if every utterance of theirs was captured in a RS. Thus it loses utility: if everyone has attribute X, the attribute X is not of much worth. Also, when I see the title of the list I do not think of such broad inclusion. I thus find the title misleading.

In summary, any BLP problem should be easy to fix (and does not require an admin). I have issues with the inclusion criteria and from seeing the talk page I note I am not alone. However, I admit the issue of inclusion is based on interpretation of a spectrum of gray, not only black and white, so it is not immediately clear to me what the ideal criteria would be. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool comments, your seem to be saying the article could use a rename and a redefinition of the inclusion criteria. I had a look at the list , I dislike lists anyway, and this one is an article disguised as a list, they all have their own article where all there details and positions already are, imo it is more trouble than it is worth. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't object to the name nor to the existence of the list, in that such a list with that name is useful and is a benefit to the project. But yes, the inclusion criteria seems very poor. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm how are the inclusion criteria poor? Note that your "everyone has attribute X" is incorrect - please look through all the archived material where this would get thoroughly debunked, in fact it is extremely hard to demonstrate attribute X - and in cases where attribute X is ambiguous the scientist gets removed immediately (there is one case on the talk page at the moment). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I compared what I actually meant in that illustration with the talk archives, it wasn't even close to debunked (I am sure you intended the pun ), rather there was quite a bit of discussion and several editors who share my concern seemed quite a bit more perturbed about the whole thing than I will allow myself to get. Anyway here is why I think it poor. <beans alert> It is begging to be used as a soapbox for climate change deniers by allowing a very broad brush for inclusion. Consider this discussion. Given that it points out the uncertainties in even the most simplistic climate components, you have several discussants, some of them noted academics, talking about this or that not being known or understood. I read the current list to allow for most of those people to be eligible (by the comments alone if hypothetically they were scientists and that source was deemed acceptable). Yet when I read only the title of the list, I would think very few of those discussants would belong there. </beans alert> Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - i've now read the discussion there, and none that i can see would be eligible. The probability curve that Phil is talking about is captured in category 3 (note that Phil is only talking about doubling CO2 from pre-industrial (280ppm) - which would be 560ppm - we're at ~480ppm with an increase of 2ppm pr anno. The inclusion criteria is for definite statements: "Humans are not the cause of warming", "Most warming is from natural sources" etc. Ambiguous statements (and statements that are contradicted by other sources by the same person) lead to exclusion - not inclusion. As they should be per WP:BLP.

The reason that Alex is complaining is that when we categorize on the page, we are weighting the scientists opinion (we have to - there are very rarely absolutes) according to the reliable sources attributed to him/her. So for someone S. Fred Singer we place into the "warming is natural" category based (amongst others) on his book (which argues that the current warming is part of a 1,500 year cycle) - but Singer of course also by this belongs in other categories, which are a natural consequence of taking that view (accuracy of projections questionable, not significantly negative, ...)

Finally i think you should look back a bit further in the archives, since the last couple of months (since the 4th AfD have been rather unusual :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Forgive me if I do not follow your suggestion to look back further, only because I feel the BLP issue has been addressed (and that article/list is not one I want to get involved in). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Truthfully, the title itself can be disputed. "Mainstream" is not only subjective, but it may actually be misleading. And no, I'm not going to get into a lengthy dispute about it. Global warming is a religion to some people and I don't argue religion.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• That is the whole thing, the hot potato, it is easy to know that there are many many issues around this subject at the wikipedia and something needs to be done about it, perhaps arbcom, it is similar to nationalistic problems and religious disputes, awful to get involved in. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I won't try to start up a debate on this :) - but we base the mainstream on (amongst others) that all major national and international scientific bodies state that it is the mainstream opinion (see Scientific opinion on climate change). But as within any area of science there will be minority opinions and grades of agreement, so the lists purpose is specifically to be a navigation list to those readers who interested in reading about opinions that disagree with this. Some of these will be mentioned in Global warming controversy, but others will not be (because they are small minority opinions, or shades of grey that can't be capture in detail in such an article. Hope that clears it up abit ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Kim, some organizations do agree with the notion of man-made GW. And some of them were founded with that sole cause in mind, so should they be given as much weight as orgs that have been around long before the GW flap? What it amounts to is loudest/most vocal= "mainstream". We could really substitute the word "popular" for "mainstream" and it wouldn't be any more or less subjective, but it might actually be more honest. You know what I think would make in interesting article? If someone looked to see how many of those proponents of GW were also talking about the "next ice age" that the "mainstream scientific community" was predicting just a decade earlier. Now THAT would be some fun reading.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Eh? First of all i wan't pointing out organizations, but scientific academies (ie. bodies). I'm not aware of any scientific academy (you know like the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) that is funded for any single purpose, and i believe that every one of them predates the existence of the IPCC or the US GCRP. In fact in many cases (if not most) they predate 1900. Its not a question of who is "loudest", since there isn't any scientific body that has expressed a different opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, maybe if you had been more specific, then I would have responded differently. Still, many members of those bodies have expressed their disagreement with the notion. I also see reports of scientists who claim that funding, grants denied etc was withheld when they went against the GW flow. When I see that, I have to wonder how often it occurs. But I'm done here.... not going to get sucked into a lengthy debate. Happy editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

At least five editors have agreed - you note the dissenters. Who, apart from you, are the other 4 assenters? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're here, it would be nice if you could leave out the admin stuff, since Boris isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Lapin

Requesting some neutral assistance in editing this entry. As it stands, much of it is NOT written in W:NPOV; there are broken reference links; direct quotes are not sourced; and much of the information is simply not factual (or sourced). It looks like much of this goes back to activity in 2006. To date, I have received no responses to my inquiry on the talk page. I did a lot of research on reliable sources and attempted to edit the page, but my changes were immediately reverted. I've attempted to connect with the editor who undid my edits but, again, no response.

Is there anyone here who could assist on this issue? I'm not tied to my specific edits...would just really appreciate someone else taking a look and giving some thoughts on how to get it up-to-date and accurate in a way that will lead to consensus. Thank you!--Hmsc (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left the editor a note about this thread, perhaps he'll come and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am involved in real life activities before the holiday from work. If it can wait a few more days then I will explain it and we can work it out together. As a start, "rabbinic scholar" is a peacock word. A rosh yeshiva is a rabbinic scholar, every pulpit rabbi does not get that title. Lapin is known as a political commentator and a preacher of the prosperity gospel. Many peacock words were added. Next point- controversies are not to be removed. You may not like it there but it has already been fought over and had reversal battles.The fake awards were in all the national papers. To just quote his lawyered denial is POV. Looking at the history of the article, there seems to have been even worse scandals in LA that made him run from town. Much of the material added is PR, not encyclopedia. Quotes of "how wonderful he is do not belong on wiki. Links to Amazon or other commercial firms do not belong. You are crying NPOV but your version is definitely not POV and is probably conflict of interest. I am in more than semi-retirement from wiki, and I was not involved in the writing or editing of the original article. But when someone removed controversy and adds self-promotion and peacock words, then it gets reversed. If you want to entirely reedit it, then I can contact the original authors who know about the topic to work it out with you.--Jayrav (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

On the talk page I found Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907#Facts_you_won.27t_read_in_this_article. And I found this exchange: "5. This is not contentious BLP case, but many are trying to hide evidences to transform it in a contentious BLP case, using WP as an instrument.

• Please read WP:BLP carefully. The Embraer pilots and the ATC controllers are living persons, accused of possible crimes. BLP applies to information about living persons anywhere on WP. Crum375 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not saying nothing that contradicts WP:BLP, but you are, please read them carefully. Sdruvss (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

I think we need to examine what has been said on the talk page to see if it is original research and therefore violates BLP. The article itself isn't the issue - it's the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Crum375 has the issue well in hand. If you're asking whether we should redact or remove the allegations Sdruvss posted on the Talk page, I think they are written in a tone of intellectual discussion and are probably OK for now. It's clear we are not making those allegations; we are simply discussing whether they should be included in the article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion in the Talk Page is if a NTSB report of an aeronautical accident is a primary or secondary source. WP:NOR clearly describes that, facing the accident, NTSB team, pilots, and controllers declarations are primary source and a report endorsed by NTSB organization, published in their online library is secondary source. Crum375 is trying to turn the subject of the article into a debate of the report by itself. By this reasoning, NTSB report would be a primary source. I, on the contrary, want to describe the accident (not its investigation) as the subject of the article. With this strategy, Crum375 blocks all edits that quote NTSB because NTSB would be a primary source. This is against WP policies, and turns the article biased and partisan because he uses selectively unreliable "secondary sources" (in his concept, because, in reality, they are tertiary sources). I hope WP understand that, and I hope others can help me to make it a better article. Sdruvss (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the report is a primary source. We need reliable secondary sources that interpret the report to use here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Spike, WP:NOR argues that "Primary sources are sources very close to an event, for example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". This characterizes explicitly that NTSB is a secondary source. And WP makes it clearer "A primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study". I highlight "was created at the time under study". What is under study is the accident of September, 2006 and the report was produced in December, 2008. In the Unisist Model of Information Dissemination that supports and is cited by WP, it says that primary sources make “Selection, Production and Distribution” and their product are books and journals (when published) and thesis and reports (not published). In this model the NTSB team of researchers is primary source. As can be noted further in the model, secondary sources make Analysis, Storage and Dissemination throughout Libraries, Information Centers and Data Centers. In this model, NTSB Library is the secondary source, they assure primary source intellectual production authenticity; they assure that the report (of a primary source) is endorsed by the NTSB organization. And, as it is absolutely clear in this model, that Tertiary Services (as WP) make Reviews, Syntheses, etc.. And more, we should not interpret the report to use here to describe the accident. The accident report is not the subject of the article, the subject is the accident. This is not a matter of opinion, and it is consolidated in academic research. Regards Sdruvss (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Would you concede that if we are making a contentious claim about a living person (such as the pilots or ground crew) that we should seek a reliable secondary source other than, or in addition to, the NTSB report? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As WhisperToMe and I tried to explain to Sdruvss on the article talk page, for contentious BLP cases, such as this case, even greater care is needed in source selection and use than normal articles. In this case, the NTSB and CENIPA investigative reports were written by the investigators themselves, and contain a large amount of raw and detailed information. These government reports are of very high quality but are primary sources, because they are close to the investigation itself. To analyze, interpret, compare or summarize them, we would need high quality secondary sources. In the current version of the article, we do rely on and link to the government reports, but use the secondary sources, such as The New York Times and Aviation Week to analyze, interpret and compare them, esp. their more contentious aspects. I believe this is the correct way to use sources, i.e. rely on the high quality secondary sources to interpret and analyze the primary ones to avoid original research. This article has undergone an extensive review by numerous experienced editors prior to its promotion to featured article, and any changes, esp. ones which could violate BLP or the sourcing policies, should be done carefully, to avoid losing that status. Crum375 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am not at all making any contentious claim about a living person. Neither am I analyzing, interpreting, comparing or summarizing final reports. I strongly believe that reports should not be interpreted or compared. I'm quoting the reports to describe the accident, exactly as Crum375 did, and which is completely different of what is said above. And as WP says "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing". The subject of the article it is not report comparing; is the accident description. Sdruvss (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous bits of data in the primary government reports, many (if not most) of which are critical of living persons. To pick out individual pieces would be to promote them over other points and issues, thereby creating original research. In a contentious WP:BLP case such as this one, we need to let secondary sources do this selective analysis for us. Crum375 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that there are events and facts quoted from reliable sources that can change what readers think? Is that why I can't edit the article? This is censoring. Sdruvss (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Now Crum375 went too far. He wrote in Talk Page: "The main differentiator between primary and secondary sources is distance from the information being reported. So if a scientist collects data and reports on his results, it would generally be a primary source for those results because he is very close to them. If some other publication describes that experiment and puts it in perspective, it would be secondary". Now, he describes scientific research as primary source. If a scientist makes research, he reports his results in scientific journals (secondary source). He makes evident he doesn't know anything about primary and secondary sources or scientific methodology. I expect that WP takes needed measures to avoid this article manipulation and keep WP reliability. Sdruvss (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Those who read carefully this article talk page will verify that Crum375 is manipulating it. Wiki2wk (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, when Crum375 doesn't have arguments, he writes: "Sdruvss, as I tried to explain to you several times in the past, on Wikipedia we consider a primary report to be...". Sdruvss (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How would a report published by a scientist in a journal be a secondary source? It's still coming from the person who originated the content by performing the research. A secondary source would be, for instance, another scientist commenting on the original report. XXX antiuser 19:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Antiuser, This is a not contentious issue in academic environment and to scientific methodology. WP:NOR, secondary source and peer review explains very well these issues. When a scientific research is submitted to a journal, it starts a process of validating the procedures and methods that were applied by the researcher. When the research is published in a journal, it turns to be a secondary source. Primary source is just what the researcher used to make his research. Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I believe the issue at hand here is addressed by the first paragraph of the article on secondary sources:

Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.

In this case, the NTSB and CENIPA reports are considered primary sources because of their sheer size. The purpose of Wikipedia is to condense and provide an unbiased summary of facts and findings in encyclopaedic format, and editing is to be done as neutral and sensibly as possible. I don't see anything in that article that makes it, as you put it, "an annex to Joe Sharkey's blog". The only quote in the article attributed to Sharkey is his account of the moment the Legacy was hit by the 737. I have read Sharkey's blog and was as outraged as you are, but I believe the article is properly edited and provides a neutral point of view account of the accident and its aftermath. The information you provide needs to be interpreted and edited in order to fit into the encyclopaedic format of the article. Since living persons are involved (both pilots and ATC personnel), one must tread lightly when editing such extensive information. That's where secondary and tertiary sources come in handy. XXX antiuser 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Dear AntiUser, You said very clearly: the way the reports are used. Crum375 wants to use final reports as the subject of the article. He wants to analyze, summarize and interpret the reports. So its correct that they are primary source (material) to be used by a researcher (a magazine reporter, Pedicini for instance, that Crum375 likes very much), that makes news or a article in a magazine as Aviation Week (secondary source), whose publisher is used by Joe Sharkey. OK, but the subject of the article is not the Report of the Accident, but the Accident. Thereof, the primary source are the documents, artifacts, testimonials, declarations, rules, gathered during the investigation, which the team of researchers used to produce the report, and that had a peer review and was published by CENIPA and NTSB, becoming a secondary source. I claim not turning the subject of the article from the Accident to the Accident Report. All my interventions were to describe better the accident, the facts not in dispute by anyone. Nothing that was in dispute was included in the issues that I pointed. Issues not even specific of the accident, as the link between transponder and secondary radar, and that UZ6 has a heading of 336º to Manaus. Crum375 believes that these technical and geographic issues are contentious and advance a position. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, the CENIPA and NTSB reports might be technically secondary sources, but for the purposes of encyclopaedic use within Wikipedia, they are to be treated as primary, since they are the closest possible to the facts. Crum doesn't "want" anything - the article isn't solely his work. He is a major contributor, as am I. In fact, a lot of the points you raised in the article's talk page refer to my contributions and sources that I myself have added - and I was using Globo.com as my main source of information in the days immediately following the accident (I am fluent in Portuguese and have some knowledge of aviation jargon and procedures). Whether Sharkey has links to Aviation Week or Pedicini, I don't know. The fact is there seems to be no bias whatsoever in the article. You are nitpicking at the smallest hints of competence by the pilots and glazing over everything else. That is neither neutral nor encyclopaedic. XXX antiuser 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear AntiUser, You use the expression: "You are nitpicking at the smallest hints of competence by the pilots...". Would you mind quote one of my comments that we can verify your affirmative. My "smallest hints" are: 1) That secondary radar relies on transponder signal not explained in the article; 2) Why controllers were confounded by aircraft level not explained; 3) "Unusual" flight level of aircraft, said by NTSB; 4) Distraction of the crew, described in many pages of CENIPA report; 5) Inexperience of crew with avionics. All these facts are deeply explained in CENIPA and NTSB reports, Estadao, Folha, Globo, Veja and all Brazilian media. They are not disputed by anyone and are completely omitted in your article. Regards.

Note: "Whether Sharkey has links to Aviation Week or Pedicini, I don't know", but you should know, if they are your "reliable source". Pedicine is the author of your reference, and he is cited many times in Sharkey's blog as "my correspondent in Sao Paulo". Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sdruvss, Pedicini is not the author of my source, neither is Sharkey's blog. My sources were Globo.com, Folha de S. Paulo, the BBC and CNN. All mainstream media sources - I just happened to use mostly Brazilian ones since they were updating faster and with more news than the international ones. As for what I meant by "nitpicking at the smallest hints" I meant that you seem to be clinging to the fact that the pilots' technical background and flight hours are mentioned in the article, and some of those are simulator hours. If you have reliable secondary or tertiary sources that substantiate your assertions, by all means, add them! Just make sure they're not blog posts or opinion articles, but bona fide news articles. Just be warned that dubious information or assertions that might violate WP:BLP might be reverted and brought to the talk page until a consensus is reached. That's how Wikipedia works. It just so happens that Crum has been the most active contributor to this article, so he's the one raising the (valid, by the way) objections to the information you wish to add. I'll gladly contribute to the debate once I have the time. XXX antiuser 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Dear AntiUser, you should note that the author of your source Aviation Week article is Richard Pedicini, who wrote the article you referenced (NTSB, Cenipa at Odds over Midair Accident Report) to analyse CENIPA/NTSB reports. Joe Sharkey, that runs a blog in pilots defense, describes him many times as “my correspondent in Sao Paulo” and this is how Globo describes Pedicini “The American Richard Pedicini [...] was on Friday (8) to the headquarters of the Superintendent of the Federal Police of São Paulo, [...], to assist pilots Joe Lepore and Jan Paladino. He attended the Federal Police in a suit, tie and panama hat and a mustache similar to Santos Dumont. "What better time to do a tribute to Santos Dumont?" he suggested. Do we need the reliable Santos Dumont spirit to analyze, summarize and interpret CENIPA/NTSB reports? And New York Times is where Joe Sharkey is hired and publishes his articles. Regards, Sdruvss (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not reference that article anywhere. Like I said, my sources were Globo, Terra, Estadão, the BBC and CNN. That one must've been added by someone else. The fact still stands, though, that Aviation Week is a reputable publication. If you want to raise an objection as to the objectivity of that source, you are free to do so on the talk page, but do expect resistance. I believe I might have found a compromise to keep the article balanced while addressing some of your valid concerns, and I will post it on the article's talk page. XXX antiuser 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear AntiUser, maybe not you but the WP Gol 1907 article. It is the reference 48. This issue is been addressed here. Regards. Sdruvss (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gareth Thomas (rugby player)

Please could the project take a look at the article for Gareth Thomas, a top flight professional rugby union player who has recently disclosed the fact that he is gay to a national newspaper. There is debate on his talk page regarding a disagreement regarding the worth of adding this fact to his lede. Good arguments on both sides, but we have hit a stalemate. We would appreciate your project's advice on the matter. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Thomas (rugby player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Section copied from WT:BLP Martin451 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the lede since he is notable for being an athlete and not his sexuality. Cablespy (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He has appeared on BBC National News discussing his decision to come out and the impact his sexuality had specifically throughout his rugby career. Leaky Caldron 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd not put this in the lede. But given this is verifiable information volunteered by the subject, this is really a matter for talkpage consensus like any other editorial decision, there's nothing here falling directly under the BLP policy.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EDL

A question (and objection) has been raised as to material imncluded on a page about this organisation [[11]]. Does BLP apply to "to organisations when they are founded, run and consist of a membership of living people, especially when the allegations apply to those people."?Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already attempted to resist the inclusion of the content due to the quality of the sources, and if it is also now being resisted as a BLP issue it seems to be clearly controversial and One Night in Hackney has imo made a very good case for its removal under BLP protection on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So the answer is yes BLP does extend to orgsanisations. I also belive that the sources were considerd acceptable by community consnesus (at least on the BNP page).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Reliable sources board, here is a link if people want to read that discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would point out thnat the material removed (and the sources used) make no mention of any living person, they talk about the organisation, they do not name any one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I don't see that.. is this the citations and the content in question...: In an audio message, the BNP's Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a "Zionist false flag operation" and a "neo-con operation." They also claimed that the creation of the EDL was an attempt to provoke a low-level civil war http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/105162/Oh-it-s-our-fault-is-it-mr-griffin-We-cop-the-blame http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2009/09/putting-down-marker.html .Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also Abecedare made this comment that still seems to be an issue? Daily Star article (rightly) attributes the comments to Griffin alone and doesn't even mention Darby. Am I missing something here ? Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaberate, what don't you see, that the sourde was largley considerd RS, and acceptable or that it does not name any one in connection with the accusation?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be still attributing the comments to both men? Simon Darby and Nick Griffin are both explicitly named? Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the comment is not about them, it is being attributed to them. The page is not about that (though it is about a group they have been accused of having links to, links this comment is in part designed to disprove (on thier part)). So naming them as having made this comment cannot be seen as a BLP violation. As to restructuring the passage, that is unrelated to the question of the passage itself being a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, IMO One night in Hackney has made a very good case on the talkpage there, a good rule is if in doubt leave it out, lets see if other opinions are added here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue with this material. The EDL is not a living person. It would be absurd if criticism of a political organisation were to be removed on BLP grounds. The quote should be attributed only to the person who actually said it, however. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand BLP. It applies to organisations which were founded, are run, and have a membership consisting of living people. I'm unsure about other countries, but UK libel laws apply equally to organsations see for example McLibel.

The allegations made by a person with a conviction for racist offences and a history of Holocaust denial fail WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE.

The source described Griffin as "bonkers" and his claims as "loony conspiracies". According to the source, the conspiracies in question are that the owners of national newspapers in the Britain secretly formed the English Defence League in order to "start a civil war on the streets of Britain, which would somehow allow Western countries to launch a nuclear war against Arab states". I'm sorry but those are incredibly serious accusations per BLP regardless of whether anyone is named or not, as it refers to various people who are clearly living. People do not have to be named in order to be a BLP violation, a comment such as "The United Colleges of Grimsby" are a fraudulent educational organisation seeking to rip off prospective students by supplying them with worthless degrees" then it is still accusing the people running it of criminal activity, even though they are not named. Whether people are named is irrelevant, if you accuse of an organisation owned and run by living people of anything controversial it's still a BLP violation. That's before we even go near WP:FRINGE, since the source describes the claims as "loony conspiracies". Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe BLP violating views such as these, especially when they relate to third parties. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

All organisations are made up of people. But BLP does not apply to organisations, regardless of whether they might be considered legal persons in any particular jurisdiction. See WP:BLP#Corporations. Claims about the United Colleges of Grimsby, for example, cannot be excluded under WP:BLP. The just need to pass WP:V. --FormerIP (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't read the discussion or the content in question despite having readded it. The allegations refer to specific living people, i.e., the people that formed the EDL, hence a violation of BLP. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, from WP:BLP: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rebublican Jacobite: No. Any claim about an organisation might be indirectly a claim about its management, board, members, etc. To follow that line of reasoning would be to ignore the policy. No living persons are identified in the quote and there is no information which might allow for the identification of any individuals who the speaker might be referring to. There is no identifiable living person, so there is no BLP issue.

ukexpat: I don't understand the relevance of that quote from the policy. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to find a line in the BLP rules about stamtents that do not actualy name an individaul, and I could not find anything. The plociy reads as if its aimed at specific and direct statments, not general statment about an organisation. Now does the rule that states that the BLP rule does not extend to corperations also extent to poitical groups?Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was merely quoting from the policy to show that it does not apply only to biographical articles, a common misunderstanding. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But the policy also does not apply to corporate entities, now is the EDL such an entity?Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

← WP:BLP may be construed, through custom and practice, as applying to any information which may have any significant impact on a living individual. Wikilawyering about the margins is a really bad idea, the best course of action is to err on the side of caution and to take the most conservative interpretation. If you want to ask for a definitive answer then there aren't many sources, I've asked Jimbo in the past and that's always an option, though I tend to reserve it for the most serious cases. Here I recommend that you tread extremely carefully with respect to groups that inspire strong feelings, which in practice means insisting on the best quality independent secondary sources and attributing all editorial statements and opinions. Be wary also of giving undue weight to any extreme POV. This is, incidentally, my general advice on the topic and not specific to the case at issue, which I have not yet looked at in detail. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Griffin was commenting on a group that he has been linked to. As such I would argue that his opinions whilst extreame are not undue, after all the EDL and the BNP have been claimed as secretly linked. |Now if Mr Griffins views on the EDl are not relevant (or are regared as fringe views) then surley the link between the two groups must be at least as weak (if not weaker), and as such only fringe theory. What we have at this time is a situation were Mr Griffin's organisation (which he is soley repsonsilbe for) has been li8nke dto this gruop but his views (repeated here[[12]] and here [[13]] Neither mof these are linked to the BNP. Also the material was attributed to Mr Griffin.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IMo Guy has summed the situation up very well. Weak cites, related to living people, giving weight to an extreme claim. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy was quite exlicit in saying that he was not attempting to sum up the situation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would say he has if you included his comments at the other locations this has been commented on. Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean where he says "Explicitly attributed to Griffin it probably does not inherently violate WP:BLP"? (Sorry to go round quoting you, Guy). --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of people who have actually either not read or properly understood the source is quite staggering. The source says Griffin claims the owner of two newspapers (who is not a corporation and is very much living) is part of a conspiracy that aims to start a civil war followed by a nuclear war on Arab states. That he is not named isn't relevant, that's equivalent to saying "chairman of the BNP" doesn't refer to Nick Griffin! And even if you get round the WP:BLP problems, there's also the WP:V and WP:FRINGE issues. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin is the person making the claim, not the subject of it. Nobody has tried to insert any information into the article about a newspaper proprietor. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So its a BLP violation if we attribute his quote to him?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You should not use this single isolated weakly cited comment from Nick Griffen to assert the position that the EDL is a part of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that if we keep the claimm that the EDL is a BNP front then Mr Gri9ffins views and statments on the EDl cannot be considerd fringe. He has been accused of being secretly in charge, as such his views must be considerd relevant and pertinant. This is not some random comments by some fly by night by-election joke candidate. This is a comment made by one of this countries most notable (but not for all the right reasons) ellected officals about an organisation he has been indirectly accused of setting up (in the article, the off article accusations are rather more direct). Quoted within more then one source (at least one of which is RS).Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Woo

• Peter Woo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OTRS received an e-mail related to this article, which doesn't seem to generally by a BLP concern but which was hit by some nasty vandalism in November, here, which caused some understandable dismay (to contextualize this, since mostly it seems harmless and stupid, in some circles "Loli" is short for Lolita). This may have been aftermath of a vendetta, to judge by this. The article seems clear now, but this vandalism was undetected for far too long. I've added the article to my watchlist, but would appreciate additional eyes, especially since I am traveling over the pending holidays (and sometimes miss stuff, even though I try to keep my watchlist under 1,000). We don't want this coming back. Really. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Added. On a related note, does anyone know of a way to get emailed when certain articles are changed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The closest approximation is to add the page(s) to your watchlist, then add your watchlist feed to a feed reader. – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Former religion

Should people be catergorized by their former membership in a religion? This topic is being discussed on Talk:List of Unification Church members. I don't so much object to the article, but on the other hand I don't think the issue is so cut and dried as some people are claiming. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a good deal of examples that this is acceptable and appropriate on this project:

• List of former Muslims
• List of former atheists and agnostics
• List of former Christians
• List of former Protestants
• List of former Jews
• List of former Roman Catholic nuns
• List of former Roman Catholics
• List of former Latter Day Saints
• List of former Mormon fundamentalists

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope special care is used in listing someone as a "former Muslim." (If the person is living that is.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously I have worked on some of these lists myself, especially "former Christians." I am not saying they are totally bad but there seems to be a lot of agenda pushing going on with them. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For instance where is the evidence that George Harrison was ever a believer in Christianity? Or Malcolm X? I have read his autobiography and don't recall any Christian belief mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know there was so much interest in the topic. Some of the lists seemed kind of mean-spirtited, like "See, my religion is better than yours. See how many people left yours to join mine."Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree these lists are awful, imo of no value at all. A haven for editors with an agenda, delete. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you nominate them for deletion please let me know. For fairness I think it would be better to wait till after Christmas. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As Groucho Marx pointed out, there is no such thing as a "former Jew". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it seems that is the case, no escape. Deletion is something perhaps to look at after the festivities. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The specific anecdote is this, from An Evening With Groucho: "I knew a fellow named Otto Kahn, who was a very rich man, and he gave a lot of money to the Metropolitan Opera House at one time. And his close friend was Marshall P. Wilder, who was a hunchback. And they were walking down Fifth Avenue, and they came to a synagogue, and Kahn turned to Wilder and he said 'Marshall, you know I used to be a Jew.' Marshall said 'Really? I used to be a hunchback.'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews. Now we will see what happens. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rajendra K. Pachauri

There has been an edit war over this material, [14], which has resulted in full page protection. I will repeat the statement being added here for easier discussion:

"There have been calls for his resignation in an open letter from Lord Christopher Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding due to the conflict of interests in which Pachauri is making money from carbon credit trading."

The citations being used for this are as follows:

Booker, Christopher; Richard North (20 December 2009). "Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html. Retrieved 22 December 2009. 

"Pachauri accused of making 'fortune' from carbon trading firms". Business Standard. December 21, 2009. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pachauri-accusedmaking-%5Cfortune%5Ccarbon-trading-firms/380212/. Retrieved 22 December 2009. 

Napier, Barry (December 21, 2009). "Copenhagen a Failure – But Still Alive". Canada Free Press. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18181. Retrieved 22 December 2009. 

Are there any valid BLP concerns with this statement or its citations? --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask the question another way, from a BLP perspective would there be any reason not to include the above statement citing the indicated sources? --GoRight (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just a standard partisan accusation. If it has legs we can add it, otherwise see WP:NOTNEWS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac Bonewits

Isaac Bonewits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - While updating information here I noticed that much information here is not sourced and highly subjective/non-NPV. That which is sourced appears to be self published from the subject's website and personal publications. If someone who is familiar with BLPs could help remedy this it would be appreciated. I didn't want to just remove all unsourced and self-sourced information there, however this article needs much work.
BLP's are not a subject I specialize in, please help Der.Gray (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This article does seem to have a lot of self promotion. I will check out Google and see if I can find some secondary sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(I'm back) He seems to be a fairly important person in the neo-pagan field, covered in stories in the NYT and others. A good article about him could be written. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kitfoxxe - I agree, he does seam important to such, my concern is for the neutrality of the article (having it read less like an advertisement/promotional entry, and more biographically) and with proper sourcing. I'll try and hit google to see if I can find independent or published sources for the links which are there, however not sure how much chance I'll be able to do. How should content which can not be found validated independently and only by the person's website? What about matters which cannot be sourced on either the person's website or independently? Thanks for helping Kitfoxxe! Der.Gray (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree the article was edited extensively by a person with a declared COI, it is in need of a rewrite , I don't think there is anything that requires desperately removing, I would take the not contentious content out as it is replaced. I have added a search template to the talkpage there to assist in locating sources. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob - is there a template we can put on the article itself to let people know? The talk page doesn't seem to be very active, if it is more visible it may encourage people more. Just a thought. Der.Gray (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Inhofe (again)

The opening paragraph of the Jim_Inhofe#Environmental_issues section says:

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe "politicizes and misuses the science of climate change"^[2] while in the UK, Johann Hari stated that Inhofe's statements have been "repudiated" by "even the handful of contrarian scientists Inhofe constantly cites."^[3] On the other hand, Inhofe’s view on climate change have been praised by Australian geologist, palaeoclimatologist and climate change sceptic Bob Carter who says that Inhofe “has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain.”^[4]

Two editors have been removing the last sentence, stating that this is somehow gives WP:UNDUE to global warming scepticism. I've tried a couple of different quotes from different notable sceptics, but these editors apparently feel that any' favourable quote from a sceptic is not allowed. I'm trying to clarify that that is the case.

I would appreciate editors with a NPOV adding their two cents. The Talk page discussion can be found here. Any insight would be helpful. Madman (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence shows the importance of the subject of the article. Of course it should be included. If Hitler had said someone was a leading Nazi that would be included. (Sorry for the example, I hope it didn't cost me the argument. :-) ) Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "praise" is redundant. I suggest a more concise sentence: "On the other hand, Bob Carter, a climate change sceptic, has said that Inhofe 'has been instrumental [etc.]'" This places Inhofe within the context of the climate change skepticism crowd without overdoing it; it's the quotation itself that matters, after all. Chick Bowen 03:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree.Borock (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree and mention that views aren't often praised. Either this version or Niteshift's below would resolve the wording. Other that, as far as inclusion of the sentence, I do not agree that any favourable quote from a skeptic is not allowed. Inhofe has played a very vocal role in the GW/CC scene and inclusion of a quote that describes that role in a positive light is certainly worth including (especially given the sentences that lead up to it). jheiv (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I feel the term "climate change skeptic" has a negative connotation. I agree that "praise" could probably go. I'd prefer something like "Inhofe’s view on climate change have been supported by Australian geologist and palaeoclimatologist Bob Carter who said..." Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Review request (Alina Cala)

I'd like to get an independent review of this my edit [15]. Per WP:BOLD I have removed whole Controversy section from the Alina Cala article due to the following concerns: 1. This section about a living person was written in negative non-neutral tone and contained false information about its subject. Namely phrase "her interview was noted as shocking in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, due to her allegations of Polish state-sponsored participation in the Holocaust" is not supported by the provided reference. In her interview Alina Cala does not talk about "state-sponsored participation in Holocaust" but rather about a degree of Polish responsibility. As far as I can tell "state-sponsored participation in Holocaust" is not mentioned neither in provided reference nor in her original interview. Further rebuttal of the statement that simply does not exist is an obvious WP:Coatrack and WP:Synthesis - 29th Waffen Grenadier Division has nothing to do with Alina Cala's biography. Alina Cala obviously is not mentioned in the Norman Davies book which is cited in this case.

2. This section is WP:UNDUE because of "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. An newspaper interview and two responses to it (one of which is coming from clearly unreliable tabloid Super Express) is simply not notable enough to be included into the biography of the living historian.

That is how I see the situation. Any outside opinions are most welcome. Thank you.M0RD00R (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It did look like one opinion was being given undue weight, perhaps the content could be condensed into a single sentence. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I fail to see how it is notable at all to be included. In my opinion the interview has nothing to do with Alina Cala's notability and simply is WP:UNDUE to be included in any form.M0RD00R (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the interview in its google translation, which is unfortunately not all that helpful because many key words are left in the original Polish. Normally we deal with such interviews as external links, not references; we generally use only English external links, but this might be a reasonable exception. The problem with the interview is the rather hostile tone of the interviewer; the newspaper is, however, a respectable one. I consider the interview usable, if there are no other interviews available. It would be highly desirable, though, to see if there were other interviews available--ideally one in English, which would be preferfred. I do not see any other basis to exclude it. The rest of the paragraph is a one-sided attack, and must be removed. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if the interview would be included in the external links section. But I'm not sure how we can use it in the article itself? There are quite a lot of historical events discussed in the interview, if we are going to cite every Alina Cala's opinion on every historical event, this article soon will turn into just another half-baked history coatrack. M0RD00R (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Institute of National Remembrance is the most important Polish government agency dealing with both Nazi and Communist crimes committed in Poland and that's where the section was linked to originally, not to a newspaper. If the information was extending beyond the exact spoken words, it was only because the Holocaust was the issue discussed by both sides, although the word wasn't mentioned in the Polish citation. Information quoted from the IPN webpage contained foreshortenings with regard to examples given, which were expanded here to include internal links to these subjects. That's not WP:Coatrack. Please condense the content if you see it necessary, but as I already stated in talk, the issue has already been written about in Poland, so removing the entire section is hardly justified as a BLP concern. It's a matter of proper balance. --Poeticbent talk 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because a summary of tabloid (Super Express in this case) article is published on IPN website in the Press Review section, still hardly it is a reliable source because authorship of this information still should be credited to tabloid and not to IPN. And when the information in the article "is extending beyond the exact spoken words" of the source, in most cases it is called WP:Original research. And if the original research is attempted in the biographical article it is a violation of WP:BLP, especially when the original research has negative overtones. M0RD00R (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand your point M0RD00R. You’re making repeated references to Super Express while in fact you’re referring to an interview with president of Kolegium IPN. The information does not belong to the newspaper but to Prof. Andrzej Paczkowski, an expert in the field so to speak. All of them: Paczkowski, Cała, but also dr. Piotr Gontarczyk from IPN are living scholars. They’re public figures addressing issues of national importance due to the nature of their professions. If they disagree, they do it in public. Naturally, we have the right to inform our readership about what they said. For example, the opinions expressed by dr. Cała might at times be very controversial. However, just because they seem shocking (that’s the exact word used by one of her interlocutors) the reactions are not inadmissible here. In fact, in our biographies we often inform about the controversial nature of our subjects in the very first line of their WP:BIO. I would appreciate if Off2riorob helped us resolve this quandary, thanks to your experience in these matters. --Poeticbent talk 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And the point is obvious - Super express is not a reliable source, because it is a sensationalist tabloid, not merely reporting on political scandals, but actively provoking them in some cases [16]. Interview (and it does not matter who is giving it) printed in sensationalist tabloid can not be used as a reference in the BLP article. M0RD00R (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think as DGG commented that the content does have a value, and there is no support as I can see here to remove all the content, if no other source is available then it is fine imo to use, remove what is clearly a one sided attack as DGG said and add a reduced comment, if you dispute the reliability of sources then ask at the WP:RSN . Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, DGG said that the Alina Cala's interview is usable, and not that the content of controversy section of the article in question is usable. I've asked for follow-up to clear things up. M0RD00R (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised, that I rewrote the section about the controversy along your suggestions, made by both Off2riorob and DGG (above) and I reinstated the paragraph. I included in the article also the external link to Prof. Paczkowski’s full response to what dr. Cała said in Polish. As it stands, our article makes no evaluating comments about the opinions expressed by Ms Cała other than to state them. The summarized response by Paczkowski includes internal links (which I added, taking advantage of the existing articles) to clarify what specific examples of collaboration were given by Paczkowski in his interview. We all know that the controversy is already discussed in the Polish media, therefore, making a note of it seems important and well justified, just like in similar WP:BLP articles devoted to living historians. Please take a look, feedback appreciated. --Poeticbent talk 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding DGG version a reasonable compromise, even if some WP:RS issues may need some further attention. M0RD00R (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also find the DGG small comment also totally fine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

the explanation of my edit seems to have been lost in an e.c., so I insert it here after the fact , sincee I think it is a possible guide to how to handle this rather frequently occurring situation, not just here, and not just Poland: I think it naïve to accept any official source of any agency of any government as authoritative for matters which occurred during ethnic conflicts within their country or involving their country. There is no way of discussing such topics in an article without presenting the entire history of this relationship, and this can not in practice be done in every article involving those who has commented on them. The only thing which can be done is this situation is to present sources in an even-handed manner, and to avoid adjectives that imply judgement. I support including the interview because it is a dialog, with her view expressed and the interviewer implying sharp doubts about it. I seen no reason not to include a reference to the INR response also, but we need references to responses supporting her also, if available. The additional text, summarizing the INR views, is not balanced, because then we would have to summarize her views equally. To avoid the external link problem with non-English links, I managed to write a sentence to which the interview--and the INR response-- can be used as references, and I have substituted these. I see no reason to include quotation in the references, because they have links to available on-line versions. If we included them, we would need to include corresponding quotes from her position. In other words, link to the sources, and leave the polemics to them. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Review request (Ellen Cabaniss Bawcom)

This article does not meet notability standards and reads like a personal advertisement. Dj22g (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It could go to WP:AfD. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Cabaniss Bawcom. M0RD00R (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can an admin please delete this edit?

here? A problem if this Mark guy finds out, and not really the best thing to have in the page history. Thanks TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is now removed -- silly vandals.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I mean remove it from the database (this is done in some cases of personal attacks or threats, or severe BLP issues, like here). I already reverted the edit. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regular admins can't do that - you want Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. But the edit looks like the silly run-of-the-mill vandalism that we revert hundreds of times a day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok then, I guess we'll leave it in. Didn't know sysops can't do that. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, admins can do RevisionDelete which hides the revised text but still keeps it in the database, viewable by other admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Plimer

This was removed from the article with the edit summary "It's still a "claim about a third party". See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source)."

===Climate Research Unit Emails ("Climategate")===

In a November 25, 2009 editorial, Plimer stated his views on the CRU emails as follows: "Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination."^[5]

Is this material from a published blog where he is a named author intrinsically improiper to yuse? Does this material constitute a BLP vilation -- and, if so, on whom is it a BLP violation? And to what extent is it a "claim about a third party" and does this claim constitute a BLP violation? No one doubts that he wrote the words, or that this is a valid expression of his opinion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I think the politicalization of science, by both the "left" and the "right", is a very shameful and harmful thing -- I have to agree that this quote doesn't belong on WP unless it was published by a secondary source. Even then it should be in an article on the event. Dr. Plimer's article should be about him, not his opinions on current events. (I would say the same for a global warming promoter as a denier.)Steve Dufour (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is, however, on his opinions. Just not this one. Do you find the quote "libel" in any way, however? Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have the article renamed to..the opinions of Ian Plimer . Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The chief objection raised therein was on the basis of "libel." Is such present? There is no shortage of opinion in the article otherwise -- I think having another editor excise all the "opinion" would be an interesting exercise. Collect (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no need for that, I suspect there would be nothing left, it seems to be that this opinon is a bit extreme to the point of being close to libelous.. imo they are not really they are just kind of unproven and bigged up so to speak, if it has beeen repeated in stronger citations perhaps..this whole editing issues around climate change here are awful and in need of a wider community solution. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it falls foul of WP:BLP#Self-published sources's clear prohibition on using self-published sources to discuss third parties: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events."

The reason why we insist on third party sources for statements made about third parties is because they have gone through editorial scrutiny and (presumably) legal checking. The content might still be considered libellous, to be sure, but the fact that a third party has previously put it through an editorial and legal process gives us a degree of insulation. If we quote directly from something written by a self-published individual, we don't have that insulation - we are potentially incorporating libellous material directly into an article without filtering it through any third-party review. Note that under WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source, the restrictions listed "do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published". That reflects the editorial control present in autobiographies but lacking in self-published sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case at hand, Plimer is not the publisher -- a specific commercial company "Pajamas Media" is the publisher. If he is not the publisher, is his work "self-published"? And I do not see anything remotely approaching libel in "Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination." Perhaps you can parse it to show me the libel? Collect (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased" is a direct accusation of professional fraud. In the U.S. it would certainly be actionable unless it could be proven true beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know about other countries. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the point imo also, there is no verification, what do we have a climate change denier says that people altered the facts and figures to make it look as if climate change existed, imo it isn't libelous, especially as it is British and we don't do that much, but it is unproven accusations and shouldn't be included imo. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

US law does not recognize libel against an unnamed group of people. Second, the cite os of opinion, and' last I checked, WP allows citing of opinions. Third, Mike Godwin a while back wrote about proposed BLP revisions that WMF does not want any rules on WP to reflect any national laws as such. Fourth, the precedent on Prescott Bush was that "even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. " was allowable, even though it makes a specific criminal charge relating to living persons (the family "dynasty." Now it appears an opinion which names no one is "libel" and one which makes specific criminal charges is not "libel"? I am confused by the apparent divergence here. Collect (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a little beside the point - our policies are stricter than US libel laws. Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the more or less the same content being removed on the Climate chage in the UK article, my first and last foray into the climate change problem area. Perhaps it is just that the climate change supporters want to deny it, have your though to ask Jimbo? Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to some points by Collect: A statement does not necessarily have to be libellous in any strict judicial sense to be inadmissible under WP:BLP. Secondly, opinions are definitely acceptable on Wikipedia – so long as they're attributed to reliable secondary sources. Opinions attributed to dubious sources (such as Plimer's blog post) however, are acceptable only under very narrowly defined circumstances, listed in WP:SELFPUB. Accusing an organization of professional fraud is emphatically not one of these circumstances. Gabbe (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And in this particular case, the accusers are levelling these allegations not just against an organisation but against a handful of specific named individuals working in that organisation. It is not just a generalised accusation - anyone reading this and knowing about the issue at hand will recognise who Plimer is accusing in his post. One of the biggest problems with including this kind of stuff is that no actual wrongdoing has been established - it is all speculation. Stating it as fact, as Plimer does, thus gives a totally misleading impression of the state of play, particularly as he neither has any personal involvement in the case nor any relevant scientific expertise (he is not a climatologist). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing here is the problem. Should Plimer's accusations be picked up widely and become a major part of the fuss over the Climatic Research Unit, then we should report them. But picking them up from Plimer's blog and broadcasting them on the much louder billhorn of Wikipedia is obviously inappropriate. Perhaps we should imitate the characters of Star Trek and cast the BLP as a kind of Prime Directive: if Wikipedia coverage is likely to boost the circulation of a potentially harmful statement about a living person, the presumption should be against inclusion. --TS 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Individuals make potentially libelous comment all the time and while the material might not be appropriate in the articles about the individuals who are “libeled” they are most certainly appropriate in the articles about the people doing the “libeling”. The material in question is properly sourced according to both BLP and SELFPUBLISH and it is not being used in the climategate article. WVBluefield (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way our policy works. Material that violates BLP doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia - not in articles about the subject, not in articles about the people making the statements, not on talk pages... Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but that standard is applied nowhere on Wikipedia and I could cite dozens of examples. WVBluefield (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LISTEN PEOPLE. THE SOURCE is NOT A BLOG POST. PERIOD. Stop saying that it is. Any argument based on it being a blog post is a non-starter becasue THE SOURCE IS NOT A BLOG POST. --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat, THE SOURCE IS NOT A BLOG POST. Are we all clear on that now? If not let me know and I shall correct you again. --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't a blog post, what on earth is it doing on the Pajamas Media blog? --TS 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's the source of YOUR confusion, my friend. Pajamas Media is NOT a blog. Please, educate yourself. --GoRight (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what makes this extra specially cute, is that these are the same people who fight tooth and nail to include content from RealClimate in every BLP of person labeled a climate skeptic. WVBluefield (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a blog post? How do you know that? How is any other editor supposed to know that? And why is it at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/? Guettarda (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The posting is under pajamasmedia.com/blog/, and the website consists almost exclusively of commentary by bloggers. Like Huffington Post, it's a blog with pretensions, but arguing that it's something other than a blog (an online newspaper? Where's the news? ) is pointless. It's the blog that hired Joe the Plumber as a "foreign correspondent" to go to Israel and look even more of a fool than he did when they stood him next to Sarah Palin to give her gravitas. And yes, if a RealClimate was used to call someone a criminal rather than comment on climatology we'd reject it immediately. --TS 03:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• GoRight, if Pajama Media is adjudged not simply a blog outlet, and you are allowed to quote Plimer's libels, then I should be free to quote well-known science blogger, Tim Lambert, on Plimer. I'm sure that would raise your hackles. ► RATEL ◄ 10:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you aren't objecting to the Plimer quote because it raises your hackles, correct? I would hope GoRight isn't either. Our job is to fairly represent all sides of controversy, including, perhaps even especially, those with which we disagree. All of us should be doing that. --DGaw (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I think the question of whether Pajamas Media is a blog may be beside the point for purposes of the current discussion. The main issue, as ChrisO said, is: does Pajamas Media exert editorial control over the content published on their site? Do you know? If so, they are a third-party publisher, and potentially an acceptable source. If not, what Plimer wrote is self-published and can't be included even if it isn't libelous, per the policy ChrisO cited. --DGaw (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Pajamas Media's About Us page described the site as a "Portal" and a "weblog". They do not vet the comments published by the people who submit material. It is nothing more than a blog site, like so mant others. Debate over. ► RATEL ◄ 05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I can't see this ending well

"Category:Blood Money" has just been created and has the potential to be a BLP nightmare. I couldn't find a speedy deletion criteria to zap it immediately, but perhaps we can get some eyes on the articles being tagged with this category until it can be removed? The criteria for inclusion in the catgeory is "This is a list of people popularly believed to have taken "blood money"" (emphasis mine). --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BrownHairedGirl cleared the category and Wuhwuzdat has nominated the category for deletion, so I think this can be marked as resolved. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone would like to comment on this category, it is under consideration for deletion and the discussion is here . Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This wouold seem to be highly subjective. Also what is meant by 'blood money'?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] stdcarriers.com - lists of people with HIV

This was originally raised at the RSN board by another editor - [17] but the owner of the site in question is still pushing it and I believe that the BLP issues are the most important ones and that we need more input on that. I've just realised I don't know the protocol here, should I copy any of the text from the RSN board here or just rely on people reading it via the link? Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is fine, it is clearly wrong, not a wiki RS and BLP concerns and why the editor refuses to get it I fail to see. The editor has been here a day and a half and has warnings on his talkpage and a thread here and a thread a wiki RS and he has eighteen edits and has a conflict of interest related to the link that he is attempting to add wherever he can, you can be too lenient imo. 13:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

[edit] James Stacy

More eyes are needed at the James Stacy article as an SPA, Anovoula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has decided that content concerning the subject's child molestation conviction is "inflammatory" and "libelous" despite the fact that there are reliable sources (a People magazine and an L.A. Times article) supporting the content. This behavior has been going on since June and since they're racked up a few warnings, they've taken to logging out to remove the content. 69.154.191.180 (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, yes? the content does seem to be a bit, how do you say made a meal of imo it is a bit dramatically written, perhaps a small rewrite to take some of the excessive detail out of it. Actually looking more at it, is is fine, it was just that I found it hard to accept that a one armed, one legged man drank a bottle of whiskey, jumped off a 370 meter cliff and survived. Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds a bit fantastical but it appears to be true. This really isn't a content dispute as the user is simply removing what they don't like despite it being sourced. Is there a more appropriate avenue to pursue to find a solution to this? 69.154.191.180 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a content dispute in the simple way that he doesn't want the content in the article and you do. If and when he appears to have been repeatedly pointy enough to warrant a 3RR report of the same content, make a report and explain the long term repeated behavior, regarding the content, I found out he was released early, this should be added imo, do you know when? Are you especially only interested in this guy or have you got another account? Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know when the dude was released or anything of that nature. I worked on the article previously (just general clean up mostly) and wasn't aware of this whole drama until an IP editor complained about the content being removed (see the article talk page). I did some research and found out Stacy actually was convicted so I restored the content and added an additional source yesterday. I do have an account in good standing, but I'm currently on a self-imposed Wikipedia break which obviously isn't panning out too well. 69.154.191.180 (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for declaring that, no worries. As I said, the content is reliable and verifiable, so the best place if it continues would imo be the 3RR board as edit warring can also happen over a longer period than a day. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tinsel Korey

There is a great deal of poorly sourced information in the brief article on Tinsel Korey. Much of it at best irrelevant to the subject's profession and disproportionate given the subject's notability and at worst defamatory. Any attempt to revise the content is reverted, even to make sure it is more clearly written. This has been an ongoing issue. Is there anything that can be done? Nangbaby (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've chopped out the controversial information - the sources do not meet our reliable sources policy making the whole lot BLP violations. Revert any attempt to add the information without concrete references and sources - request Administrator intervention if the problem persists. Exxolon (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Conten was replaced, I have again removed it and left a friendly note on the editors talkpage, if it is replaced again perhaps short term protection will be needed, lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• A new user was created, with the first edit they created this new article Harsha Patel (a.k.a. Tinsel Korey) which I nominated as an attack page for speedy and then with the other two edits they replaced the disputed content at Tinsel Korey any input would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Luke

• 76.166.239.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr. Luke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - a user has been reverting my expansion of this article, and then left me a message on my talk page about representing the subject of the article and having privacy concerns with my additions. My sources include a couple of bios published by music equipment manufacturers, and a magazine article. I'd appreciate broader input on these sources so that the article meets WP:BLP. dissolve^talk 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Patterson

There is an anonymous IP attempting to add unsourced speculation about the subject's job status. I've removed it twice, but thought I would put a notice here as well. UnitAnode 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left him a friendly note and also added to my watchlist, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Libelous postings on Linda Morand biography

173.68.239.236 This ip address has posted libelous information concerning Linda Morand's current living situation. The postings are misspelled and false. I have removed them whenever I became aware of them and have now put the page on my watch list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaineBender (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)--ElaineBender (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit|[[Talk:Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) I've added a {{pressmulti}} to the talk page and it has been removed again and again on WP:BLP claims (not specified). Here is some of the removals I'm aware of

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) removes it by stating 1. "Like Solomon's piece on which it is based, this Delingpole opinion column presents severe BLP problems." (Revision as of 2009-12-23T21:35:25)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) 2. "Inappropriate press link (BLP issues" Revision as of 2009-12-24T17:20:52
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Taking out the thrash. We don't spread lies per WP:BLP." (Revision as of 2009-12-26T09:20:07)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "trash removal again" (Revision as of 2009-12-26T11:39:36)

Added after my original post

• ChrisO (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "rv per WP:BLP" (Revision as of 2009-12-28T08:46:21)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "there was no consensus to add this" (2009-12-29T18:31:14)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs) removes it by stating "Undid revision 334813567 by Nsaa (talk) - under opinion hit piece by climate skeptic - not legitimate press coverage in any possible way" (2009-12-29T23:59:51)

Two questions. 1. I can't see any BLP issues by linking to an article like this. Where is the issue? 2. Iff this is an WP:BLP issue, should not also the linking in the discussions be removed? It's linked to this active tread Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#James_Delingpole:_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia Archive_14#James_Delingpole:_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia discussion tread AND the archived one Archive_13#"Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia"? Nsaa (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Much of Delingpole's article is a verbatim repetition, without critical commentary, and with express endorsement, of a column by Lawrence Solomon that makes accusations against Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley. Those accusations against Connolley have been conscientiously examined here in the appropriate venue and found to be "the hyperventilations of an opinion journalist who, among other things, confuses [William M. Connolley]'s 3RR patrolling with his global warming editing, [and] not a credible foundation for a complaint." This is explained at the top of the talk page, in the answer to Question 10 of the FAQ.

What Nsaa seems to want to do is to add to the talk page a {{pressmulti}} template. Such press templates are typically used to boast about press coverage, and as a courtesy to reward editors for their hard work. As they're on the talk page they don't constitute part of the article.

Adding the press template, however, might mislead readers, who would simply see the link saying that a media organization had discussed this article, then would proceed to the article and see only the attack and the false accusations, and not the result of the investigation. No encyclopedic purpose would justify this, the article is already discussed in context so we're not censoring it, and so the biographies of living persons policy strongly supports the notion that this proposed permanent and gratuitous mention of the article under the guise of a reference to a press mention would be inappropriate.

In answer to Nsaa's second question, of course it is appropriate for Wikipedians to investigate media reports of purported wrongdoing by Wikipedians, even in opinion columns, and this has been done. As the discussions in question contain ample commentary that add context to these baseless attacks, they are appropriate and need not be removed. --TS 13:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are angry when I read this ("... fair-minded Wikipedians tried to remove the graph from the page, as can be seen here. Exactly two minutes later, one of Connelley’s associates replaced the graph, restoring the page to Connelley’s original version, as seen here.") where among other things your revert is discussed. But that's really irrelevant, but give context why you strive so hard to keep this out (Solomon and Delingpole's comment based upon the Solomon). Even one of Solomons pieces is mentioned in the Talk:Medieval Warm Period by using the same template. Either is a link a violation of WP:BLP or it should not be used. As I points out above at the discussion page (which is not even indexed by Search engines) should either allow mentioning of this kind of articles or they should be banned (not very likely). Nsaa (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of precisely how noting via the "press" template a mass-media opinion piece that maligns an administrator for their administrative actions (in this case, transparently unfairly) would violate BLP. As a matter of interpreting the policy I don't see anything specific in the wording of the policy. As a matter of Wikipedia practice, the template has several beneficial purposes and I do not think it is fair to call it mere vanity or navel-gazing.

As a Wikipedia editor working on a given article, and trying to understand the edit history of the article and its talk page, it is often useful to note portrayals of the article in the press. The concern over shielding editors against negative comments about their edits seems misplaced here. These major media editorials are read by tends of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people as it is, and they're all googlable. The only additional hits they will get from Wikipedia is a few dozen editors of the article in question, who probably should read them for background. Forbidding discussion of negative things about Wikipedia shares with more overt censorship several unfortunate results. People are uninformed. Without exposure to bad ideas people have no chance to understand and refute them. It gives the appearance that we are hiding the truth or don't trust how our own editors will deal with being exposed to criticism, in a context where we are already unfairly accused of doing so. The history of the talk page shows that when they do read the opinion piece most editors see right through its hyperbole and misrepresentation.

Those who agree with the editorial that Wikipedia is a liberal cabal tend not to be the reasonable editors who contribute to article content in the first place. They come from elsewhere to complain about the article - they are not innocent contributors corrupted by exposure to a bad link. Finally, if the concern and the dividing line between a BLP violation and no BLP violation is the chance to respond, it would be a simple matter to add a field or include some commentary in the template pointing to the onwiki discussion and refutation of the piece's claims. The FAQ already does that, so the only question is why do we think it's okay to link to it in the FAQ but not a list of media mentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 2009-12-28T21:30:08 - 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

>>I have asked repeatedly for an explanation of precisely how noting via the "press" template a mass-media opinion piece that maligns an administrator for their administrative actions (in this case, transparently unfairly) would violate BLP.<<

1. William M. Connolley is a living person.
2. These opinion pieces contain many obvious falsehoods about William M. Connolley, and these falsehoods are accusations.
3. These "opinion pieces" (the first of them, which the others follow, is really just a blog) are not reliable sources for the statements they make.

Using Wikipedia to publicize poorly-sourced false accusations about a living person is a BLP violation. Cardamon (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with #1 and #2. Per #3, it's a news blog but as an opinion piece it's unreliable anyway. Plus whatever it is, the piece is mean-spirited and wrong. So no qualms there, in my opinion.

It's the last part that seems to have no basis in policy. BLP does not tell us not to "publicize" something, nor is publicizing what we are doing - both of those are stretches and not in the word of the policy. BLP says we are supposed to have high-quality sources for "material" about living people, and that we should only use high-quality external links. Noting the existence of media coverage on a talk page template is not publicizing the mention, it is simply filling editors in. The notice in a talk page template is neither material, nor is it an external link. It's information. If that's as close as it gets, I think I'm right that the letter of policy does not preclude this.

That leaves us with the spirit of policy, which I strongly feel is better served by trusting Wikipedia editors to with the truth, not filtering out all the unpleasant bits. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations are already discussed, with a reference to the Conflict of interest discussion, in the FAQ of the relevant article. There is no censorship involved. --TS 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over birth year on Foxy Brown (rapper)

An ongoing dispute is occuring in the article about Foxy Brown (rapper) over sourcing her birth year. Right now it's cited as 1979 based on allmusic. An Entertainment Weekly article from March 2001 lists her age as 21 at the time, supporting a September 1979 birthday. However, another user argues that it really should be 1978 based on a police report from 2007 and a song where she claims to be born in 1978.

WP:WELLKNOWN says not to use public records, in this case a police report that The Smoking Gun reprinted on its website. Which is the more reliable source here? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the smoking gun said to be ok, and if the song from her supports that, why not go with that claim, imo. I have seen were there are two claims that if hotly disputed, both have been there, but this seems a bit silly. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

She was born in 1978, you just have to get over it. Even if you aren't supposed to use public record as a source, for whatever reason, it still makes her birth year as a fact. If allmusic reports her birth year is 1990, would you put that? Didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.108.159 (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sharla Cheung

Sharla Cheung is being vandalized and unreferenced BLP violations being added by probably a single editor using multiple IPs. Please keep an eye out. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yair Garfias

Some IP editor keeps listing Yair Garfias (aka Yon Garfias) as the bassist of The Young Veins in contradiction to the band's own web sites which have listed Andy Soukal as the bassist. A Google news archive search for Garfias finds only Spanish-language sources whose reliability I am unsure of, the Wikipedia artucle has only primary and unreliable sources, and there's some discussion on the talk page that it may be a hoax. I added the {{BLP refimprove}} and {{hoax}} tags to the article but I'd appreciate a second opinion here — is this really a hoax (in which case we should take it to AfD) or just a very poorly sourced BLP? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello David. I did a quick Google search and I cannot find any sources other than Garfias's own site that cover Garfias in any detail. I think Garfias's article should be AfD'd as it does not warrant an individual article. As for your query, since no reliable source states he's the bassist, and the band's website mentions Soukal, you were correct in reverting the IP's changes. Live.love.laugh.dream (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I started an AfD here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ellis Lankster

• Ellis Lankster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — I am currently in a bit of a dispute regarding a mention of this person on the webstie Failblog. My opinion is that Failblog does not constitute a reliable source and should certainly not be used for a living person, and that in this case, the purpose of the mention is solely to mock the subject. I would appreciate a third opinion; please weigh in at Talk:Ellis Lankster. Thank you. Chick Bowen 02:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Live.love.laugh.dream (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal

[edit] Mr. Tyminski

Please remove anonymous contentious topic of discussion in reference to Mr. Tyminski wife – the posting implies that she was poor and did not speak English when Mr. Tyminski met her – neither is true and the only reason for this posting is politically motivated slender:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stanis%C5%82aw_Tymi%C5%84ski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.228.18 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been removed. Aditya Ex Machina 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas McDermott, Jr.

Snakemeets012 keeps adding contentious and politically slanted stories to the above biography. As noted on his/her usertalk page, this isn't the only time or page that has been edited incorrectly by this member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.158.44 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not Snakemeets anymore, rather established editors are adding that information. I'm watching the article closely. 5:40 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, established editors...That content is coatracking and totally excessive, adding them is nothing more than a political attack. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Payson

Can anybody find any reliable sources on Arthur Payson? I can't find any, and I'm beginning to wonder about his notability. A BLP without reliable sources is by default problematic. Woogee (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to AfD. No coverage in reliable, secondary sources. 5:40 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a search template and had a look, he is a real person but not notable imo, I have prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Keegan

• Victor Keegan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Can someone figure out if this guy is actually dead? Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's published an article thee days after the date the IP said he died and tweeted regularly to boot, so doubtful. –xeno^talk 16:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Amanat

This article has a long history of problems, with a lack of neutrality and verifiability from solid sources, and attack material being added. Right now there is an issue with the re-adding of a "coatrack"-nature slur, via a business associate. I shall quote chapter and verse from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "People who are relatively unknown" to the editor in question; but the position is apparently that a well-informed personal or business enemy of the subject is active in trying to slant the article, and is persistent. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Salmoni

The bulk of this article is about accusations of fraud. It's heavy under the WP:WEIGHT of the criticisms. Woogee (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick look and it does appear excessive, the refs 6, 7 and 8 do not appear to mention the subject at all, the article could use a copy edit for weight. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer? Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Leavitt

Someone else may want to keep an eye on this page. Leavitt allegedly assaulted a player, but the allegations were found to be false, so I'm under the assumption that the incident doesn't belong in the page. An IP (and associated new editor) are adding the blurb, but I have kept it out thus far. Little Mookie (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page about this one, while the incident was later recanted at least partially by the player, the allegations made national news and were quite notable. Leavitt is notable on a national level because of the incident, and searches for him are up because of the incident with Mike Leach. By my way of thinking, the best way to handle this as per BLP is not to delete the matter as gossip, but to show the highly notable allegations, and also the later denial by the player. I've updated the page with the initial allegations, and the rebuttal by the player. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good move, looks well written and cited to me. Off2riorob (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's someone being funny, but a legal threat has been added to the talk page. Little Mookie (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The above editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs). Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs) is also a sp of Crotchety.  5:40  15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schiavo

This is my first posting, so please forgive my errors.

I simply want to flag that this article does not seem to have been reviewed, and does not seem to meet the guidelines for biographical entries, especially for a neutral point of view, adequate references, and documentation.

This person is again in the news because of recent developments in aviation and terrorism, and may be used as a source material. I think it does not meet standards for that.

I cannot yet devote time to making needed edits. Jeffbrichards (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is very poorly written, and seems to be promoting her views. This has exactly the opposite effect of what was intended. It looks like some editors are now working on improving the article. She seems to be a notable person. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Shimizu / Jenny Lynn Shimizu

I was dismayed to note that a recent article at Jenny Lynn Shimizu seems to duplicate the subject but not the content of Jenny Shimizu, a well-referenced article that has existed since 2006. Unfortunately from my point of view, the new article also appears to contain excellent citations and material which adds depth to the smaller amount found in the earlier article. Ordinarily I'd just turn the new one into a redirect to the existing one, but I can't help feeling that that's not the right thing to do; this really needs someone to go through both and selectively merge the two, I think. I know very little about the subject matter and would not be the right person to do that selective merge, I think; it needs an awareness of the topics that I don't have. I've asked for assistance from a colleague knowledgeable in the matters of LGBT topics but want to ensure that this situation gets attention so that we don't maintain two articles for very long. Comments and assistance would be appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• The new one,Jenny Lynn Shimizu created by one new editor and an ip looks and reads like a COI advert to me. Off2riorob (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One section starts...Featured Art and Publications...Likewise, her image is exhibited in museums and books all over the world. Exhibits include....bla bla. ...really? All over the world.. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sister Vincenza

Sister Vincenza is sourced, but I'd appreciate someone running an eye over it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

She is not even mentioned on the Pope article, it is a conspiracy theory, she is not notable for a bio and if there is any notability it is for this one event, or rather a conspiracy which isn't even really an event. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, she wouldn't be mentioned in his bio, since the conspiracy theories are rather fringey; but she is mentioned in the article on those theories. Still, she's not independently notable, so the article should be deleted and merged into the conspiracy theory article. -- Zsero (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks Zsero, Pope_John Paul I conspiracy theories a small mention, I was going to prod it but then I discovered the article was created by an editor I have a degree of contact with so I have left him a note asking him about it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually you can find her in several books, and newspapers from her time. She is connected to one event for notability, but I considered her somewhat like Monica Lewinski. The pope is insanely famous and so is the president. Both ladies played a part in a famous man's life and therefore achieved notability by association. [[22]] is a google news search, and the remaining references to her have been within printed books. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And if she'd had a widely-publicised affair with the pope, which led to a crisis in his papacy that occupied the headlines for years, she'd be notable. But no matter how famous the US president is, a White House janitor is not notable even if he gossips to reporters about what he's seen there. -- Zsero (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple google search with her name plus pope will show she has widespread coverage...For thirty years now.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have updated some of the sources too. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular opinion is against me. I think it should be included, as such I would've removed any prods on the page. I have therefore taken the liberty of Nominating to AFD with a Keep vote to avoid useless procedure. Please fell free to review the changes and comment [[23]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coyote Shivers

Info4coyote (talk · contribs) is adding information about recent arrests to the article. I've reverted the changes as they were written in a very biased manner although there was a source provided, bringing it here as I wasn't sure what to do if they continue, which I assume they will. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition was totally excessive, I have left the new account a note about the content, one of the citations is not reliable and the fox mentions accusations of this and that, if its re added in the same way I suggest semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected for a week. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arielle Dombasle

Arielle Dombasle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A user (IP) is trying to push through his alleged findings about Dombasle's birthdate and birthplace that contradict the actress's own web site and many other sources. According to the pictures of documents (?) he has published on his own blog, she's five years older (born 1953) than she admits (born 1958). The French and German articles have already been blocked due to his repeated and undiscerning actions. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found in my life that this is commonplace to say you are younger than you really are, I have at times done it myself. Are there any strong citation of any kind? Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Her own web site confirms 1958. No matter if it's true or not, it's the official version which can't simply be deleted from the article. There are various web sites that say 1958, there are also some web sites that say 1953, but I haven't seen a source as strong as the official site. The documents allegedely copied and hosted on his own blog by that french guy certainly don't qualify as evidence here. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention 1953 was a possibility ? We have three dates now... Ill have another look at the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Three dates? 1958 (official), 1953 and ...? --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] John Rosatti

• John Rosatti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article on this businessman was recently expanded to contain information about criminal charges and an allegation that the subject was a member of a crime family. The editor Crackofdawn has contacted me off-wiki to make the argument that this development is not appropriate. The crime family claim, they maintain, is dependent on a single source, William Bastone, whose Village Voice article is based on private documents of unverified information collected by FBI from interviews with suspects. While an "alternative weekly" tabloid like the Villlage Voice is generally considered a reliable source for entertainment articles and suchlike, there is a case that it and derivative sources fall far short of the standard demanded by WP:BLP for a claim as contentious as this. I have no horse in this race, but would appreciate input from other uninvolved editors.  Skomorokh  23:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this perhaps would be better to take a couple of these cites for opinions at WP:RS this one looks reliable to me, comments? Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it a bit more the new content is weakly cited, not widely reported, quite controversial and should be better kept out until there are other citations or a consensus to keep this content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the defaming information until such time as this can be resolved. (X! · talk)  · @050  ·  00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with these citations:

• Bunch, William (26 October 2004). "Perzel playing with the 'numbers'" (Subscription required). Philadelphia Daily News, archived at LexisNexis (Philadelphia Newspapers). http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8227241456&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8227241459&cisb=22_T8227241458&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=23&nodeStateId=411en_GB,1,11&docsInCategory=1&csi=247246&docNo=1. Retrieved 2009-12-31. 
• Lambiet, Jose (24 October 2004). "Is John Staluppi Saving Riviera Beach?" (Subscription required). Palm Beach Post, archived at LexisNexis (The Palm Beach Newspapers). http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8227241456&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8227241459&cisb=22_T8227241458&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=12&nodeStateId=411en_GB,1,11,7,25,29&docsInCategory=7&csi=144576&docNo=6. Retrieved 2009-12-31. 
• "United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Nos 922, 979, 980 August term 1996S". FindLaw. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=docket&no=961237. Retrieved 2009-12-31. 

I see no problem with the Village voice citation either.

• "The Wiseguy and the Wetlands". Village Voice LLC. http://www.villagevoice.com/1998-06-02/news/the-wiseguy-and-the-wetlands/. Retrieved 2009-12-27. 

They are all far more reliable than than the puffery and paraphrased press releases in:

• "Honda Brooklyn | Acura Brooklyn | Toyota Brooklyn | Hyundai Brooklyn". Plaza Auto Mall. http://www.plazaautomall.com/. Retrieved 2009-12-15. 
• "Ward's E-Dealer 100" (PDF). 2009. http://wardsdealer.com/reports/2009/edealer100/2009WardsE-Dealer100.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-15. 

etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, perhaps these are better taken to the RS board one at a time, it is not only the reliability of the individual organizations but as the content is quite controversial and has been disputed, but have the comments being supported at other reliable citable locations to support the claims? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RSN regulars seem to support the reliability of the Village Voice, please read [24]. If you actually care to read what I wrote above, the Philadelphia Daily News and the Palm Beach Post also report that Rossati is a convicted felon (grand theft larcency) and is a member of the Colunbo crime family. What more do you need? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now the content is disputed and contentious, please allow editors new to the content a degree of time to investigate, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Further citations:

• Nelson, Jonathan (14 February 2008). "Christensen, New Zealand firm OK deal". The Columbian, archived at LexisNexis. Vancouver, Washington: The Columbian Publishing Co.. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8228117805&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8228117808&cisb=22_T8228117807&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=145264&docNo=11. Retrieved 2010-01-01. 
• "Dubya gets wiseguy vote, and wiseguy bucks". United Press International. 25 October 2004. http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8228117805&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8228117808&cisb=22_T8228117807&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8076&docNo=24. Retrieved 2010-01-01.  Jezhotwells (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how to access the LexisNexis links? I don't see a sign-up page anywhere. (X! · talk)  · @119  ·  01:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Jezhhotwells, please do not muddy the waters here by simply adding these meaningless citations, what content are they claimed to support, it simply stops people reading the story as it was to long didn't read. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• The citations are those that have been removed from the article by WP:COI editor User:Crackofdawn, they support the Village Voice article already cited. I did add these but they were removed by User:Crackofdawn and User:X!. I dispute that they are meaningless as they are newspaper articles in the Palm Beach Post, The Philadelphia Daily News, UPI, The Columbian; that assert that Rosatti is a member of the Colombo crime family and a convicted felon. If you are asserting that they are not reliable sources then please provide some evidence. I am sorry if this is too much information for you. If so then there is no need for you to comment any further. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again Jezhotwells,,,, your edit summary of response to inarticulate nonsense. is not helpful to discussion and also not very civil. Your whole attitude here is aggressive, please take a step back assume good faith, if you want to insert any of this disputed content then offer the individual edit and the supporting citation here for uninvolved editors to discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this edit made by me [25], citation is "United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Nos 922, 979, 980 August term 1996S". FindLaw. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=docket&no=961237. Retrieved 2009-12-31. 

Second edit: [26], citation is Lambiet, Jose (24 October 2004). "Is John Staluppi Saving Riviera Beach?" (Subscription required). Palm Beach Post, archived at LexisNexis (The Palm Beach Newspapers). http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8227241456&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8227241459&cisb=22_T8227241458&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=12&nodeStateId=411en_GB,1,11,7,25,29&docsInCategory=7&csi=144576&docNo=6. Retrieved 2009-12-31.  Jezhotwells (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this edit [27], cite is Bunch, William (26 October 2004). "Perzel playing with the 'numbers'" (Subscription required). Philadelphia Daily News, archived at LexisNexis (Philadelphia Newspapers). http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8227241456&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8227241459&cisb=22_T8227241458&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=23&nodeStateId=411en_GB,1,11&docsInCategory=1&csi=247246&docNo=1. Retrieved 2009-12-31. 

Jezhotwells, as you may or may not be aware, these references to LexisNexis citations are not useful to most of us, as most are not subscribers. Perhaps instead you could quote the relevant sentences or two from them that support the statements you wish to make in the article. --Slp1 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am struggling to see what you are offering here, but the citation from findlaw appears as if a primary citation and you appear to be using it to support this addition " In a 1997 US Court of Appeals: Second Circuit case, it was suggested that in 1991 Rosatti asked Columbo family caporegime Victor Orena to have Persico faction member Gregory Scarpa, Sr. killed "because he had apparently abused one of Rosatti's employees" .. is this the comment and its supporting citation? Are you supporting this controversial content with any third party citation? Off2riorob (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No doubt The Smoking Gun's reliability will be questioned, but I'm hopeful that it's a question which has previously been resolved. I'm not a master of hunting through the RS noticeboard archives, however.--otherlleft 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus is reached that the sources regarding crime activity are not reliable, I will nominate this article for deletion. Owning a fast yacht and a couple of used car dealerships fails WP:N on its own, and frankly this man would be better off without an entry otherwise because likely editors will continue to add sources related to his various convictions.--otherlleft 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Moneymaker

There is discussion that starts here and continues until the bottom of the talk page, including a RfC, concerning the addition of text refering to anonymous critics to the Chris Moneymaker article. The issues invole BLP, WP:WEASEL, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Since discussion is underway there, I assume that it where the issue should be discussed rather than on this page. 2005 (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there is much of a BLP issue there, it just looks like a load of talk? Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's primarily a BLP issue. Is it appropriate to say "some people say John sucks", or "some people say John is an incompetent physician", or "some people say John is a pervert", etc. Can dubiously reliable articles that state anonymous "some people say" derogatory things about a person be used as sources to state those deragoatory statements in a BLP? 2005 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)