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

Yonni Sarden did not get permisssion to use Marcellus information. We want to do our own Wikipedia with out Yonni/ Harmony soul. If we could just edit the page. [email address redacted] Handz Down (born Marcellus A. Dawson in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota) best known in the industry for being a co-producer for KayGee while signed to as part of the The Trendsettaz at Divine Mills Recordings."Handz Down" has worked on hit singles such as Billboard charts "The River" by Noel Gourdin, "Apartment For Rent" by Syleena Johnsonon her Album "Chapter III: The Flesh", "More" by Syleena Johnson and Anthony Hamilton, also on her Album Chapter III: The Flesh, "She's It" and "That Girl" by Mario and "It's You" by Urban Mystic which climbed to #1 on Billboard R&B Charts.

[edit] Handz Down ProductionsNoel Gourdin The River Syleena Johnson Apartment For Rent - Chapter III: The Flesh More - Chapter III: The Flesh Sticks & Stones Pitta Patta Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins Soundtrack & Score The River (Noel Gourdin song) The Cookout The Cookout (Opening Credits) Family Reunion (Ending Credits) Stacie Orrico Take Me Away - Beautiful Awakening Mario She's It That Girl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.8.155 ( talk) 01:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed an email address from the message above, which seems to be about the four-year-old (and poor) article Marcellus "Handz Down" Dawson.

You seem to suggest that you are Dawson, but you also use the first person plural, so I'm confused. But no matter who you are, you are welcome to improve the article by adding independently sourced information and challenging assertions in the article that are not reliably sourced. To do this successfully may require experience that you don't have, so feel free instead to state your objections here. (You do say: Yonni Sarden did not get permisssion to use Marcellus information. We want to do our own Wikipedia with out Yonni/ Harmony soul. But I don't know what you mean by this.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend that at least two independent reviewers verify the reliability of the sources used in this article, particularly of the internet newspaper "The Sunday Leader", whose reliability is highly dubious and whose agenda is politically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.55.15 ( talk) 05:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have long experience with the Sunday Leader, so I'll leave that for others, but I was able to find a second source for the "air conditioned" claim, and let that part stand, but removed the second part of that, which I wasn't able to find a second source for, and which was arguably less related to the article subject himself. Other eyes/thoughts welcome. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article purports to be a review of a person notable as a politician and an author.

However, the subject meets none of Wikipedia's notability criteria AT ALL, and is obviously being kept alive only as part of a personal vendetta against the subject.

According to the WP Notability for a politician WP:POLITICIAN the following criteria have to be met:

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."

The subject has NOT been elected to oublic office of any sort, nor, as far as anyone is aware, has he even stood for office.

"This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

The subject has NOT been the subject of "significant" press coverage.

The subject was a minor player (packed leaflets, wrote articles on a website) for a tiny political party, the BNP, three years (from date) ago, and never held any office.

There are therefore, ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Wikipedia.

The article also claims that the subject is notable for his books.

According to the WP Criteria for notability of authorship WP:BKCRIT, a book is

generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself."

The subjects' books, all self-published using Lulu, do not meet this criteria.

"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

The subjects' books, all self-published using Lulu, do not meet this criteria.

"The book has won a major literary award."

The subjects' books, all self-published using Lulu, do not meet this criteria.

"The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.

The subjects' books, all self-published using Lulu, do not meet this criteria.

"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

The subjects' books, all self-published using Lulu, do not meet this criteria.

There are therefore, ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Wikipedia.

I have tried editing the article to bring it within Wikipedia's own guidelines, and for doing that I have been threatened with banning by user Zad 68 and have had all revisions reverted by user Paul B

The article is not only about a non-notable subject in toto, but has clearly been set up as a personal attack on an individual, and as such is clearly in violation of all WP guidelines.

The article should in reality not exist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFallenCrowd ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A clarification -- I haven't threatened "banning" (as if I could do such a thing) but I have indeed, based on his blanking nearly all the article content after his AFD attempt didn't go his way, given TheFallenCrowd a final warning about vandalism. Also, after he violated the WP:3RR while edit-warring to keep the sourced material deleted, I issued an edit-warring/3RR warning. Please see User Talk:TheFallenCrowd and Talk:Arthur Kemp. Zad 68 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that there is a possible COI here. A user calling themselves " User:Arthur Kemp" edited the article in 2008-2009. User:TheFallenCrowd appeared later in 2009, writing and editing in what seems to me at least to be a very similar style, not only on this article but also on other articles linked to the known interests of the actual Arthur Kemp - e.g. White supremacist theories, South Africa, Nazism. Paul B ( talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm this might be worth a trip to SPI. Zad 68 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there was any significant overlap between the accounts, so it may not technically be sockpuppetry as such. I am beginning to think this could be a case for ANI. In addition to the possible COI problem there are many problems with User:TheFallenCrowd's edits overall. There is a distict pattern related Nazi and White supremacist topics. There is also the carpet bombing of pages such as this, possible canvassing of support outside for the AFD and maybe other problems. Paul B ( talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, take a closer look at the !voters in the AFD. I've opened one, the clerks will sort it out. Zad 68 18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a BLPN request. Instead, it appears that this editor is unhappy with the result from the AFD for this article and is now arguing against the result in a number of different locations, such as here, at TheFallenCrowd's user talk page, the article talk page, and by deleting the article content. TheFallenCrowd was actually told here by the AFD closing admin where to take the argument next if unhappy with the result, but TheFallenCrowd is not choosing to do that. I have left TheFallenCrowd a warning about disruptive editing at TheFallenCrowd's user talk page. Zad 68 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to introduce material at the BLP Roger A. Pielke, Jr.. While this material could be considered appropriate to the article it is sourced to a blog copy of an email [7] supposedly written by Stephen Schneider (deceased), in breach of WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLOGS. I have been removing this material in accord with WP:BLPREMOVE, but this is in danger of descending into an edit war.

Any advice would be appreciated. Regards, Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed some poorly sourced material (Early life, education, and medical career). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observation Station ( talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

An edit claims Al Harrington has signed a contract with the LA Lakers. This assertion is wrong on two fronts. Firstly, Al Harrington is not yet only the Lakers it is only a trade rumor. Secondly, even if he were trader to LA he probably would not sign any new contract immediately; and he definitely has not so far. Zagalejo appears to have edited and resolved the false claims & some vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.71.181 ( talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Already reverted, thanks for the report (that it was a 15-year $4 billion contract and that he was signed to Mars or Jupiter, depending when you looked, would also be good evidence of it being bogus:). Transient vandalism like that happens and anyone (including you!) is welcome to jump right in and fix it in the actual article. DMacks ( talk) 23:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malcolm Gladwell, pop science (etc) writer and sometimes alleged corporate shill, has appeared here before ( example). Waggish SPA Dontletthemwin (whose realization that the first syllable of "Hoary" has another meaning is often repeated, and is most perceptive and utterly hilarious), brand new SPA Javierachile and various IPs are very keen on the "corporate shill" angle. I've no particular beef about that, but they do base their charges on ho-hum sources, and alleged shilling by Gladwell now amounts to a lot of the article. Broadly interested Sunray and SPA Jacobesau have been removing this material. Two recent contributions by this special-purpose IP have particularly interesting edit summaries:

1. Hoary, read the correspondence Gladwell initiated with the author of the SHAME report. He didn't claim libel, just tried to massage the truth. Like you.
2. Twisting the knife in PR scum.

I love to be accused of malpractice, stupidity, etc: if the accusations are funny enough, I add them to the list near the top of my user page. But "massager of the truth" is pretty feeble stuff. If only I'd been accused of being "PR scum" too! That certainly would have gone on the list. But no, a look at the edit shows that the (alleged) "PR scum" is not me but instead Gladwell.

Now, if I see a BLP (or anyway a BLP of somebody other than a mass-murderer) being edited by some IP-hopper who calls the biographee "scum", I'm inclined to undo the damage and to s-protect. But in this case doing so might look like sour grapes or a mere tantrum. (Certainly the IP is obsessed with me: he looks at Sunray's edits, and takes them to be mine.) So I warmly invite an uninvolved admin to consider (i) s-protecting the article for at least one month and perhaps also (ii) threatening to crack a few heads. (Mine?)

There's some additional background material here (a WP:RS/N archive). -- Hoary ( talk) 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be two areas of controversy in the article, the first about the prices he charges for speechs, and the second about his corporate conflicts. The first area, which is in the Career section, has problems, not the least of which in my mind is how relevant all of this information is. That aside, the overall tone is non-neutral. Rather than reporting facts, it characterizes the facts in a POV way. In addition, it leaves out balance. For example, the quote about 30 speeches and thousands of dollars, leaves out that the source also said he sometimes gives speeches for nothing (comes right after the quote in our article). The Washington Post thing is really silly. It's a good source, but all our article does is note the headline - misleading and not very helpful.

The conflict material is worse. The Exiled source should be out. The sinister reference to an internal Philip Morris document is unsupported - the cited source is just the Washington Post article, no internal anything. The sentence after that is unsourced. The BofA stuff is repeated (already in the first part). Again, more importantly, the overall tone is wrong. It smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS and general editorializing.

Not sure what to do with the mess. I suppose semi-protecting it would help so that non-neutral editors can clean it up. It would certainly remove the IPs, but I haven't been able to sort out all the new accounts (are they related perhaps?), but, for example, I believe Dontletthemwin is auto-confirmed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The "sinister" internal Philip Morris document exists and is sourced in the SHAME report. A constructive editor would have double checked the source and added the reference, even if it was missing or improperly cited in the Wikipedia page. √√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√ Dontletthemwin ( talk) 03:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=D418108EA3AFEAEF5B928624F3B4CFA8.tobacco03?tid=utg11b00&page=5 √√√√√ Dontletthemwin ( talk) 03:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There are/were some blatant violations of WP:BLP in this article, IMO. In the past two weeks I have twice removed a text-book example of original research [8], [9]. The editor who is adding this material is writing from a particular POV and is using Gladwell's own writing and a couple of unreliable sources to draw conclusions about Gladwell's speaking engagements.

I agree with Bbb23 about the use of The Exiled as a source. While the authors of this blog-type website are ex-journalists, the publication is not peer-reviewed and doesn't meet the tests of WP:IRS and WP:VER. The article on Gladwell in Exiled [10] does not use reliable sources itself and draws conclusions that do not stand up to analysis

I commend Hoary's valiant attempt to reason with the POV-pushing editor in question on the article talk page and to bring the discussion here. I certainly agree that semi-protection is warranted, along with warnings and blocks to any editor who perpetrates the BLP violations. There is a fair amount of criticism in the article as it stands. We need to ensure that this is properly balanced. Sunray ( talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noted your removals and am waiting to see what, if anything, happens next. That will affect any decision I make (another admin may feel differently) about semi-protection. If you have a moment, you might also want to address the "high price" speaking engagement material. It, too, is problematic as I commented above.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the paragraph on "high priced" speaking engagements. The language used in our article did seem indicative of a particular POV as the sources simply raised questions about the optics of the Bank of America's publicity for their three engagements featuring Gladwell. Two of the sources reported Gladwell's response, so I've added that as a quote. Hopefully it is now more neutral in tone. Agreed that the response to these edits bears watching. BTW, I've added warnings about violations of WP:NOR for Javierachile and 50.47.103.17. Sunray ( talk) 20:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that paragraph may give undue weight to the whole Bank of America issue, which seems pretty unexceptional once the anti-corporate spin is removed. Sunray ( talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident, the entry has been locked-down by the web's equivalent of Small Claims Court bailiffs. (Again, it is noteworthy that the standard applied to other criticisms on Gladwell's page, which are matters of opinion, are a joke. Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia?) The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. If the wealthy, world-famous Gladwell and/or his lawyers have read the SHAME report and not found it actionable, then it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 ( talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. Whose exaggerated sense of this?
• The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Wrong, it's that criticism has to come from sources that really matter. ("Lamestream" sources, as they're sometimes called by those outside the reality-based community.)
• Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident [. . .] It's Shame's synthesis of alleged facts. Can you present a synthesis in, say, Mother Jones?
• Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia? Potential book-buyers, perhaps? Me, for example. Having had my head pounded by all the repetition in The Tipping Point, I need to know that the author isn't as repetitive before I try him a third time. (The second was Blink, a lot better.) Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Certainly, though such criticism of living writers is disappointingly muted. (Take Dan Brown, for example: there's criticism from only one source, and a disappointing silence about the volleys of criticism from Geoff Pullum and others.)
• The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. With relief thus sharpened, we can expect that the report, and the violations, will be taken seriously by, and the gist reiterated by, other sources, not all of which are in thrall to Gladwell or his alleged puppetmasters. Why the rush?
• The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. (i) I like "milquetoast", a word that's used too seldom. (ii) "Whoring": the author and User:Dontletthemwin share a liking for this word. Could they be related? (iii) A "milquetoast rejoinder" -- terrible! Shame's own interpretation is that Gladwell is " showing signs of cracking". So let him crack. The cracking of Gladwell will surely get into the news media (which may be wary of actual content, but which love a "human interest" story). And there you are: "reliable sources".
• it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. A bit of work with a good thesaurus will provide plenty of alternative formulations: "timidity", "mealymouthedness", "judicious omission", etc etc.

-- Hoary ( talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hoary's Wikipedia editing rule of thumb: If Anderson Cooper didn't report it, it didn't happen.

√ Dontletthemwin ( talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your little fantasies about me, Dontletthemwin. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This amounts to a lengthy refusal to confront that a favored author has violated the most basic ethical rules. It speaks to an intellectual passivity that allows frauds like Gladwell to function - nothing new there, unfortunately. Here's a link to more crime-enabling, this time at Lehman's, but you may dismiss it because Reuters is a strictly fly-by-night operation. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/24/jumping-to-conclusions-malcom-gladwell-edition/ As for "Why the rush?", let's discuss "Why the contorted denials?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 ( talk) 23:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem a bright enough fellow, 50.47.103.17. I therefore wonder why it is that you can't grasp simple concepts, e.g. that although violations of basic ethical rules occur all the time, it's not WP's job to report them. Before apoplexy fells you, let me add that although violations of basic ethical rules are whitewashed all the time, it's not WP's job to report this whitewashing either. Look, just read and digest WP:V and the other WP policies. Admittedly, these make for unexciting reading. So another option open to you is just to go away, safe in the confidence that what's written by Exiled, Shame and the rest will soon make it into "established" ("lamestream") publications, whereupon it can go into WP.

You say: Here's a link to more crime-enabling, this time at Lehman's [. . .] http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/24/jumping-to-conclusions-malcom-gladwell-edition/ Now you're talking! Or anyway seeming to. Let's take a look.

Salmon (your author) says that Frank Partnoy says Lehmann Brothers:

brought in Malcolm Gladwell, who had just published Blink, a book that speaks to the benefits of making instantaneous decisions and that Gladwell sums up as “a book about those first two seconds.” Lehman’s president Joe Gregory embraced this notion of going with your gut

and handed out copies of Blink. Salmon says that Andrew Sullivan thereupon asked "Did Malcolm Gladwell cause the recession?"

Yes, Sullivan did indeed ask that. But he was too busy/lazy even to attempt an answer. Salmon doesn't attempt an answer either, but he does ask Gladwell. More particularly, he asks Gladwell (more or less) "Did you (A) destroy Lehman Brothers, or (B) screw up the world?" (Ah, the smell of good two-fisted journalism!) Gladwell's reply is interesting. Two of its points: (1) the book describes the power of fast thinking -- including its destructive power and dangers; (2) the talk he gave was about the “fragility” of gut decisions–and about how if they are to be useful they have to be defended against bias and corruption. I've no idea about the truth of (2). As for (1), it is true. Salmon perversely ignores this, instead sarcastically saying that (2) is true. It's almost as if Salmon is upset (something prompts him to make a tragic misspelling of Partnoy's name).

This is feeble stuff by Salmon: starts well, but turns into what looks like a tantrum at having been outfoxed. Not as feeble as Sullivan, but feeble all the same. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoar, let me see if I understand your position on sources: Internet-era independent news media publications cannot be used for BLP entries. That about right?

Dontletthemwin ( talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I read it. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Check.

Dontletthemwin ( talk) 03:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So if an internet-era independent news publication has such a reputation, it's fine. ¶ Just what is supposed to constitute such a reputation is sometimes unclear. Despite plentiful evidence ( PDF example) that MSNBC is bad, CNN is worse, and "Fox News" is horseshit, a great number of WP editors insist (e.g. here) that even "Fox News" should be treated as a news source. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Even when you're succeeding with this klutzy coverup, Hoary, your bias glows like Vegas neon, flashing weak tells that lead to even more questions ("your author"? "tantrum at being outfoxed"? conflating WP policy with your personal opinion?). This breezy abuse of process is another feature of censorship, putting the cart of received opinion before the horse of embarrassing revelation. Regardless, I appreciate the admission that the corruption of WP editors allows blind spots in the historical record. But that also raises the issue of this page's existence: /info/en/?search=Journalism_fraud While no one has accused Gladwell of lying outright (as of yet he, and you, are just trying to conceal the facts), the various accounts wallow in ethical violations by living persons, including stealthing WP edits. Last note: thanks for the backhanded compliment, but if we're baring our souls I don't think you're too bright. You come across with enough education to embarrass yourself, but not enough to understand an operator like Gladwell. You'd better leave that to the pros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 ( talk) 05:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, if you're a pro, who's paying you? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm, is that you? All stealthy and vain about your Wiki page? Have fun looking over your shoulder, because the SHAME report is already out in the world. It's only a matter of time before someone blindsides you with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 ( talk) 18:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Make your mind up, IP. Do I lack "enough [education] to understand an operator like Gladwell" (you above, on 30 July), or am I Gladwell? ¶ 2. Let's assume for a moment that I am not Gladwell, but just some undereducated person who (out of stupidity, and perhaps unlike yourself) chooses to edit Wikipedia for no remuneration. My blindsiding will be of no consequence. Let me autoplagiarize from a screenful or so above: Shame's own interpretation is that Gladwell is " showing signs of cracking". So let him crack. The cracking of Gladwell will surely get into the news media (which may be wary of actual content, but which love a "human interest" story). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Press on, 'Hoary,' muddying the issue for all you're worth. Despite this, you have hit on something: Please issue a full disclosure telling us that you are not Malcolm Gladwell, nor are acting on behalf of him, his employees, agents, heirs, or assigns, and your incredibly timid and nearsighted stance on matters of public record, concerning an author towards whom you've repeatedly shown bias, is strictly your own doing. Let's have it. Of the many things you are not intellectually qualified to do, describing any personal or professional links with the subject of the SHAME expose is not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 ( talk) 00:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not Malcolm Gladwell, and neither am I acting on behalf of him, his employees, agents, heirs, or assigns; and my stance (in the view of this fellow "incredibly timid and nearsighted") on matters of public record, concerning an author (towards whom I have in the view of this fellow "repeatedly shown bias"), is strictly the result of my interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ¶ Now, 50.47.103.17, did you or did you not suggest (shortly above) that editing the article on Gladwell should be left to professionals? In your (exclusively Gladwell-related) contributions to Wikipedia, are you a professional, and if so, who is paying you? -- Hoary ( talk) 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to bias, let me add laziness and pedantry to the list of charges against you. I have offered edits to Wikipedia on several other occasions, ranging from minor grammatical corrections to breaking news, for neither pay or other consideration. But for your intransigence, this Gladwell addition (which I did not initiate, but defend as a matter of principle) would be an unremarkable blip. My comment about professionals referred to the journalists who have busted Gladwell and continue to plague other propaganda hacks ( http://observer.com/2012/08/adam-davidson-planet-money-media-ethics-08092012/ ). They, and those with sufficient comprehension to follow their assertions and evidence, possess the awareness to place Malcolm Gladwell in his proper context, something at which you have repeatedly failed. No matter, because we're patient and always have a few minutes to rack up some Gladwell page views that include deeper criticism of his conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 ( talk) 18:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What, not a word of thanks for the I am not Malcolm Gladwell, and neither am I acting on behalf of him, his employees, agents, heirs, or assigns; and my stance etc blather that I solemnly stated partly because it was true but mostly just in order to keep you happy? ¶ Bias, laziness, pedantry, insufficient comprehension, lack of awareness.... What a damning list! I might just slit my wrists right now, but it's messy, so instead I'll live on. If you have some beef about me, bring it up here. ¶ As you correctly supposed, I'm a mere amateur. And you're an amateur as well, you now reveal. That's a relief! Surely, then, you are disinterested in the fate of Gladwell. I'm also delighted to read that you (speaking with the majestic plural, no less) are patient. This is what I've been urging on you. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

An article about Michael Shrimpton, an English barrister appeared today, written by an anonymous author. This article is devoid of citations, but has three general references, one of which is his blog. The article has the look and feel of being a biography commissioned by Shrimpton himself, or by somebody close to him, rather than being an encyclopeadic article. He claims to be author of the photograph attached to the article – the same photo appears in one of the references. The final paragraph describes a book that he is writing.

This article was originally a redirect to the article Mike Shrimpton, a New Zealand cricketer. The redirect has been changed into a hatnote.

I have added a “BLP Poorly Sourced” banner and added a note on the Talk Page. I would welcome a second opinion as to whether or not this is the correct approach. Shrimpton’s notability is marginal (I have heard of him in respect of one court case). Martinvl ( talk) 20:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• see also User:Michael Shrimpton.-- Scott Mac 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Martinvl, your report is misleading. Although the article had no inline citations, and no "Reference" section, it did have two references, albeit in the "External links" section, and you could easily have corrected that minor non-compliance rather than use it as an excuse to add a banner. To describe the perfectly valid external link to his self-published blog (see WP:BLP) as a "general reference" was also unfair.

  Also can you please substantiate your claim that "He claims to be author of the photograph attached to the article". Canepa ( talk) 09:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Re the photograph, the uploader does not claim to be the author, at least in the version of the page I saw, but the uploader does claim to have gotten permission to use (and apparently release to the public domain) someone else's photo without providing any proof of the release. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, the uploader claims the author is Shrimpton. The uploader also says the image is "publicly available ... on a variety of websites", whatever that means. It's been nominated for deletion.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Not quite. The article was originally, in 2005, the article on the cricketer. It was copy-and-paste "moved" by Mike Shrimpton ( talk · contribs) to Mike Shrimpton in February 2007. I'm going to reattach the Mike Shrimpton history to the correct place, so that proper authorship attribution is restored. That will leave this edit history starting in 2008 as a disambiguation between the cricketer and the since-deleted Michael Shrimpton (barrister and terror expert). Uncle G ( talk) 16:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Fifer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article name: Richard Fifer Controversial mining promoter operating in Panama. The article is farcical in its language and is more of a fluff piece than a biography. Certainly does not meet the standards of wiki.

No mention of his alleged criminal record in Panama for drug dealing (see: http://incakolanews.blogspot.ca/2011/03/richard-fifer-convicted-drug-dealer-and.html ) or the accusations of embezzlement (see: http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_11/issue_04/news_02.html )

Whether these allegations are true or not, they are in the public record, and the man is far more controversial than his article leads to believe.

I previously nominated the page for deletion, but the edit was reverted by one of its only contributors. I now agree that the man meets the notoriety required for a wiki page, but it cannot stand as is. Both the writing and facts need checking, and the omissions need to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave 6298 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So be bold and go ahead and edit it bearing in mind the requirements of the BLP policy.-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed much of the overt fluff, but someone who reads Spanish who could review the sources included would be beneficial. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: I am a newbie to editing and received a recommendation by a Mr. Stradivarius to post to this board when I posted to the wrong area.

Here is that original post:

"I am a professional freelance writer. Until today, I never edited a Wikipedia page, but I noticed that the entry for Jose Antonio Vargas incorrectly listed him as an American.

I changed the entry and it was then changed back.

Mr. Vargas is not a native or citizen of the United States. He has come forward and stated that he is, as he put it, an "undocumented worker." As others have put it, he is an illegal immigrant.

Until he is legally recognized, the word "American" shouldn't be included in the entry - especially as the reference to cite this claim is biased (He wrote the article used in the citation): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/magazine/my-life-as-an-undocumented-immigrant.html?_r=4&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

If the way I edited it to remove the word is the issue and the editor who changed it back wants some mention that Mr. Vargas is currently fighting to broaden the definition of the term "American" - then I would be happy to add that data. But he is technically not a legal Filipino American and Wikipedia is misrepresenting true legal Filipino American citizens by listing him as one.

I recognize that some might argue that the rest of the entry makes it clear that he is in fact not a citizen. That doesn't change the misnomer.

The Wikipedia entry for Filipino American in fact does not list illegal immigrants as "Filipino Americans," but as "Filipinos." Government entities also do not recognize illegal immigrants as "American," but define them by their home country:

"In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that there were two hundred seventy thousand (270,000) Filipinos "unauthorized immigrants". This was an increase of 70,000 from a previous estimate in 2000. In both years, the estimated figures for illegal Filipinos accounted for 2% of the total. As of 2009, Filipinos were the fifth largest nationality of illegal immigrants behind Mexico (6.65 million, 62%), El Salvador (530,000, 5%), Guatemala (480,000, 4%), and Honduras (320,000, 3%).[107]"

Antonio Jose Vargas has admitted that he was not born in this country and has used several illegal means to remain here. Until the matter is resolved and our government recognizes him as a "Filipino American," the entry should not incorrectly list him as one.

Thank you."

Note: Mr. Stradivarius also recommended that I review ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). The first paragraph supports the removal of the entry: "...Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States..." and later: "...Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below);..."

Thank you for reviewing the above and for working to make Wikipedia an online referencing source that is as accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhera35 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This interpretation by Jhera35 is a gross misunderstanding of what the BLP policy means by "contentious material about a living person". Vargas himself, and many sources, refer to him as American - that is his whole point. It is not at all contentious to Vargas, but removing it would be. Tvoz/ talk 06:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the Vargas article generally has been the subject of much previous discussion, particularly concerning his status in the U.S. Thus, the issue of whether to call him a Filipino or a Filipino-American, whether to call him an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant", and other sensitive labeling difficulties, have been much discussed. So, when you changed the lead, I reverted you and referred you to the article Talk page with this edit summary: "this lead is ultra-sensitive and should not be substantively changed without discussion on Talk page". Second, Wikipedia is not a courtroom. Thus, an editor's interpretation of the law does not dictate what we write in articles. Instead, we create content pursuant to our policies and guidelines. So, for example, your contention that Vargas is an "illegal immigrant" is just that, your contention. Unless a court makes that determination and it is reported in reliable sources, Wikipedia cannot call him that. Third, what to call him in the lead is controlled by two intersecting policies, WP:BLP and WP:OPENPARA. It also requires some editorial judgment on our part, which, of course, is open to discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Vargas was born in the Philippines and his birthplace is relevant and notable. He resides in the U.S., which is also relevant and notable. Therefore, saying he is Filipino-American is the most accurate and neutral description of who he is.

Tvoz has it right, btw. The reference in WP:BLP to contentious material generally refers to negative material about the subject. Thus, to refer to Vargas as an "illegal immigrant" is more controversial than to refer to him as an "undocumented immigrant". In addition, the reference to the "applicable laws of the United States" is related to that issue, which is why I said we cannot call him "illegal" unless a judge has declared him "illegal", just as we cannot say someone has been convicted of a crime unless a judge or a jury has done so.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 11:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY currently forbids the citation of any public record that contains personal details. It currently reads:

Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Should this sentence in be kept as is, removed, or changed? RfC is here: [11] LK ( talk) 15:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Stuart Murphy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Talk:Stuart Murphy#Child "abandonment". Another opinion would be appreciated. I feel that the mention of "leaving" or "abandoning" his children is not supported in the sources and should be removed. Orbiston ( talk · contribs), who appears to be a single purpose account, feels otherwise. Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Jintara Poonlarp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You still have wrong biog info on Jintara poonlarp lukting and morlam singer from Thailand. Firstly nobody ever spells her stage name 'Chintara' and certainly never her. And you still have her DOB wrong. She was born on 6th March 1969 and NOT 12 march 1971. To confirm see bottom of her facebook page -or phone her up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.162.153 ( talk) 11:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Plotkin, a convicted inside trader who spent about 3 years (?) in federal prison has been subject to various deletion attempts since Plotkin was released. The first involved a flock of socks and special purpose accounts, removed material, and then started an AfD, which was speedily closed after the sock puppet report came in. Note that the material on Plotkin is very well sourced, the story was covered in dozens of national and international reliable sources, and even had its own episode on American Greed. While the American Greed episode seems to meet the current standards of US television news, it is not used as a source, and our article does not report the sensational aspects.

A new campaign by SPAs has started to fairly subtly remove material, e.g. Eugene's middle initial, a link to New York Magazine which has a photo. Also the time spent in prison has disappeared and the story has shifted so that Plotkin's co-conspirator David Pajčin, who was also convicted, seems to be blamed for everything. The material added on DP is certainly of concern here because it is not as thoroughly sourced. He cooperated with the Feds and might be viewed as having gotten off easy.

In any case, I have reverted back to my last edit and will watch the article when I have the time. I only ask that others take note and watch it as well. Smallbones ( talk) 14:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Lady Andrade (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is one of those cases where it's hard to make a balanced article. She did get a 2-game suspension from the Olympics for punching an American player, Abby Wambach, and about the top 50 google hits on her are about this incident. I'm wondering whether there might be some non-English sources which would give a more balanced article; I wasn't even able to determine what team(s) she played for before the Olympics. Pak aran 15:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a clean up of the article. Giant Snowman 15:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Saw it on BLP prod, very easily found multiple new sources, but still of concern. I'd appreciate another opinion. My personal opinion is there was sufficient continuing coverage & discussion with respect to similar events. I'd consider Do No Harm, but she did write a book about her experiences which is in over 220 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Over 220 libraries? I'd never guessed that a vanity publisher could have such clout. I notice that, rightly or wrongly, both Natascha Kampusch (not of obvious significance aside from having been kidnapped) and Wolfgang Priklopil (her kidnapper, seemingly of no other significance whatever) have an article. Incidentally, the (unsourced) last sentence of the current version of Priklopil's article looks to me like something excitable nitwits could take as a suggestion or invitation. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I commented, if doing so made it less likely that anybody else would.

Yes indeed, the fact that she has published a book on the experience suggests that she's happy to be known for it.

I'm sure that the sources you've already found (let alone others) allow the article to be amplified and improved. However, I'm in no mood to amplify or improve it; it's not at all my area of interest. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

When do we use professions as descriptions such as "zoologist", "anthropologist" etc. For example Desmond Morris is trained as a zoologist but has published about humans using the framework of sociobiology, but he is sometimes called "anthropologist" by the popular press inspite of not having a background in anthropology or ever held a position in an anthropology department or published in anthropological professional venues. What are our guidelines for referring to people as professionals? Can we call people who wrote popular books about animals for zoologists even if they don't have any qualifications as such? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those situations where VnT will cause us trouble. I think we'd really want to invoke a criterion of some sort: either the person's degree, or their job/profession. But we'll surely get people arguing that because Marginal Regional Newspaper calls the person an anthropologist that's what our article should do as well. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He passed away from Cancer i updated the page but i did it sloppy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.194.147 ( talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated it. Also, please remember/note that per WP:EUPHEMISM, we discourage wording such as "passed away", etc. Thanks. – Connormah ( talk) 20:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Abu Usamah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new anonymous editor, 86.166.64.42, has added claims of sexual harassment to this cleric's article based on a news report. Some other edits were blocked by the abuse filter. [12]

This article needs neutral supervision and assessment. -- A. B. ^{( talk • contribs)} 17:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has been restored to before the harassment allegations, but it needs some work as it is wholly unsourced. In looking for sources, I mostly saw criticism pieces.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Amira Hass (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amira Hass, a reporter for the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, reported that Palestinian eyewitnesses said they saw a group of Israeli settlers in Hebron defile a Palestinian body. She was sued by the settlers, and a judge ruled in favor of the settlers. Her employer, Ha'aretz, said they would appeal the decision.

Currently, the article says Hass had falsely reported Palestinian eyewitness accounts of Israeli settlers defiling the body of a Palestinian militant killed by Israeli police. Nobody is disputing that the judge found that the accounts published were incorrect, however nobody is saying that Hass made up those accounts, which the article currently does say. Is the phrasing Hass falsely reported ... acceptable? nableezy - 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post reported that Hass was convicted for libel for reporting wrong information -

"The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..." and also says "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation." Crystalfile ( talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Jerusalem Post reported that the actual accounts were false, not that Hass falsely reported those accounts. nableezy - 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit before this current one, which I agree with and support, is "Hass had published what she claimed were Palestinian eyewitness accounts." I feel that's the best one, as a judge, JPost, and an opposing side said this was not true, and clearly these "eyewitness accounts" are called into doubt. Journalists should strive to check up on all the facts. She claimed that what she wrote were eyewitness accounts, and a judge ruled against that as well. -- Activism 1234 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ill wait for uninvolved opinion before responding to the frankly ridiculous proposition that either Hass published (I thought you understood this point by now) anything or that her report was what she claimed were Palestinian eyewitness accounts. nableezy - 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you guys post some links to new articles about this case? This article requires an account and this article is an opinion piece. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Any link I could post of the first would be a copyright violation, sorry. I can say that if you were to google "to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents." in quotes that you could quickly find such a reprint of the article. nableezy - 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• New suggestion - pls discuss this - Nableezy says above that "the Jerusalem Post reported that the actual accounts were false, not that Hass falsely reported those accounts." I am proposeing that we write "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts of..." Crystalfile ( talk) 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz has challenged that view, saying as a fact that the reports are false violates WP:NPOV. All this avoids the point. Is it acceptable to say that Amira Hass, an international renowned journalist, "falsely reported" this information based on the sources provided? nableezy - 23:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz have said they will appeal the court conviction. This should and is in the article but doesnt chnage that she was found guilty of libel as source reports. And their saying an intent to appeal doesnt question the falseness of the reports. Crystalfile ( talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Nabllezy - Are you saying every time convicted party says they will appeal conviction, you cant report that they did something wrong? Thats ridiculous! Crystalfile ( talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested not to write the accounts as false, but rather as claims. A claim may or may not be true. And in this case, the ruling of a judge, TV reports, and an opposing side who deny that it happened and ruled against her should be sufficient to make it clear that these are claims, not factual eyewitness accounts (of course, they could be - that's the beauty of that word). Now Nableezy, we live in a democracy, so feel free to respond, but understand that repeating the same arguments on the talk page won't lead to an agreement here, and it's best for an uninvolved person like A Quest to review the claims (see what I did?) of each side and decide. -- Activism 1234 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We have on the one hand a mainstream source reported that she published false accounts. On the other hand we have Haaretz saying they will appeal the conviction of libel. Are you serriously saying that this stops us reporting the source clearly saying she published falsness? Crystalfile ( talk) 23:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This has descended into incoherent babbling, so I'll ask for uninvolved opinions once more. Currently, the article on Amira Hass says that she falsely reported material that no source says she made up. Yes, one source, a competing newspaper, says that the actual content of the Palestinian accounts that she reported were false, they dont however say that those accounts were manufactured. Is it acceptable, under WP:BLP for the article to claim that this reporter falsely reported these accounts? nableezy - 23:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And I have sugested compromise. See above. I say: Nableezy says above that "the Jerusalem Post reported that the actual accounts were false, not that Hass falsely reported those accounts." I am proposeing that we write "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts of..." The source for this will be "The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..." and also says "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation." Crystalfile ( talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, you're playing it as an all-or-nothing game. Even if what an editor says is true or has merit, you're making it as either it's the current version or it's the previous version, rather than taking what the editors here say and arriving at a different, more accurate version. -- Activism 1234 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, what I am looking for is somebody to revert the straight forward BLP violation that is still in the article. Once that is done a discussion on what to do next can take place. But what matters right now is that there is a violation of basic Wikipedia policy in the article on a living person. That is something that requires more urgent attention than answering each of the other baseless propositions that have been brought here. This is, lest the two of you forget, BLP/N. Not Talk:Amira Hass. Or, for that matter, NPOV/N. I am here to deal with a BLP violation that is currently in an article. Anything that comes after that can, you guessed it, come after that. nableezy - 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing to move forward and new suggestion has been proposed.Please comment on y think "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts of..." is not backed by "The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents..." and y Haaretz appeal for conviction means we mustnt talk about this? Thank you Crystalfile ( talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The source says clear;y the eyewitness reports was false and disproven by several television accounts. Y does the appeal mean we mustnt call them false. Crystalfile ( talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"BLP violations are in the eyes of the beholder." It'd be much easier to revert it to the final, proper correct form, rather than open up another section on this. That is, if the editor/admin who looks at this is able to make such a decision. If not, then the story is different.

Also interesting to note that a competing newspaper's "claims" need to be viewed with skepticism, but the newspaper covering its ass from the ruling of a judge is to be raised on a pedestal and be the truth. -- Activism 1234 23:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a tag at the top of the article's talk page. Read it, internalize it, then try again. BLP violations need to be dealt with post haste. Not "oh lets figure out a final solution and then we can fix the problem." Got it? nableezy - 23:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well please comment y you dislike the new proposal. The source says the accounts were false -Yes? The court convicted her. Yes? So let us report this and stop saying isleading things about Haareztz dispute this because all it says is they will appeall. It says nothing about them claiming reports are true. Crystalfile ( talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

While looking up some past conflicts between other editors, I stumbled on George Alan Rekers replete with allegations, innuendo, OR etc. and quite likely a violation of UNDUE to boot. It is far too messy for me to work on now, but it dang well should be noted as a very bad case of making a BLP into a series of allegations and accusations which were never brought to any court at all. And made into a very large proportion of the BLP. Collect ( talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there were no court cases is neither here nor there, as they are not matters that would constitute crimes. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

They are contentious claims and allegations based substantially on rumours and innuendo, placed in a BLP at length - and all you can say is "they are exempt from BLP rules because they are not allegations of crimes" or the like? Sorry - fails to wash as far as I can tell. WP:BLP covers allegations as far as I can tell, and has for some time. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a diff indicating where I say "they are exempt from BLP rules because they are not allegations of crimes"? I'll be ever so grateful, as I really can't remember saying that. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Must one quote your diff right above his response while you say it is "neither here nor there" to show that you feel "they are not allegations of crimes" "are exempt from BLP"? :) Arkon ( talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Such silly games. I didn't say "exempt from BLP" because I didn't intend "exempt from BLP". Perhaps when you're ready for a sensible discussion... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you didn't and I was going to edit to that effect, but that's why your "neither here nor there" on a BLP board, while requesting a diff to you poo-pooing the situation is so silly. Arkon ( talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Then why say that the material issue is "neither here nor there"? Should looked like you intended to say the material did not fall under BLP strictures ... I consider rumour and innuendo (even using an op-ed column for "facts" FGS) to fall under WP:BLP strictures for sure. Collect ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My point stands: it is neither here nor there that there were no court cases about these issues, as they were not the sort of things that would be considered crimes. If there are other angles from which to discuss BLP issues, then do let's make points in sensible ways. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

They are contentious claims based on rumours and allegations - including even an op-ed as a "source" for "fact." For starters. Then we get on to whether having a third of a BLP devoted to the single "issue" is rational weight. Collect ( talk) 20:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It just sounds like you only consider court actions to be BLP worries worthy. You really haven't supported your stance with sources, yet. Keep it out. Arkon ( talk) 03:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that you haven't even raised any issues on the talk page. So why are we having this discussion here? If you had found some actual BLP violation, presumably you could have done something about it. I'm having trouble identifying which third of the article you think is unduly emphasized. You might get more traction if you explained that, and explained why you think the emphasis is undue. Abhayakara ( talk) 04:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gotta agree, this section has been super vague. Arkon ( talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• As always, it's useful to refer to what policy actually says. Rekers is a public figure. WP:BLP says of public figures: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

  This allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented ( New York Times, CBS News, BBC, The Independent, etc., etc. I'm not seeing a BLP issue here, and the original post is, as others have noted, unhelpfully vague. MastCell  ^Talk 05:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Miami New Times" is not RS for contentious allegations for BLPs. The op-ed from Frank Rish is not RS for claims of "fact". He also talked about how he believed that Rekers was, in fact, homosexual is clear speculation and rumour. As of June 4, 2010 (2010 -06-04)[update], NARTH seems to have removed this statement from the NARTH website is blatant OR and speculation. As a result of the scandal, gay rights advocate and sex columnist Dan Savage coined the terms "lifting his luggage" as a euphemism for sexual activity and "whatever lifts your luggage" as synonymous with "whatever floats your (sexual) boat."[ is not properly related to the BLP - it is an editorial comment by Savage. In subsequent interviews, Roman said Rekers had paid him to provide nude massages daily is pure tabloid rumour-mongering. Enough examples yet? In short - a real BLP issue, and violative of the policy on its face. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those specific examples, which are helpful. The Miami New Times is borderline at best, and if it were the sole source for these allegations, then I would support its removal. But in this case, the New Times broke a story which happened to be true (that Rekers hired a male prostitute from rentboy.com as a vacation companion), and that story is covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. I agree with you that the Dan Savage line is outside the scope of a biography of Rekers. As for the specifics put forward by Rekers' hired travel companion, it's probably relevant to note that he alleged they had sexual contact (sourced to CNN and/or the New York Times), but perhaps not in the lead. MastCell  ^Talk 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is another Pema Rinchin - a writer and political dissident in eastern Tibet. Info from a blog: "Tibetan writer Woeser wrote on her blog about Pema Rinchen, 25, another Tibetan writer from Ganzi prefecture, Sichuan province, who was recently detained by police, who reportedly beat him savagely. Here’s a rough summary translation Woeser’s description of this sad case: Pema RInchen was taken away on July 5 [2011] by the police of Luhuo County, Ganzi prefecture. The young writer was reportedly beaten savagely by the police. On the second day, he was sent to the Luhuo County Hospital for emergency treatment. When family members heard the news, they rushed to the hospital in tears, but there were several members of the People’s Armed Police and police standing guard outside his hospital room, who prevented his family members from seeing him. At present, it’s not known if Pema Rinchen is alive or dead.

"As a child, Pema Rinchen was a monk for a period of time, and he later took up writing. In eastern Kham, he’s considered one of the better known of the new generation of Tibetan writers. At the beginning of this year, he used his own money to publish a Tibetan language book titled Look. The book included reflections and commentaries on Chinese communist polices and implementation of these policies in Tibetan areas, the suppression of Tibetans during the protests in Tibetan areas in 2008, as well as government actions in Yushu during the earthquake. Furthermore, Pema Rinchen also interviewed some of the Tibetans who were tortured in 2008.

"Two thousand copies of Look were printed and before he was detained, Pema Rinchen traveled the entire Tibetan region distributing basically all the books.

"On the afternoon of July 6, the Public Security Bureau of Luhuo County sent a notice of detention to the family of Pema Rinchen, saying that he was suspected of fanning hatred among minorities, and that he was currently being held in the Luhuo County Detention Center. He has not been seen he was taken away.

On June 2, a court in Aba Prefecture, a Tibetan dominated area of Sichuan province, sentenced Tashi Rabten, writer and editor of banned magazine Shar Dungri (Eastern Snow Mountain), to four years in prison on unspecified charges." http://woeser.middle-way.net/2011/07/75.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjdksla8 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of Dr. David R. Hawkins' Biography on Wikipedia is incorrect. Please remove this page. Thanks!

David R. Hawkins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.206.129 ( talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You will probably need to be more specific. What is incorrect? Which bits are not incorrect? Formerip ( talk) 18:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual biography is only 5 sentences. Dougweller ( talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My recollection - and I am not a member of OTRS - is that the article has been protected and/or deleted several times due to complaints to OTRS by the subject. The early history of the article was dominated by florid promotional language. I don't think notability has ever been demonstrated. Skinwalker ( talk) 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Steve Coy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just looked at the article about musician Steve Coy. Much of the information that I tried to check appears extremely dubious such as the fact that he has a record contract with Virgin, has released three solo albums in the 2000s and as won Grammys for two of them. The website listed doesn't exist. I think most of the article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaMS ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A banned user was adding nonsense. I've redirected the page again. Fences& Windows 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The biographical information heading Valerie Adam's wikipedia page states that she is from Australia. She is not from Australia. She is a New Zealand citizen born and living in New Zealand. She's always competed under the New Zealand flag in every international event. I've followed her career for a long time and she has NEVER identified herself as being Australian! Please, someone somehow clear this mishap, this is a very important issue to New Zealanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriemhild85 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been changed back to reflect the correct info. Giant Snowman 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to his many other talents, Mr. Rogers published a book of celebrity photographic portraits called Your Friends and Mine in 1987. Wikipedia doesn't mention it in their entry, but I've seen it (out of print) on Amazon.com. It's a lovely book, and in the interest of thoroughness, perhaps Wikipedia ought to include it in their biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.30.157 ( talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Done (though not really our department). 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 21:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Having read through the wiki stub on Elliot Goblet, a.k.a Jack Elliot Levi, I feel it bears more than a passing resemblance to the advertisements for Mr Goblets performances displayed on the walls at Brisbane Domestic Airport.

The article reads like an advert throughout and in some paragraphs actually lifts sentences directly from the airports advertisements.

Wikipedia is a knowledge base Mr Levi, not a source of free advertising, please treat it with the respect it deserves and update the stub article to reflect your character more objectively.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.45 ( talk) 22:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fareed Zakaria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If someone could take a look at the current structural/content problems with this rather sensitive article, that would be good. One new editor came in and made one edit, where they added more negative material. Then things mushroomed by another new SPA editor, who has stayed in there, making various structural changes to the article, some of which are okay but others not so good. Then another editor, who, although not brand new, has had very few edits since registering in January, came along and made things even worse, if nothing else from a formatting standpoint. There's a discussion on the article Talk page now, and I've commented there.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Done what I could. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

David Bain was convicted of murder. Many years later, after numerous appeals, he was retried and found not guilty.

However, the article contains a huge amount of irrelvant minutiae of the offence case against him - which is now nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. David Bain is a living person and wikipedia is not the place for the evidence to be examined in such detail. Most of this material should be removed. Offender9000 ( talk) 06:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you're already working on it, so I'm not clear on what sort of assistance you are requesting here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was seeking confirmation that my perspective is valid and that most of the minutiae should be removed. Offender9000 ( talk) 18:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The information you post in referenced POST Career of John D'Acquisto although it is from the LA Times is incorrect and damaging to me John D'Acquisto because I have the actual court document that you keep avoiding that states differenes in what you are publicizing. So either change it or delete it from the publication and also in my playing career there are a number of mistakes in that also.. Please check your before printing something incorrect. here is the iformation and I mean all of it. read it is from the court and is the accepted document for the court of the United States a 39 count indictment was taken down to two counts in a plea bargin and you need to note what it says. especiall the part were it states all money were recovered. https://docs.google.com/?pli=1# Thank you John Francis D'Acquisto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastballjohnd ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Brown Noser trivia

Since his nomination by Romney, there has been some trivia which the left blogosphere finds absolutely hillarious. That Ryan was voted "Biggest Brown Noser" by his senior class. I fail to see how this cannot be a BLP violation as well as a piece of minor WP:TRIVIA which wouldn't survive even if it were not a BLP violation. Arzel ( talk) 04:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is an editorial call, not something to be discussed here (ie., not a policy call). As to WP:BLP, the brown-noser reference is from reputable secondary sources (LA Times and New Yorker). The word itself is described by Merriam-Webster simply as "to ingratiate oneself with : curry favor with." That is not pejorative in the sense of WP:BLP. And we are talking of a public figure here. Churn and change ( talk) 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So if the NYT calls him a shithead and he is aware of it, it is ok because the NYT is a RS? Arzel ( talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the word, tell me this is not a pejoritive. from the implication that servility is equivalent to having one's nose in the anus of the person from whom advancement is sought Arzel ( talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is sourced reliably and that it is defined in the dictionary does not change the fact that it is always, without exception, a pejorative and to claim otherwise is really unproductive. Furthermore, according to WP:BLP with regards to balance, " the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Considering that this juvenile vote was amongst Ryan's senior high school class and constitutes an opinion, it therefore qualifies as an opinion held by a tiny minority and should not be included in the article. It's really quite unbelievable that we are even having this discussion over such a term. If it isn't pejorative, I challenge you to find a single person that wishes to be described as a brown-noser. A.S. Williams ( talk) 04:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're being a bit literal about "brown-nosing". Its etymology is indeed as you describe. Most if not all people using it are surely aware of this meaning. Some may intend the meaning. But I've heard it so often that I think it's something like "bastard": it's often lost its original/literal meaning. Whether it's routinely pejorative or grossly pejorative, undoubtedly it's also silly talk. But it's not obvious to me that it's sillier than most such grade-school estimations ("most likely to" whatever, etc). Do WP BLPs normally allow these? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be a BLP violation and it may be trivial. However, the edit to which you point sources it to this article in the New Yorker and this one in the LA Times; and yes, it does indeed appear within both. -- Hoary ( talk) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be out of line to suggest a mirror of the Obama page? Arkon ( talk) 04:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What (if anything) do you mean? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As in, super biographical, the rest goes to sub articles. Arkon ( talk) 05:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with comments above that it's ridiculous to even think about putting it in the article. It's a view held by a few of his classmates as a joke in the yearbook. Who cares? I don't. Neither does anyone else. Not important for a Wikipedia article. And yes, "brown nose" is used in a negative, pejorative way. -- Activism 1234 05:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? I don't. Neither does anyone else. The authors of pieces published in the New Yorker and LA Times seem to care. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Great for them. They daily publish tons of stories that aren't suitable for Wikipedia. -- Activism 1234 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Laughing at opponents is fine for blogs and such, but is not suitable for Wikipedia—the encyclopedia is not a place to record every tidbit (positive or negative). Johnuniq ( talk) 05:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with this. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is considered relevant by reliable secondary sources, and that is one major criteria for WP notability. And, yes, brown-noser is the exact word they both use. Here is the Random House take on the word: "Despite the scatological inspiration of the term brown-nose, it is not considered to be very vulgar or offensive. Some people, unaware or unsure of its origin, don't consider it offensive at all, but at worst I would say that it is only mildly offensive. It is definitely slang, though, so may not be appropriate in many circumstances. "

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990723

As to appropriateness, we take our lead on that front from our reliable secondary sources. The question to be discussed on this board is the WP:BLP one, not the WP:TRIVIAL one. Churn and change ( talk) 05:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some seriously determined efforts to include in an encyclopedia that a few high schoolers called Ryan a brown-noser. Think about that for a moment. Why could that possibly be? A.S. Williams ( talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you're correct about the motivation here, the solution is simple: let's include it... but not until after the election. If anyone still feels strongly about. Which they won't. In the short term, I agree with Johnuniq; there are any number of reliably sourced factoids about Ryan. This particular one doesn't seem noteworthy enough for a serious encyclopedic biography. MastCell  ^Talk 05:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the term brown-noser belongs on any WP:BLP period. It's the same thing as calling someone a sycophant and yes that is a pejorative too. A.S. Williams ( talk) 06:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If the brown-noser thing is included, then the context ought to be provided in the same sentence. The context strongly suggests that the designation was a joke. As The Washington Post explains (in the same sentence), he was also voted Junior Class President and Prom King. [13] Jokes about the subject of a BLP seem less suitable for inclusion than serious material, IMHO. But if this joke is included, it seems only fair to include Ryan's joking response: "At least I didn't have a

mullet." 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 06:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Churn and Change that this material may be excludable as trivia, but that's not a question for this board. To the editors opposing this because it is pejorative: that's irrelevant. The BLP guideline does not contain a prohibition on reporting the use of pejorative language. Formerip ( talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where editors are getting this belief that it being a pejorative is irrelevant. WP:BLPSTYLE is clearly relevant to the presentation of material within a BLP. It is not the purpose of WP to attack a living person, and it should not be the purpose of editors either. Furthermore, there BLP also deals with trivia, thus that this is minor trivia can be also considered. Arzel ( talk) 15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Which part of BLPSTYLE tells us not to report the use of pejorative language? BLP doesn't really deal with trivia, it only prohibits trivia sections. What I think this noticeboard can say is "don't include this if it is trivia". Formerip ( talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the intersection of BLP and UNDUE and it certainly is UNDUE-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tone. Read up on BLP. Furthermore, minor trivia should only be included if it follows basic BLP guidelines of tone and balance. In other words, if you have a list of crap like this, it doesn't make it any better to put the crap into the middle of a paragraph. Perhaps I could ask you, what is the encyclopedic value of including the insult the editorial board of his high school yearbook imposed onto him? I worked the yearbook in my school, and there wasn't even a vote for the lists in the yearbook outside of the few of us that actually worked on the yearbook. It is quite possible that this was one or two of his classmates. The editorial control of a school yearbook is....pretty much non-existant, kids are inserting shit like this into them all the time. If anything it tells us a lot more about the editors that think this personal attack must included. Arzel ( talk) 16:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that it was intended as a personal attack by his fellow students, just as it's not intended as one now. The fact that these highly reliable sources are comfortable using the term is a strong hint that we should be, as well. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me some examples of being called an "ass-kisser" being used in a non-perjoritive form. No rational person can claim it is not being used as one now, and that it is was not used as one then. The sources using it today clearly understand what it means, please don't play this obtuse game here. Arzel ( talk) 16:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree it was not intended as an attack although some editors here may read it that way. The Atlantic published an entire story (which I personally dislike) about Wikipedia's inclusion and omission of this one thing from Ryan's high school years. Why on earth does our article include the trivia of every single club the man ever belonged to in high school, and not say that he was voted biggest brown-noser? To omit it makes our article out of balance and biased. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate inclusion of some trivia should not be "balanced" by the inclusion of MORE inappropriate trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(and re the Atlantic aritcle, i think it is quite an accurate analysis of the life of political articles) -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except I don't like it that the writer takes edit summaries for granted. The author seems to consume them but never attribute them to any editor by user name. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds almost right, The Red Pen of Doom. I would say though to avoid introducing more bias into this article, that either we omit high school clubs or else add brown noser. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The material is inappropriate, full stop. In all of the RS reporting, the context makes it clear that this sobriquet was nothing more than a juvenille prank. There is no relevance - none - to Ryan's current tenure in office. No responsible journalist would characterize Ryan's career as "brown-nosing", quite the opposite - in fact the press has so far characterized him as serious, purposeful, and articulate. Including this pejorative trivia now is demeaning and does little to advance the reader's understanding of Ryan's past and how he got to his present position. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it and the Prom King part should be included. His page is not only about "Ryan's current tenure in office" but his life and this is one part of his life. He even jokes about it in one of the referances. 90moredays ( talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

♦ It seems to me that most of the objections over the inclusion of "brown noser" is centered around the fact that the term is allegedly pejorative in nature and constitutes an attack on Mr. Ryan's character. In addition, a few also question the credibility of an award given by his high school peers.

If so, then the question is, do these reasons infringe upon WP:BLP? More specifically, are they in conflict with WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability and/or WP:NOR?

Consider this as well: WP:BLP/Public Figures

I think the issue has turned into a farce, and to be perfectly frank, embarrassing. For many Americans, this is their first glimpse on the inner workings of Wikipedia. There should be a speedy resolution to this. Personally speaking, I think the term should be included on Ryan's page. However, as another editor has mentioned, we could also place it on hold until after the election. -- Misha Atreides ( talk) 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there was a huge discussion at the Village Pump way back in 2005, about whether insults against the subject of a BLP are worth including. I tend to agree with an editor who basically said that one important criterion for inclusion is whether the insult is a really interesting and artful one, especially if it includes an interesting and artful response. Examples:

• About Disraeli: "You, Sir, will die either on the gallows or of a loathsome disease". Response by Disraeli: "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
• About Gladstone: "Do you know the difference between a misfortune and a calamity?" "No what is the difference" "Oh it is a vast one. Now if Mr. Gladstone, say, were to fall into the Thames, that would be a misfortune, but if someone were to pull him out..."
• About George Bernard Shaw (after he told an unfriendly audience at one of his plays, "You are Philistines who have invaded the sacred temple"): "Yes, and you are driving us forth with the jawbone of an ass."

Calling someone a brown-noser is just not very unusual or creative, though Ryan's response was more so. Let us establish once and for all that a conservatively-written BLP does not include garden variety insults (serious ones or joking ones) except in extraordinary circumstances. For the inquisitive among you, Disraeli died of bronchitis, and his WP:BDP calamitously does not include any of the gems quoted above (the Gladstone snark was his). 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I read about this in The Atlantic. I agree that the "brown-noser" reference is not appropriate. CheeseStakeholder ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The article as it stands now looks much better. A summary replaced the detailed list of clubs (and the grade score needed to enter one of them). I think this discussion has become moot. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Has this been resolved one way or another or is the discussion remaining open for a period of time?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, in my opinion, yes we have resolved this. We can agree to leave out brown noser in the context of the current article. After this discussion started, most of the detail about Ryan's high school years was removed, so there is no reason to include it. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We ought to close out this discussion as consensus to not mention brown noser. I think it's fair to say this award should not be mentioned unless for some reason the article rises back up in useless details. Arzel? - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is regarding the Controversies Section of Mata Amritanandamayi. From reading the guidelines of BLP, I feel that the entries do not belong in a BLP section. I have given reasons for this in the Talk Page. My feeling is this:

1) "Accusations on fraudulence and suspicious deaths" This should be deleted because it is akin to accusing Amritanandamayi with homicides. No one has ever even pressed charges for these. It is a fringe theory by politically motivated groups. According to BLP guidelines, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and a BLP should not accuse the person of a crime they have not been charged with.

2)"Demand for probing source of foreign" This should be either deleted (as all sources are just reports of statements made by various politically motivated people or editorials) or at least moved to the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page. It is basically accusing Math/Amritanandamayi with a crime.

3) "Nurses' strike demanding wage hike" This should be moved to the Mata Amritanandamayi Math page, as Amritanandamayi is founder of AIMS but not a manager.

4) "Mysterious death of attempted assaulter" Mysterious death of attempted assaulter should be deleted. It is a controversy of the mental institution wherein the person was beaten to death. The culprits have already been arrested. Neither police nor news are implying connection with the Amma or the Math. LanceMurdock999 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 ( talk • contribs)

With this addition to the controversy section--Facebook campaign against Amritanandamayi and police cases--this page is becoming a mere slambook against Amritanandamayi. This really requires some administrative oversight. Anytime someone in Kerala decides to make an unsubstantiated claim against Amritananamdayi or her organization, it will be covered in some paper or TV. And then people are posting that in the Controversey section as if these claims--which are never proven, never go to court, never go anywhere--are permanent facts. Wiki must do something about this. --LanceMurdock999 03:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 ( talk • contribs)

Evelyn Lozada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been news about Chad Johnson's arrest for allegedly assaulting Lozada, his wife. It's reported in the Johnson article. The identical material is now in the Lozada article. I removed it from the Lozada article based on WP:BLPCRIME. Another editor reverted saying that Johnson is a "public figure" and therefore BLPCRIME doesn't apply. First, BLPCRIME is a line-drawing exercise. One has to determine how well-known the figure is to decide whether we can report accusations, charges, arrests, etc. I don't know much about football, so I have no idea how well-known Johnson is. Second, unrelated to BLPCRIME, this is the Lozada article. Is it important to have the same information that's in the Johnson article in the Lozada article? It's slightly amusing - because it's exactly the same, it refers to Lozada as "his wife" as opposed to Lozada. By the way, the divorce material (other than the TMZ ref, which is disgusting), is not at issue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TABLOIDish details were not needed there. Collect ( talk) 12:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks, and thanks in particular to RedPen. We'll see what fallout may come from the removal of the material.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

this brings up the question, What would be the procedure to get TMZ on a blacklist? i cannot think of any situation other than the TMZ article where it would be an appropriate link anywhere in wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BLACKLIST and the section "Requests for listing". I think you'd have trouble getting it listed, though. My guess is that for a fair amount of material it's considered a reliable source. You might check for discussions at WP:RSN. I don't like citing TMZ in general, but this particular cite brought up such an ugly, tabloidy looking "article" it was offensive. Besides, it was unnecessary as there was another ref that was perfectly acceptable - TMZ added nothing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Please remove my Wikipedia biography effective now as it has been vandalized twice this week and I do not have the time nor the desire to be checking it everyday of vandals. Thanks, Tony J. Fernandez Http://www.professorfernandez.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.6.101 ( talk) 02:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

rm contentious unsourced claims, SPS stuff, puff etc. Collect ( talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Javed Miandad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a mistake in the 4th line of the first paragraph of the biography of Javed Miandad. It says 5 runs were needed on 1 ball, whereas the fact is that 4 runs were needed on 1 ball in the ODI played in 1986. However, in the description given below it has been stated that 4 runs were needed on 1 ball. This discrepency is needed to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laiqwp2012 ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noted, and wondering. A random "has a medical faux-pas" from an IP editor on a subject's talk page. I'm surprised it has been there since March. But maybe random anon notes like "I heard Bieber's pet name for his fazula is 'Elsie'" is actually uncontroversial? Shenme ( talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See wp:TPG for guidance, but in a case that blatant, just revert the anon. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just started a biography of Simon Walsh; he was notable before the trial in which he was acquitted today; but given the nature of the offence for which he was charged, and the CPS's outing of both him as gay and of his sexual practices, it's worth semi-protecting; and keeping an eye on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• It could be worth semi-protecting, but, as written, words like "ill-conceived" and "illiberal" really need to be quoted and cited to their sources. Even then, taking those individual words out of context, and from opinion-based content (an editorial, in this case), is not what Wikipedia entries are designed for. I'd suggest making this tone more neutral and objective, and then look for semi-protection. Stlamanda ( talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Seems to be a classic BLP1E and possibly COATRACK. The guy was prosecuted and acquitted he should be allowed to get on with his life rather than to have this one event in his life become the top google search item in perpetuity. John lilburne ( talk) 07:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Which "one event"? Have you read the article? It discusses his public service work and his role as an Alderman of the City of London. He's clearly notable without the trial, as I noted above. Further, he's voluntarily appearing on national TV (BBC) to talk about the trial. And finally, one of his legal team just tweeted (my empahasis) "Simon Walsh told me he was very pro #porntrial tweets as he wanted accurate record as wide as possible, rather than left to tabloids" . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you not opposed to writing biographies based on the wishes of the subject? What I notice in the article is that 33% of the article text 50% of the references are to do with the trial. There is no extended coverage of the subject outside of this one event, and there are plenty of councillors that don't merit articles about themselves, even some of which that are WP editors. By all means write about the stupid law, or the fact that prosecutors tend to use cases like this to probe where the law's boundaries are. But give the guy a break, and do it in such a way that when someone search for the guy's name in a year's time references to pornography trials aren't the first hit on Google. John lilburne ( talk) 08:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is very scrupulously written and I can't immediately suggest any improvement to it, but I question whether it's necessary at all. Was Walsh really "notable" (in the odd Wikipedia sense) for anything in particular before this recent silliness? If not, perhaps better to leave him in peace. In the meantime, I for one will be happy to sprotect this article indefinitely at the first sign of idiocy, which experience suggests is likely to come soon. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The references in article other than to the trial are all to self published biographical details mostly "schools I went to" and "committees I've been on", we wouldn't normally allow that in a BLP article. The two independent sources are concerned with the trial and used 10 times. Straight forward BLP1E and COATRACK. John lilburne ( talk) 10:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"The references... are all to self published biographical details" - that's patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong! First link is to the City Of London members list, contains committee appointments and where I went to school stuff - does not establish notability by external reliable sources. Link used to puff up 6 references. Next link on Legal500 is a personal website profile, mentions real ale (but not movie interests) used to puff out eight references. Then one has his chambers profile used once. Then a mention in an annual report. The other two links are to do with trial and used in 10 references. So 15 references to puffery, 10 links to trail reports, one link to an annual report. Where is the external long standing notability? John lilburne ( talk) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to prove the truth of your assertion that "The references... are all to self published biographical details". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the criticism is from the defence counsel - so it likely is not a "notable opinion" in the first place. I rather think the entire bit about the trial should be quite pruned. Collect ( talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

David Allen Green is not his defence counsel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Myles Jackman, cited for the opinion as well, was Walsh's defence counsel. Or else he lied in his Guardian article used as a ref in the Walsh article: My client, Simon Walsh, was charged ... Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I discussed DAG's role; I did not dispute MJ's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Matthew Buckland was his counsel, Myles Jackman was his solicitor. TFD ( talk) 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which affects Jackman's own wording in what way precisely? My client, Simon Walsh, was charged ... seems pretty clear -- and legal definitions of "counsel" include solicitors, TFD. The "solicitor" is also a "lawyer" by definition. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but not a " counsel". TFD ( talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment was clearly on the entire section unless my English is that bad <g> how else could one interpret:

Part of the criticism is from the defence counsel - so it likely is not a "notable opinion" in the first place. I rather think the entire bit about the trial should be quite pruned. Collect (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which rather belies your comment that I had to be referring to Green, indeed. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I said nothing to the effect that you had to be referring to Green. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you wish to argue its not BLP1E because of his notability in other areas, see below for why I have removed the contentious material.

(BLP) Avoid victimization - Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. By repeating the details of the court case in which he was acquitted, it could be seen that we are intentionally adding to his victimization by an archaic law. This is borderline for me but seems to apply.

(BLP) People who are relatively unknown - include only material relevant to their notability. As Andy has indicated he is notable not for the court case, so its not relevant and should probably not be included. He certainly falls into the relatively unknown catagory.

(BLP) Persons accused of crime - For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. At no point does it say we should include it if they are acquitted. After serious consideration I dont think this is material that should be included. The fact it went to an attempted prosecution implies that the CPS had evidence to suspect/suggest he had committed a crime.

If you wish to argue that he is notable in part/due to the single court case. Then BLP1E applies.

If you want to argue that as a test case for the law that was being applied, we have precedent for articles on the law itself and cases are used as sources for that. We shouldnt use the BLP to provide info about the law.

I have cut the material I have objections to. As per policy. "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." I notice there was no such consensus after the reversion of Collect's pruning earlier. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not said "he is notable not for the court case"; I have said that he was notable before it. Your claim that Walsh is "relatively unknown", given his high-profile career and elected status, is fatuous; your accusation that I am "victimising" a man who has publicly stated that he wishes to raise the rpofie of his circumstances, and yesterday voluntarily chose to appear on national television to discuss the circumstances of his trial and acquittal, is both bizarre and unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note the use of 'we' not 'you' in my statement. 'We' being 'we in Wikipedia's voice' as was clear from the context. So you might want to cut back on the kneejerk reaction next time. Relatively unknown is perfectly acceptable. I dont disagree what you have in the article now constitutes notability, notability however does not mean 'well-known'. And you will need far better sources than there are currently to show that. If he was notable before the court case, then the court case is irrelevant to his notability and should be excluded. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is short on logic. If notability already exists at a given point in time (i.e. before the court case), then it does not mean that all subsequent relevant events are not notable. In addition, you are confusing the criterion for an article existing ( notability) with the criteria for including content in an article ( verifiability, reliable sourcing and due weight). Your conclusion that the court case should be excluded on the grounds of notability is patent nonsense. The court case is verifiable and reliably sourced, and so any consideration of exclusion can only be made on the grounds of insignificant weight – which case you have completely failed to make. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting into a circular argument about it. I made my position quite clear above. If he is notable regardless of the court case, then as a relatively unknown person - according to BLP policy we do not include info that is not relevant to his notability. If you want to say it is relevant to his notability (And I actually think it is relevant to his notability or no one would have created the article) then the crime section of BLP applies. We should not include info without conviction. We are not a tabloid newspaper. BLP is not ambiguous or fuzzily worded, its quite clear on this. Granted it says 'should not' and not 'never', but it should take more than one (failed) prosecution before we start going against that. Sources that show he is a high-profile and well-known person would eliminate all of my objections above. The current ones do not come close to lifting him out of 'relatively unknown'. BLP policy doesnt use notability for inclusion of material in the sections I quoted above, it only uses phrases like 'relatively unknown' precisely because there are thousands of people who are completely anonymous but notable. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A mayoral, political, appointee to a fire authority; and the chair of the police authority of the City of London, is not "completely anonymous". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"according to BLP policy we do not include info that is not relevant to his notability" - absolute nonsense again. Here's what BLP policy actually says:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article ...".

The subject is a magistrate, an Alderman, and the former chair of the police authority of the City of London. You clearly have no idea what constitutes a public figure. -- RexxS ( talk) 18:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit less condescension please. None of the above make him a well-known personage. They may be indicators, but if 1% of the population of London know what an Alderman is, I will eat my hat. Being a public figure does not automatically make them well known. Likewise fulfilling one criteria of the BLP policy does not invalidate the rest of it. Since you quoted above, feel free to explain why the court case is noteworthy & relevant to a biography on him. I am waiting to be convinced. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What does London have to do with this? I'll wager that far more than 1% of the City of London know what an Alderman is; and who he is. As to the relevance to him of the subject that he just voluntarily appeared on national TV to discuss, which has cost him his livelihood for the last year..! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

TV is ephemeral, newspapers are ephemeral, WP is permanent and usually the first hit for a subject's name. If he adds this to his CoL alderman profile, his web forum profile, and his chambers profile, we'll know that he wants this prosecution to be the foremost thing recorded about him. Until then stick it in the article about the Act. I think we are done now. John lilburne ( talk) 06:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You said "…I have removed the contentious material [because] Wikipedia editors must not act… in a way that amounts to… victimization". Since I and I alone have included what you refer to as "contentious material", then your insinuation of victimisation clearly refers to me. I have not argued that "notability means 'well-known'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your cut and paste paraphrasing omits large sections that both explain and give context. Perhaps you would rather address the objections I raised rather than taking things out of context and getting offended. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't post false insinuations. I also notice that you removed from the article the cited fact that Walsh's work "includ[es] actions against the police". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If he isn't otherwise notable, we are probably better deleting the article, since it can be better covered at Section_63_of_the_Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008#2012_test_case,. However, I oppose the current situation of having an article, but not mentioning the trial at all. Whilst it shouldn't dominate the article, and is better covered in detail at the aforementioned article, that doesn't mean we can't mention it at all. I don't think a mention at all has BLP issues. Indeed there's no evidence that he opposes coverage of the trial. Mdwh ( talk) 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Arvindswami ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting unsourced or unreliably sourced information contrary to what the reliable sources in the article have said. He cited "imdb" (that's all, not the IMDB page on Arvind Swami, just "imdb") for some changes, despite being told that IMDB does not meet WP:RS. One source states that he was adopted by VD Swami, which he removed and replaced with a citation to wordpress blog that does not disprove the adoption.

I need some other editor to help with this, because he does not care what I say at all, and no one else has tried to deal with him in over a month. Ian.thomson ( talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have constantly been editing this article on me which is poorly sourced and am willing to provide a copy of my passport or any document that will give you the required proof. If there is a constant referral to some badly sourced or incorrect articles or news items and to insist thereafter that we cannot change the same nor accept proof is beyond common sense. Many articles/ news items must have referred to wikipedia and i understand that there could be circular sourcing regarding birthdate, childhood.

For example, There are many recent news articles which states that I was at a school reunion with grandmaster and world chess champion Viswanathan Anand ^[1]and it also states that he was my classmate. it also states that it was a 25th year reunion. The article however does not say how old I was when i finished school and therefore I cannot refer the same in my edits. But I guess this is where common sense comes into play; Surely I did not finish school when I was in my twenties!! to say that there is an article which states the name of my father, but this does not disprove adoption is beyond stupidity. If my parent's names are going to be wrongly stated, how can I disprove adoption???? I can only offer to show you proof, if u dont want to see it or dont have a way in which I can send it to you then what option do I have but to cite sources that are available and continue editing ...Can someone please help and escalate this so that we dont need to waste time disputing facts?-- Arvindswami ( talk) 02:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for your trouble, Mr Swami, the points you make are sensible. The escalation you want is available at WP:FEFS. Hornplease ( talk) 08:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

User Collect, a semi-frequent contributor here on WP:BLPN, removed 10k+ of material yesterday from the article Tea Party Movement that dealt with allegations of racism at Tea Party gatherings (specifically the racial epithet allegations involving slurs during the health care protests and the Springboro Tea Party founder using a racial epithet on twitter). The material has been in the article for 2+ years. Collect explained in his edit summary that it violates WP:BLP. I had a polite conversation with him on his Talk Page here to ask him for specifics as to how the material violates WP:BLP, and he provided his take on it, but it still isn't clear to me as to how the racism material violates WP:BLP in the context its used on that article. I told him I'd make a posting here on WP:BLPN so that we can hear from other BLP-experienced editors. Can anyone else explain what aspects of WP:BLP policy make the racism allegations material BLP-prohibited in this context? For ease of viewing, you can see the 10k of material that was removed here under the subsections "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" plus "Response". Thanks, AzureCitizen ( talk) 14:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note my statement at [14], [15] and [16] including my concerns about contentious claims being sourced to anonymous people, etc. as well as weight concerns for the claims. Collect ( talk) 14:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Note that this is inaptly stated by the OP here -- if a BLP violation has been in an article for 20 years, it remains a BLP violation. If it is 10 words or 10,000 words, it remains a BLP violation. And my concerns had nothing to do with "racism" in the claims. Collect ( talk) 14:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question for AzureCitizen: would you like to modify your statement in view of Collect's assertion that "racism" was not the issue? Collect, would you like to say here what was the issue? AzureCitizen, was this thing just between you and Collect, and if not then why just name Collect? 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 15:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(replying to 108.18.174.123) Racism itself is not and has not been the issue here. The material deleted by Collect just happens to be on the topic of racism; that is its only connection to the subject of racism. The sole factor I'm focusing on here at WP:BLPN is the removal of the content by Collect on the grounds that the 10k of material violates WP:BLP. Collect's edit summary for the removal was "let's observe WP:BLP for contentious claims about living persons first - which is an absolute requirement by policy". When someone claims a WP:BLP violation, that issue needs to be resolved first before all others. You can see the resulting Talk Page conversation between Collect and myself in it's entirety here. Here on the noticeboard, Collect additionally states that he or she also objects to it on the basis of weight, but the issue I brought here to WP:BLPN is whether or not the 10k+ of material seen here under the subsections "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests" & "Response" actually violate the Biography of Living Persons policy. Does it really violate that policy? How so? Thanks, AzureCitizen ( talk) 16:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, one of the things in the BLP policy is this: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". Do you think this is relevant here? Is having a big section about alleged stuff that has been disavowed and condemned by the Tea Party really a proper thing to be in this particular article, even if the section is well-sourced? Yesterday, for example, a man who has been a volunteer at The DC Center for the LGBT Community, allegedly went on a shooting spree; shall we describe it at the Wikipedia article about the LGBT community? [17] 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You've referenced a sentence from the paragraph on balance, which states that criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Although the shooting incident/LGBT community article hypothetical might be a good example for implying guilt by association in that scenario, the analogy breaks down and doesn't match up well with the deleted material connected to the health care protests. The allegations of slurs received significant attention and happened at a high profile Tea Party Movement event. Editors can disagree on whether or not it's notable and relevant in the TPM article, but it's quite a stretch to say that the material was a Biography of Living Persons policy violation and summarily delete it on that justification. AzureCitizen ( talk) 18:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Most thinking editors would have difficulty with the proposition that Faux News is a sufficiently neutral RS on any remotely R-vs-L topic. Strangely their coverage on this Johnson shooting story is better than normal, approximating this Washington Post article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that once more Fox (note spelling) News reporters opine in favor of liberal causes, then its reputation will improve as an accurate and neutral source. I'm glad you agree it is in this case. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be almost as bad. Reporters should not opine, they should report. It's journalism 101. Editors who catch them opining should warn them once, then fire them on the second instance. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it ought to work like that, but doesn't on both sides, of late. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My hunch is that a radically shortened version of the deleted material might satisfy the BLP policy against guilt by association. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 18:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My hunch was that the original material was never a BLP policy violation to begin with, which is why I brought it here. This really shouldn't be this hard; if there is a legitimate reason for why the material should be considered a BLP policy violation, it should be explainable with a straightforward and clear cut rationale. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This should be clear-cut enough: BLP has a policy disfavoring guilt by association. Jamming the Tea Party article full of alleged misdeeds by a tiny fringe of them has the effect of disparaging the Tea Party by association. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jamming the TPM article full of alleged misdeeds by a tiny fringe would obviously be a problem. That's not the case here; please take a careful look at the material in question and explain how it is "jamming the article full of alleged misdeeds." AzureCitizen ( talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The 10k removed by Collect is a lot of stuff. And it was all about "Reports of slurs at health care reform protests". The slurs (if they occurred) were insufficiently common at the event to have been picked up by any recording device, and the organization says it condemns such things. So, I agree with Sceptre about this, and won't have more to say about it. Cheers. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Having involved US Congressmen at a major protest event in the capitol, it was widely reported and the issue of racism in the TPM garnered national attention. Whether or not there were recording devices or condemnations by TPM leaders, the relevant material wasn't "jamming the article full of alleged misdeeds." AzureCitizen ( talk) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is not a detergent that we use to scrub anything we disagree with that happens to involve a living person. The material on the slurs and the Springboro guy is reliably sourced, and that's what WP:BLP calls for. (The Springboro guy seems like a rather local incident to include, but that's not a BLP question.) What isn't adequately sourced - is the junk on Breitbart sourced only to him, but I suppose that's okay because it doesn't make conservatives look bad. Take it to NPOVN or DRN. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with Collect's removal; we're making way too much out of a few tea party activists caught being racists. Even if we all know the tea party is full of racists, I don't think we have any non-partisan sources discussing the problem of racism in the movement as a whole. That's what's important here. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Without speaking to the BLP issue, I think we do have a few non-partisan sources indicating this is worth inclusion, discussing the issue in the TPM as a whole. The NYT on NAACP claims [18] and Newsweek [19], for example. Hornplease ( talk) 07:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with the removal on other grounds is fine by me; I'm trying to get to the root of whether or not its inclusion was a WP:BLP policy violation. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a higher policy, Azure, would be our pillar of "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." WP:BLP is merely a subset of this. If there is a consensus here that some of this material *may* be out of line, we should probably re-work it before returning it, if at all, to the article. Any material about a living person can fall under our WP:BLP policy. And that's what makes this relate to BLP. In addition, just because a person utters a supposed slur, can we immediately characterize them and their motives? I don't doubt that some Tea Partiers are racist. Some may only have 'implicit race bias' ( link or an unconscious bias that manifests as extra bias against Obama or Democrats. Some may just not like 'socialism'. Who knows. The point is that most mainstream media sources or pundits don't take the time to look at nuances or distinctions, they don't try to understand the opposing side, but often simply paint with a very broad brush. This is why you end up with a lot of Occupy people who say they dislike capitalism, when they really mean corporatism. But we need to get the article right, not resort to simplified generalizations that don't tell the story accurately. -- Avanu ( talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Avanu. WP:NPOV is a better approach by which to assess and gauge the material for its suitability and inclusion (or deletion in this case, as the material was in the article for more than two years). It's not like the text in question concludes with "Ergo, most tea partiers are racists." It still seems to me to be a pretty big stretch to say that the reporting of alleged slurs at the TPM health care protests violated BLP policy, of which I assume you read the material at issue. If it only vaguely and indistinctly relates to BLP, isn't it more appropriate to entertain the issue of WP:NPOV than to characterize it as a BLP violation, something for which we are accustomed to accepting as a justification that can be repeatedly employed to delete something without regard to RR restriction? AzureCitizen ( talk) 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that focusing so much on racial slurs does constitute guilt-by-association. Someone tried to do the same for Occupy, using the American Third Position Party's support as a way of attacking Occupy. Thankfully, we resisted that attempt. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 21:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been what I consider to be some fairly gross violations of WP:BLP policy in our contentious left-wing terrorism article. Initially, content was added to the article in connection to a shooting incident at Family Research Council offices in Washington DC, stating that a named individual had "shot and wounded a security guard". [20] Needless to say, the sources make no such statement - they instead report that the individual had been charged with the shooting. After I reverted the material, with an edit summary stating "revert gross WP:BLP violation - the suspect has not been convicted of anything", another contributor chose to restore the content - without naming the individual, but still implying that the individual carried out the attack. [21] I revertet this, saying "sorry, but no, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS etc, and since the sources seem not to describe this as 'left-wing' anything". The later material (not naming the suspect, but implying guilt) was then restored by the person making the original edit. [22]. I have now reverted yet again, per "revert WP:BLP violation - and note that such violations are exempt from WP:3RR rules. The sources do not state that the suspect shot anybody (as they shouldn't), and they don't describe this as 'left wing' anything. [23].

At this point, I'd like others to look into this, and confirm whether I am right in seeing this material as not only a WP:BLP violation, but untenable on grounds of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS, and last but not least, that the sources at no point describe the individual as 'left wing'. I'd also argue that this regrettable incident, regardless of motivations of whoever was responsible, is clearly outside the scope of an article on "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes", and an attempt to portray it as such is POV-pushing of the most blatant kind, regardless of other issues. That experienced contributors should be engaging in such behaviour is highly questionable, to say the least. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the policy-violating material has been added again. [24] I have reverted this as exempt from WP:3RR policies. At this point though, I'd appreciate the input of others. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Right-wing terrorism is also supposed to be about attempts to overthrow the government. Yet it includes an unrelated accusation that should be removed. I think the best solution would involve changing the article titles to make their content more clear. Such as: "Left-wing revolutionary terrorism". There are various types of left-wing terrorism, and these BLP problems will continue until the title clarifies which one. Regarding the question whether the alleged shooter in DC is "left-wing", I think that is a fair inference even if it isn't explicitly stated that way in the news reports. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 00:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What 'you think is a fair inference' is irrelevant. Your comments on the name and scope of the article are off-topic. The issue here is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, which I have now reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of WP:BLP policies in our 'left wing terrorism' article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the BLP-violating statement from Right-wing terrorism. [25] As I said, this problem could be prevented by re-naming the articles to properly reflect their scope. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate place to discuss the scope of articles - please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note, Grump, that you specifically asked: "At this point, I'd like others to look into this, and confirm whether I am right ....that the sources at no point describe the individual as 'left wing'." I was trying to answer your question. Moreover, at ANI, you said "there isn't the slightest evidence that anyone involved is attempting to bring about 'the overthrow of capitalist governments' or anything else". So it seems very relevant that the scope of the article is very unclear; the title is much broader than the body of the article describes. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is WP:BLP/N. The only issue to be discussed here is the contentious material added into the article as it presently stands. If you wish to propose the scope of the article(s) be changed, do it at the appropriate talk page - though be prepared for a long, tedious and repetitive debate. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to acknowledge the almost identical BLP violation that I removed from Right-wing terrorism? One reason this is happening is because the titles are lousy. I have already suggested changing the title at Left-wing terrorism. I support your removal of BLP-violating material at that article. Is it on-topic to say that I support you? Cheers. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 01:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason this is happening is because the articles are lousy. They are WP:OR. But yes, I support the removal of such policy-violating material from all articles, regardless of the supposed (or made-up) topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: On the LWT article I removed the person's name - but the entire incident was then removed, but presumably not on BLP grounds. I did not "imply" that a specific person committed the attack, but used scrupulously NPOV and BLP-compliant language in saying that a suspect was reported to have existed. WaPo now reports that the suspect has been arrested, by the way, thus the BLP issue is obviated. What is left is Andy's assertion that a person who shoots a guard and is quoted as saying it was for political reasons can be assumed not to have the same political values as the guard shot. I wonder just how great a leap is required at that point with the quotes now in reliable sources. [26] is from CBS News. Collect ( talk) 01:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, if you want to argue that the shooting was allegedly carried out by a person engaged in "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes", I suggest you do in the ANI thread. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no hint in the sources that anyone was trying to overthrow the government. Treason, in other words. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 01:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, what was the rationale behind your edit summary when you re-inserted the incident over Andy's revert with the comment "seems notable here"? Presumably you looked into its notability when you wrote that, but the scope of the article is abou the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 01:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I emended anything that could be called a BLP violation. I find that an incident covered in WaPo, NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, HuffPo, etc. is; quite frankly, notable by any Wikipedia standards for notability. Frinstance [27] seems to assert that the incident is "notable". That there is a likely political connexion is shown by

An FBI affidavit quotes 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins II of Herndon telling the guard, “I don’t like your politics” as he pulled a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol from a backpack he had carried with him on Metrorail from East Falls Church.

In his bag, court documents say, police found 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 sandwiches from Chick-fil-A, which combined with the suspect’s statement added a political dimension to the shooting

The FBI affidavit says agents interviewed Corkins’s parents, who said their son “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.”

The SPLC said the Family Research Council was ”seeking an opportunity to score points” by using the shooting for political purposes.

Sufficient to assert the case is "notable" and that it is fair to say it was likely political per RS sources? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 06:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Utter bollocks, once again. The edit was to an article quite specifically on Marxist terrorism intended to overthrow capitalist states. Since you clearly don't believe that this was the case here, but continue to try to justify your edit, I can only conclude that you are more concerned with pushing a ridiculous POV than contributing usefully to Wikipedia on such subjects. On this basis, I have to ask whether you should be involved with such topics at all? I'd note that your intervention seems to have achieved nothing beyond escalating the issue, as you encouraged a new (or 'new'?) contributor to promote an untenable position. As to whether the shooting is 'notable', I'll not comment, beyond pointing out the obvious - it isn't relevant to the article into which it was added unless WP:RS sources say so - and there have been none whatsoever making this ridiculous claim. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, Grump, I was not encouraged by Collect. I don't like article names that will mislead laymen. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 06:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm referring to the new account (Djjamz340) that repeatedly added the policy-violating material. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Temper! Temper! Read what I wrote calmly. 1. The incident is notable on its face. 2. The incident was politically motivater in all likelihood according to reliable sources. One problem is the horrid accumulation at "right wing terrorism" where virtually all the attacks are by individuals, yet on this analog article, no individual attacks seem to be mentioned - even where the motives are reasonably clear to outside observers. I have stated the incident is notable per reliable sources, and I removed any possible BLP violation - which was your initial complaint if you read your own edit summary. Clear enough? Now I get posts accusing me of saying things I did not say, which is a teensy bit tiresome. As for "pushing a ridiculous POV" that is for sure one thing I did not do here, and the sooner you have a cup of tea or so I am sure you will recognise that fact. On its fact, the act is one of "political terrorism" and should be in at least one article thereon - perhaps we need to separate from all' such articles the ones by individuals and the ones by specific groups. Collect ( talk) 06:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

'On its fact' your above statement is a gross violation of multiple policies. The article concerned (to which you are a major contributor talk page contributor) relates quite specifically to "a set of tactics directed at the overthrow of capitalist governments and their replacement with Marxist-Leninist or socialist regimes". There is no evidence that the accused is a Marxist. There is no evidence that he was attempting to overthrow any government. Nevertheless, you added the policy-violating material to the article. Placing the material in that article was in itself an implicit statement that the individual concerned fitted within the article parameters. The individual was clearly identifiable from the sources cited (none of which say anything about Marxists trying to overthrow anything). You violated WP:BLP (amongst other policies - WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc, etc) by adding the material. Trying to weasel-word your way out of it with speculation and irrelevances, and waffling on about yet another article that doesn't currently exist (and almost certainly shouldn't) is entirely beside the point. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(od) "Major contributor"? Really? I made one edit on 16 August - which was to remove the name of the suspect per WP:BLP. I made one single edit in November 2010. No other edits whatsoever on that article. Yet you somehow think that makes me a "major contributor" with exactly a total of TWO edits ever on the article? Sorry Andy - you need a rest. Have the tea. Collect ( talk) 12:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies: I seem to have been looking at talk page contributors [28] rather than article contributors. In any case, you were clearly aware what the subject of the article was - and if you weren't, you shouldn't have been adding the material to it. It didn't belong there, and your addition violated policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Now did you read my talk page edits? I "added" nothing to the article - I fixed a prior edit by another editor to conform with your stated objection that it violated WP:BLP. Period. Sorry to disillusion you, but I have well over 2500 pages watchlisted -- which does not make me a "major contributor" to them. Cheers - hope the tea is helping. Collect ( talk) 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. You removed nothing from the article as it stood. You added material to the article [29]. The article is about Marxist revolutionaries attempting to bring down governments. The suspect isn't a Marxist revolutionary attempting to bring down a government (or if he is, we have no source that says so). That is as clear a violation of WP:BLP policy as they come. You can't justify it by claiming that it wasn't as bad as a previous edit - you are responsible for your contributions, not anyone else. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

a little off-topic

We have an article titled Left-wing terrorism? Crikey, I knew we were stupid, but... Formerip ( talk) 22:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed we do. And a fine example of original research it is, too - though (fortunately) this isn't normally a WP:BLP/N issue. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could merge it with Right-wing terrorism. Call it Wingy terrorism. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Or NPOV terrorism, maybe. Formerip ( talk) 00:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ya, well, while I mostly agree with Andy's interpretation of BLP policy, the main problem I see here is OR that is sometimes a little POV pushy. The biggest problem I see is people going off-topic by including incidents outside the scope of the article, but as Andy already pointed out, BLP/N is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. If any assertion of presumed guilt of a named person who has not been tried has been removed from the articles, then surely the BLP/N thread can be closed, and we can all move on to the article talk pages to discuss problems of scope and OR, and whether these are problems inherent to forky articles (and are these articles forky?). In any case, any BLP violation seems to be abandoned, as the most recent edit war in this article is over inclusion of the incident, not over inclusion of BLP material. Wilhelm Meis ( ☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Charlie Souza (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Charlie Souza LiveYourDream CD Cover.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need Help inserting photo on page. Thumbnail would be fine. Can you do it please? Thank you, Charlie Souza

Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Souza_LiveYourDream_CD_Cover.jpg#metadata

Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Souza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesouza ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I'm correct re the dispute at this article Talk. I'm not a BLP expert. It seems obvious to me however, that a Youtube video cannot be used as RS, to accuse the BLP subject of a misdeed, that could harm their reputation. (That the Youtube video was made by the alleged offended party, seems immaterial to me.)

An IP user reverted the add, and was reverted. When I reverted the re-add and opened a Talk section, my revert was reverted without discussion. Subsequently another editor added an additional ref, which looks like a blog news site, whereby a contributing member to the blog site reports that the Youtube video exists, then adds his own feelings and postulations about the accusation in the video. My simple understanding of BLP policy is that refs of this nature can damage the BLP subject, and WP, and s/b removed immediately (even w/o edit summary). The only discussion at the Talk section I opened after being reverted, is ad hominem personal attacks. The whole thing makes no sense to me. Am I missing something? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed the last part of your message indicating that you opened the discussion here; I responded to your message on the article's talk page. I'm thinking that maybe we can try to resolve it there before taking it here? Nightscream ( talk) 18:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So far the resolution discussion has not started. As mentioned above, I've been on receiving end of ad hominem personal attacks on the article Talk page, without discussion. That is why I opened the thread here. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 11:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian Kracht (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So much WP:PEACOCK not sure where to begin. May not even be notable enough. Any other editors input on this promotional article appreciated.... Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 23:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article. It seems relatively balanced to me, some positives, some negatives about him. Is there a particular section that concerns you? Coaster92 ( talk) 04:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

An acquaintance pointed me to a blog post on the political website Liberal Conspiracy today called Has Guido Fawkes been puffing up his Wikipedia entry?

Guido Fawkes is the pen name of the prominent right-wing UK blogger Paul Staines. There seem to be quite a large number of edits from a user called Paul.staines. It'd be useful if some BLPN regulars could have a look at the changes to make sure we don't have any issues here with either WP:COI or WP:BLP. — Tom Morris ( talk) 09:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an earlier account, from January 2012, User:Pds2012, also claiming to be him. (No article edits, no wrong-doing implied) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is currently the subject of a very small discussion at WP:AN. As I've pointed out there, the very same article has also twice previously been discussed here on BLPN. One of those occasions was because, apparently, the subject of the article, as instructed, brought his concerns here. That seemed to be about negative statements about him for which there were no reliable sources - in 2009! More recently, there have been more negative statements about him, which still (according to the editors that looked at them) seem to have no reliable sources.

Seemingly this Staines fellow is very well known amongst those interested in British politics, so, as is the case with such things, certain people with negative views about him feel the need to insert questionable things in the Wikipedia article about him. As is natural, sometimes he feels annoyed enough to remove those things.

The article would benefit from being watchlisted by more neutral eyes, whether those eyes are prepared to join in the article talkpage discussion or not.

I'm sure the "Liberal Conspiracy" blog is a very interesting blog. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Misha B ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The issues of the Article page got solved above, but I believe the are WP:GRAPEVINE WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK issues, can the offending passages be deleted and does it have to me (as I am involved in the arguments I will be accused of being biased)

This relates to lots of unsupported bully accusations on this artists talk page, it has not been affected by revision history.

Bias about bullying

Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?

Too much information and way too biased

Background: 1. Misha B, is a British singer-songwriter who was a contestant in the reality show The X Factor (UK), during the series she was accused, on live TV in front of 11 million viewers, of being a bully, by 2 of the Judges. The other 2 Judges defended her. On, the judge who used bully word apologized for his bully accusation. No evidence was ever provided to support either allegation, and Misha's fellow contestants and potential victims, as well as program staff, went public to deny any the truth in the accusations. However the story was taken up the UK tabloid press, gossip mags and internet forums in a heavy media circus kind of way and the are many folks who still believe the bully story to be true.

Though I included a piece about the controversy 3-4 other editors thought I was biased. Gratefully following my original posting on this board it got removed.

Part 2 : Bryan said 'At school I was bullied & I’d bully people myself, but I’m a different person now' but this was before she took up singing seriously aged 14, as 'my way of understanding myself'. So how old was she, when she got bullied & bullied back 13, 11, 10? about the age when she discovered that not only her father abandoned her but also her mum, to be raised by her aunt in a tough neighbourhood. “Everyone has a past and people make mistakes – I’m proud to say that I’ve learnt from mine”

Those same editors argued that this, plus some invented stuff should be included

Can the Talk page be cleaned up?

... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 11:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that someone has vandalised/defaced the page: Leonard Kleinrock

Checkout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Leonard_Kleinrock&action=history

in particular:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2

Question: what action does WP take with users who _repeatedly_ deface WP webpages? ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naderra ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. The IP has been warned. If they continue, they may be blocked. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A three-month long edit war on Larry Klayman, between two editors, with no-one else involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, but it certainly is amazing. There's a report on the problem at WP:ANI. I locked the article for 3 days.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A section had to be removed from the article because of violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, it would be helpful for an experienced editor from this board to review the article for other issues. I would prefer not to so I can continue to act administratively.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth Andam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is an advertisement designed to promote and aid Kenneth Andam in his business dealings. I reads very much like a resume interlaced with promotional material. This article should be removed. The article is an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusade59 ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice puff -- depuffed a bit, but most of the claims are actually within WP guidelines if properly sourced. But others had trimmed a bit before I ahppened on it. Collect ( talk) 21:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I did significant trimming, and, Collect, I may have walked over yours (sorry). It needs significant more work to be properly sourced. As Collect said in his edit summary, very little is sourced to secondary sources.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:BLP-notice Freebird15 and I are over at the Julia Gillard (Australian PM) page trying to get some reference to the Bruce Wilson AWU Fraud scandal that is garnering growing media coverage and appeared on the front page of the National Newspaper (The Australian) yesterday written. Could someone please come over and read the talk page and give us some input on how to reach consensus and get this aspect of Gillard's biography included in the article? Thanks Dickmojo ( talk) 23:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to carry the discussion there over to here, but characterising this as a 'scandal' and claiming its "garnering growing media coverage" is pretty inaccurate. Nick-D ( talk) 00:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the Bruce Wilson fraud relevant to Gillard? She dated him previously but unless there is sourced coverage (I would personally want more than one article) claiming the fraud in some way relates to her, it should not be included in her biography. Not having read the Australian piece I cant comment on it, but I am not impressed with the way editors are disregarding reliable sources based on a)murdoch owned, b)behind paywalls. Neither are reasons to not use them as a source. Give it a week and see what pops up. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community gives the names of many people who have apparently been accused of child abuse, but seem not to have been convicted for various reasons. I am not able to judge how such sensitive issues should be treated, but I think it is a good idea if the BLP regulars take a look at the article. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted a couple of redirects pointing to the page - if the named people are only subjects of allegations at this point, it might be wiser to await the outcome of this discussion before assisting with such search terms. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The applicable policy is WP:BLPCRIME, but I haven't looked at the specific mentions. I can't imagine, though, using a person's name as a redirect - obviously, that means the person doesn't even have an article here.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed material on allegations that haven't led to convictions, per WP:BLP, and others which refer cases not involving 'spiritual leaders' - the supposed subject of the article, according to the lede. This is going to need watching like a hawk, I fear. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The user history rise some questions like creating AFD on their second edit.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 17:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And 3 DYK noms already. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that the link to the cases is pretty slim -- circa 1 million Orthodox Jews live in Brooklyn (37% of the entire Brooklyn population) - the number of sex crimes seems quite in order with random probability, hence not worthy of the implication that the closeness of that community in any way fosters sex abuse. I know how I would opine at an AfD for sure. Missed it by this much but the arguments for "keep" are ansolutely not in accord with Wikipedia policy AFAICT. And the claim that it is simply in parallel with articles with charges about the Catholic Church is off-the-wall. Collect ( talk) 21:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is that there is a higher prevalence of sex abuse, but what gets mediacoverage (and therefore notability) is the ways in which the community handles the cases. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any particular policy against resubmitting AfDs, if the reasons are different, by different editors. I could be wrong. -- Activism 1234 21:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're wrong. "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly." ( WP:DELAFD) It's way too soon. Otherwise, you could have serial nominations by different editors. The idea is the community has an opportunity to discuss the article, regardless of who nominated it or the reasons for the nomination.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Midnight Beast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a band, however local editors have been using it as a de-facto BLP by including a The_Midnight_Beast#Members section. I've tried to help out with some citations, and with some Citation Needed templates to draw attention to the problems, but nothing has improved. In fact, things have gotten worse as IP editors are determined to reintroduce unsourced information into the section (e.g. this today). There's two things with which I'd like to request help:

• Could the article be protected for a while (if thought appropriate)?
• Could someone please assess which text should be removed immediately (as being unsourced BLP-type information)? I have been tolerant to most information in the hope that local editors have been working on sources, but nothing seems to be happening.

Thanks in advance for any assistance that can be provided. GFHandel  ♬  10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a whip through the members section taking out anything that was (in my opinion) iffy from a BLP view. Whats left is still unsourced, but is relevant if sources can be found, and at least its not accusing living people of various shenanigans. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Csanád Szegedi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nmate removed [30] sourced information without discussion in the article about Csanád Szegedi, controversial extremist politician from political party - Jobbik. Nmate did not use talk page for article, but he used my talk page [31] and without my response promptly removed informations. It's his a new behavior [32] [33], but unfortunately boring for me. He wrote on My talk page [34]: "However, in this case Slovak sources are not suitable here ; especially, about anti-Slovak sentiment. Instead, I suggest you try to replace them with English sources ,or they will be deleted otherwise." But he did not write what WP policy claims "in this case Slovak sources are not suitable here..." I used the reference from Slovak radio [35] and Slovak radio mentioned as source the Hungarian newspaper Népszabadság. Problematic sentence for Nmate is probably "Szegedi (29) is the author of several controversial and anti-Slovak statements. (original: Szegedi (29) je autorom viacerých kontroverzných a protislovenských výrokov.)" Nevertheless, if Slovak radio reference is poorly source, so I will use the official website of Szegedi, where he claims for example "Slovaks are insects and parasites" (original: s mint élősködő rovar)". Another Nmate's issue is that I used the barikad.hu as a source. For Nmate "it is also not a realible source not least due to the fact that this newspaper is closely related to The Movement for a Better Hungary" - Jobbik. This view is totally absurd, because Szegedi is prominent politician of Jobbik and he is elected Member of the European Parliament with the Jobbik. He also used on own website references for the barikad.hu. The closing Nmate's statement is not a surprise for me: "the articles published in barikad.hu of which you inserted the information in the article do not particularly say anything of what sentiments Csanád Szegedi may have". [36] He reminded the Second Vienna Award in the European Parliament. It is clear provocation and anti-Romanian statement. The Second Vienna Award was the second of two Vienna Awards arbitrated by the Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Rendered on 30 August 1940, it re-assigned the territory of Northern Transylvania from Romania to Hungary. See also Nullification. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 14:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Omen, although I do not think any of the sources removed by Nmate are unreliable, the statement about Szegedi's views on Jews, Roma people and the EU is adequately sourced using the sme.sk article (Nmate is wrong to delete this source). The other sources are superfluous for this, although they could be used for other information elsewhere in the article.

I would particularly avoid using sources with a connection to the subject of the article if other sources not connected to him will do just as well for the same information. So, for example, the source with information about the Second Vienna Award is only really useful for the article if we wish to talk about the Second Vienna Award in the article, not simply as an additional source to back up what we already have a perfectly good source for.

Incidentally, the BBC source appears to have nothing to do with Szegadi, AFAICT. Is the URL a typo? Formerip ( talk) 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source [37]: "such as Hungarian eurosceptic Csanad Szegedi" > it is source for anti-EU = eurosceptic -- Omen1229 ( talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK, my mistake. All the same, the article already has sources for the same info. Formerip ( talk) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can interested editors join this discussion to offer their viewpoints? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 16:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This list of researchers appears to be a major BLP issue where scientists etc are claimed to be cold fusionists: User:POVbrigand/list

Is this a BLP issue? Thanks.-- Insilvis ( talk) 00:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that this subject was previously discussed at BLPN. [38] Also note that the list is up for deletion. [39] 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It was previously discussed here, and it is being to rediscuss now. So what is the problem?

The list is being discussed for deletion for BLP violation, according to the proponent. Hence it should be discussed in the proper way and in the proper place which is HERE, where BLP violations are discussed.-- Insilvis ( talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I just thought people should be aware of background. I do not have any opinion about whether the list should be kept or deleted, but I do think it would be very wonderful if the listed researchers would succeed in their (alleged and controversial) quest. Cheers. 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 15:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for your point.-- Insilvis ( talk) 15:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at it a bit more, but only from a BLP perspective (i.e. putting aside topic bans and user space issues). To me, it seems like the most pertinent policy is WP:BLPCAT#Categories.2C lists and navigation templates:

The Wikipedia article on cold fusion says: "By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science." So it seems like to me that either the list should be deleted, or else it should be trimmed to include only people whose notability is related to cold fusion (i.e. someone could be notable only for other things, and yet dabble in LENR, in which case they shouldn't be on the list). 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If the world "cold fusion" is used it should be trimmed down in favour of "LERN" and it must be clear that all the persons in the lists classify themselves as researchers in the LERN field.-- Insilvis ( talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

LENR (note spelling) stands for "low-energy nuclear reactions". It means the same thing as "cold fusion", and is kind of a euphemism to avoid criticism. [40] 108.18.174.123 ( talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I posted on the MfD, I don't consider this a BLP violation per se. It is possible to research cold fusion without being fringe, or it having negative connotations in terms of reputation. It is only from the extreme point of view that all cold fusion research=fringe that leads to the implication of BLP violation. It's possible to research a topic that is frequented by fringe science without being part of fringe science yourself. James Randi himself would be a shining example of that sort of thing. Gigs ( talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We've had researchers complain about being called a cold fusion/LENR researcher on wikipedia, he is on the list as well with 8 references (McKubre). It's not well sourced either, look through the references in general and see if they directly support the addition and are reliable. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

POVBrigand emailed me to say that McKubre said "I have never complained about it (or its content) to anyone in person, by email or in any other way." I can't vouch for the veracity of this hearsay, but there you go. Gigs ( talk) 21:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Michael McKubre directly if there is any truth in IRWolfie's claims.

McKubre's reply was: "I have never complained about it (or its content) to anyone in person, by email or in any other way." and he told me I could quote him.

I find it very disturbing to read such utterly false claims on the BLP/N. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 22:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Isn't POVbrigand topic banned from this subject? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and he just came off a week-long enforcement block. Skinwalker ( talk) 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The diffs etc have already been shown (see the MfD). My mistake, it was Hubler: [41] (both names were posted). He's on the list too as a cold fusion researcher. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The list only claims that Hubler was a proposer of the DOE report. That seems neutral to me, and hard for anyone to have a problem with. His complaint regarding the article content was not a complaint about this list. It seems to me that if there is any BLP problem at all here, it could be solved by changing the section heading from "List of LENR researchers" to "List of researchers who have investigated LENR related topics". Gigs ( talk) 13:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited the page as Gigs suggested. Now concerns about BLP violations should be solved.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 13:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Gig's suggestion. This edit appears to be enough to overcome BLP issues.-- Insilvis ( talk) 15:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

POVBrigand has emailed me this link User:Hublerg/sandbox, which is apparently a statement from Hubler. I figured it was relevant enough that I should share it here, even though I resent being a proxy in his borderline topic-ban evasion. Gigs ( talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:NPOV/N partly over the issues following an earlier DRN that did not get a response.

Background Misha Bryan (born 10 February 1992), known as Misha B, is a British singer-songwriter who came to national attention in 2011 when she was a contestant in the eighth series of the The X Factor (UK), during the series the was a controversy, on live TV in front of 11 million viewers, where she was accused of being a bully. This was taken up the tabloid press, gossip mags and internet forums in a heavy media circus kind of way and the are many folks who hate Misha Bryan for it. The Accusations themselves where without verified evidence and most likely groundless.

1. removed and place under successfully replied answer.

2. Misha B

My general feeling, as it was most likely a false allegation, surely it's better to not even include it. Relevant for the article about that particular series of The X Factor (where it is included), but not for her biographical article.

But because majority insisted, I added the conspiracy section, because I had a good knowledge of the sources and if it had to be there then I wanted to make sure the whole truth was there.

To briefly mention a strongly believed/but false allogation would merely gives the false accusation and rumours undue weight, making them a viable belief option (espicially considering the exposure the accusations had on prime time TV and the Gutter Press/Gossip Mag/internet circus that followed) if the section is not fully covered with and supported by verifiable evidence.

But does it conflict with BLP.

... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 04:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that material from a reality show should get anywhere this much weight in a BLP at all. Wikipedia is not yet a TABLOID. Collect ( talk) 11:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I went too far, the idea was if the publicly made negative accusation had to be included, then it should be balanced with the truth and witness accounts. I may have gone too far, esp with the Misha B quotes. I am happy to see its removal. A co-editor is questioning its removal though.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is also here Controversy I have edited it down but should it remain or be edited further while keeping NPOV

What about the talkpage incidents?... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Should these be removed.

This relates to some unsupported bully accusations on this artists talk page, that are I believe in breach of BLP

Bias about bullying , Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article? & Too much information and way too biased... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 07:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John Lundberg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been repeatedly vandalised by user 207.204.250.63. They also use other IP addresses (207.204.252.22, 207.204.252.96, 219.74.124.194, etc) and have been blocked previously. The page was locked for a time to try to stop the vandalism. Now the page is unlocked again the user has persisted to vandalise the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectral Czar ( talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely needs more eyes on it. The IP appears to be hostile to subject and unfamiliar with the rules. Not a good combination. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some admin eyes might help too given that according to NatGeo "Lundberg's group has been vilified as Team Satan; its members have received stacks of hate mail, and over the years there have been attacks on their cars and property." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryūhei Tamura‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if some other editors here could have a look at the Ryūhei Tamura‎ article (a BLP), as another editor keeps re-adding unsourced personal details to the article when all we have as references are Anime News Network (a fan-edited site) and Wikia. I'm in danger of stepping into WP:3RR territory if I keep reverting, but I can't see any justification for keeping unsourced or unreliably birth dates or other claims. -- DAJF ( talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a re-addition (two versions) about Maharis's arrest. I wonder if it must be re-added after it was removed. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While AP is considered a reliable source, I concur with the assessment that the phrasing of the legal charge without any further clarification constitutes a titillation. Thank you, George, for your appropriate action in politely notifying the other editor. I don't see any evidence that the addition was a willful or egregious violation, and since the material has since been taken down, I have watchlisted the page and will try to keep an eye on it for a few days. Wilhelm Meis ( ☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this [42]. An editor keeps deleting this quoting WP:3RRNO Cwobeel ( talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's me Akin's idiocy is not an appropriate vehicle to use "background" to attack Republicans in general, and [[WP::3RRNO]] exception number 7 does apply to my continuing reversions. As this article is at the peak of the news cycle, changes to it are highly time-sensitive, so I believe reversion is more appropriate than waiting out the 24 hours or whatever. If I'm wrong about that, 3RR admins should feel free to spank me -- but I'd hope we could all discuss it on the appropriate forum. Cheers. William Jockusch ( talk) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In the material removed, I see no criticism of, let alone attack on, Republicans in general. What am I missing? ¶ Currently the article jumps from a 1972 paper to Akin's statement. The cited source has one or two extra dots between 1972 and 2012. This material seems worthwhile, perhaps within this article but more likely within some other article on the theory. Beers. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Explicitly, no, but by managing to bring up Mitt Romney, and mentioning several other politicians, all of whom are/were Republican, the reader is given the impression that many Republicans support Akin's ideas. Rather strange, especially in light of the storm of condemnation from a wide spectrum of Republicans. If I had my druthers, the 1972 bit would come out as well, but didn't see it as such a clear-cut BLP issue. William Jockusch ( talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The materiel you are deleting is not unambiguously "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced", so thus not eligible for a WP:3RR exception. Please stop edit warring. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Joe, there is no BLP issue here, as there is no libelous material at issue. Statements made publicly by politicians (which our editors have properly referenced to reliable sources) do NOT constitute libel, even if those statements now make the speaker uncomfortable. Furthermore, before using 3RRNO #7 as a shield against 3RR, please take the time to read it. A more appropriate response would have been to raise the issue here at BLP/N before claiming 3RRNO. Please stop edit warring and reread WP:BLP and WP:3RRNO before citing them indiscriminately. Wilhelm Meis ( ☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you're getting that impression. The Reaction section almost entirely consists of Republicans denouncing Akin's ideas, and the only named individuals in that section are Republicans. I'll agree that the Romney 2007 campaign bit about Wilke seems like WP:COATRACK, and I'd take that out, but the remainder of the Wilke bit, and the Aldridge and Freind bits are all relevant background. Inclusion of that information shows that Akin is not the first notable political figure to espouse such views. And as per JoeSperrazza and Wilhelm_meis, this does not appear to be exempt from WP:3RR. Jonathanfu ( talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits are progressing beyond WP:3RR violations into WP:DE territory [43] - note the edit summary. Editor advised to self-revert [44]. JoeSperrazza ( talk) 03:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In light of the uninvolved editors here telling me to slow down, I will do so. Now, on to the material at hand. The Reaction section was initiated by me in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance to the article. It is relevant to this discussion that the storm of condemnation from just about every prominent Republican you can think of was [prior to my reverts] given less space in the article than the support from various minor Republicans dating from 5-17 years ago. Does that represent any type of fair weight? Let's look at Republican reaction here. On the one hand, we have condemnations and/or calls for Akin to withdraw from Romney, McConnell, the NRSC, Hannity, the WSJ, the National Review, 4 past and present Republican MO Senators, prominent Republican bloggers (Powerline, Michelle Malkin), and probably a bunch of other Republicans I haven't noticed. On the other hand, we have support from a Republican state rep. in PA in 1988, a Republican 1995 state rep. in NC, and the former chairman of the National Right to Life Committee. Which group of people is more prominent? What would be the appropriate relative weight of these two groups of people? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? Or nonzero to zero? If I could dredge up a Democratic State Rep. saying something equally dumb back in 1986, should that be included as well? William Jockusch ( talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[ec] Thank you for slowing down and seeking consensus. Thank you also for making a good faith attempt at WP:NPOV, but remember also that much of the current press from the Romney campaign and others has more to do with posturing for the current election cycle. Not to say we should allow this article to become a WP:COATRACK for discrediting Republicans either. But this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT rather than a WP:BLP violation. Remember to assume good faith, and please be careful you do not imply that other editors are pushing a partisan POV without outstanding evidence that that is happening. Wilhelm Meis ( ☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The two groups aren't mutually exclusive. Moreover, I think the inclusion of Aldridge and Freind in the background is useful because they show a precedent of political figures who have supported this view. Leaving that information out would imply that Akin is the first politician to do so. Willke's support is of interest due to his holding an MD as well as being the head of the largest pro-life organization in the US. I'm assuming by "equally dumb" you mean a Democratic politician who has stated he supports these views. If so, then by all means add the content, it would be an excellent addition. Jonathanfu ( talk) 05:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)