Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.
Archive
Archives
Archive TOC


Contents

Use of "disgraced" to describe individuals

An editor has been adding the word "disgraced" to describe individuals who have been involved with scandals, e.g., Ken Lay, Jack Abramoff, Eliot Spitzer. This has been done in lists where these individuals have been mentioned (as in this diff and this one). Is this usage appropriate per WP:BLP? Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To my eye those entries appear to be instances of WP:UNDUE, particularly (but not solely) because the word "Disgraced" is capitalized. I've already edited the wording for the Scooter Libby item in Eaglebrook School (an article that was on my watchlist). In list entries like these, in which descriptions are typically short, it should be enough to say "former governor" or "former White House staff member" or "CEO of Enron during the Enron scandal." Terms like "disgraced" (or, on the other hand, positives like "popular") are inherently subjective value judgments that should be avoided in that context, even if the words appear (with their sources cited, of course) in the articles about the people. I would avoid these terms in the context of lists even for people (like Ken Lay) who are no longer living. --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a no brainer. Obviously inappropriate. Their actions should speak for themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dick Nasty

This article is essentially one horrific BLP violation, mostly sourced to some blog called "Luke is Back". (To pick just one of a dozen like examples: "Dick Nasty's failure to be taken seriously by the major production studios in LA has meant that Nasty Model's clients are often forced to work in the exploitative low-life/low-budget end of the industy.") I don't see much that can be salvaged here, and think it should be stubbed. What say y'all? - Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadful article. I've stubbed it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the offending content appears to be the work of a single editor who has only edited that article. For now, I have salvaged enough to re-establish notability per WP:BIO. As for Luke Ford sourced material, most porn editors revert it on sight. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast work. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Would Be Queen

This article isn't strictly a BLP article, but it is closely related to J Michael Bailey and has in the last couple of days come under heavy editing from a new user who seems, so far, committed to presenting only a critical and condemnatory view of Bailey and his work. Could I get some more eyes on this article to help out with its maintenance at a higher level? Avruch T 23:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mirthala Salinas

MAJOR BLP issues with this article.  !!! Corvus cornixtalk 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable, and I've deleted it speedily. FCYTravis (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk page is still intact. --Faith (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tidied that up. Hiding T 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Savage "Sex photographs controversy"

Adam Savage has been getting quite a bit of edits recently due to the leaking of photographs purporting to be from a video of him having sex on 4chan etc. Lots of different IPs that keep adding a section about it even though there are no sources about it. It might need more people looking at it. --Tombomp (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

John Hagee

Could I get some more eyes on this article? Various editors keep adding Anti-semitism and Nazi categories to the page, without explanations, I've been removing them, but it would help if there were more people keeping an eye out. Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 19:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Do we allow the use of Vital Records for a RS? Wouldn't that fall under WP:OR? --Faith (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gareth Ward

An IP user was removing large parts of this article, which was initially seen as vandalism, but he seems to have a good point- this is a borderline BLP violation, but it is sourced. Can someone take a look at this and sort things out? --Rory096 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a ref while taking a look at the article. I think it's okay now as it's sourced, but I wonder if we even need this article. --Faith (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Araken Demelo

The only edits besides the original author are an IP. The IP added an infobox, and wrote that he committed suicide in 2001. The Category:Living people remains on the page. I can't find anything on this guy after looking through google, so I dunno if this is a false death notice, or if he is dead, or what. Wizardman 18:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Added some links, but I couldn't find a RS citing that information either. I left a note on the IPs talk page to please provide citation, and removed the information for BLP. --Faith (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Crews

It seems that this page has been the victim of an admitted povpusher. User:Skoojal just put this up on their talk page[1]. It basically states that he was "a wikipedian with an agenda, [...]" - "out to get" Fredrick Crews, and it seems Arthur Janov.

Skoojal's also been pushing for the insertion of a discredited rumour about Michel Foucault on that article's talk page - it seems Skoojal wants to test teh limits of our policies on BLPs and other biographies.

I've contacted User:DGG about this[2] but something needs to be done about the issue in light of BLP on the Frederick Crews article--Cailil talk 01:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, I am 'an admitted POV pusher.' I certainly admit to having an agenda. I wouldn't insult anyone's intelligence by denying this. Quite the reverse: I have gone to a lot of trouble to announce my reasons for what I did. Not to be too self-serving about it, but this could be considered honesty, which is usually seen as a good thing. As for the Foucault stuff, forget it. It's an entirely different issue, and one that I have much less interest in pursuing. It's also inappropriate and irrelevant to a post about Crews. Skoojal (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
My advice is to carefully check the relevant edits on the Crews article. The question there is not the motivation directly, but whether they are both verified by RS, and also of fair weight. DGG (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Alessandra Mussolini

The Article on Alessandra Mussolini is well researched, but the overview in the beginning of the article leaves out information to show the neofascist politician in a more favorable light, at the same time accusing her opponents of undue criticism:

quote: "Due largely to her family background, Mussolini also gains substantial support from the neo-fascist movement in Italy."

answer: This obscures the fact that she is after all a leading politician in the Italian neo-fascist political scene, as the article even states later, but not in this overview, which is what most people read and which makes Mussolini out to be falsely accused of neo-fascist beliefs.

quote: "She sometimes features on television shows debating with far-left politicians, such as communists. If and when these people make scathing personal attacks against the Mussolini name and her grandfather's entire period of rule, Alessandra defends herself,..."

answer: Alessandra Mussolini's TV and other media debates do not exclusively focus on communist or far-left politicians and political organisations. Her outspoken criticism does frequently also include liberal and even some right-wing democratical parties that support different ideas than Mussolini or that take a stance against neo-fascism or Mussolini's political course. The quote above gives the impression that she is frequently wrongfully accused by left-wing supporters on a personal level or on a name-based level only, disregarding the fact (which was even previously stated) that Mussolini is a strong political figure in her own right and is therefore equally likely to be opposed on the basis of her own political stance as well as the politics of her party.

A rework of the opening passage of the article on Alessandra Mussolini in order to give a more conclusive image of the politician is strongly advised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokoschnuckel (talk • contribs) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Isis Gee

Admin please be aware Isis Gee was found to have misused youtube and wiki in the past by manipulating articles. Looking at the history it seems this is the case.

I was listening to the radio today and there was some discussion about Isis Gee. There was mention that this was very influenced by PR. I just signed up and want to help write this entry. Reading through this, many things well known about Isis are not mentioned:

  1. There are severe POV problems in this article, it is worded as an advertisement for Isis in my opinion. From reading through the history it seems a fan is removing negative views. Isis has manipulated sites in the past and was the subject of some controversy in Poland for this.
  2. She came equal last in the Eurovision song contest - why doesn't this article explicitly state this. There is a POV problem as her entry did very badly but from the way it is written it sounds like a television commercial for Isis. She also is the only entry only to receive votes from Ireland and the UK which have large Polish communities so constitute block voting.
  3. She recieved some very bad reviews but none are mentioned.
  4. Talent contest - this is POV. Where is the source? What type of contest? Church? School? I can find no sources saying she was famous in the USA.
  5. She is American and does not speak Polish. By definition Polish American must have Polish Grandparents and hold or be able to hold Polish citizenship. Her Great-Grandmother was born in Poland but that is a stretch. This should be removed.
  6. I can see there is some discussion regarding her abuse of the internet to fake her celebrity in Poland, this is well known as I even heard it on the radio this morning on LBC. I can't read Polish but my friend has confirmed that the sources above are correct and this is well known in Poland.
  7. Why is this article protected? I can see there is disagreement about the POV being blatant positive PR but this has not been discussed instead from the history one user is constantly reverting to the POV entry that reads like a positive television commercial. I am happy to help rewrite the entry but can't do so.

Just to advise I use T-mobile internet which is a shared IP throughout the UK.

Thx

Polishchick99 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


G'day, I agree with Polishchick. From what I heard on the radio the other user is misrepresenting evrything all over the internet - check out the crap youtube coments today! SHE CAME LAST!!! SHE LIES ON YOUTUBE AND WIKIPEDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogan4life (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


I followed the link from the talk page. can we pls edit the page without the POV stuff, it is funny how desperate she is. Isgreatestman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, this is the same POV that User:Eurovisionman got blocked for (see Polishchick's interesting first edit) and see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PrinceGloria. Recommend closing and/or checkuser to stop all this nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Some new contributoer Lesmandarins (Talk | contribs) created an account especially to attack one living person

Some new contributoer Lesmandarins (Talk | contribs) created an account especially to attack one living person with libellious insults like" This is not true", "never mentioned in textbooks". "obscure Israeli", "This is false". Looks like an angry person. I have asked him to look at http://books.google.com/books?q=Bracha+Ettinger&btnG=Search+Books before he continues to take off sections on ettinger. Since he is only attacking this living person, I suppose that this is sheer vandalism. References for Ettinger's significnce are many thousands, as any simple check on Google-books and google-scholars can provide. I am asking if he can be warned or blocked. Many thanks Artethical (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the users contributions page that may be of some help to anyone looking into this problem [3]. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am responsible for inserting lots of information and references in different pages on Kristeva and for keeping her inside pages from which she was deleted again and again because some people pretended that they have never heard her name. What counts is the references. I am also responsible for inserting lots of info on Irigaray, Ettinger, Cixous and other feminists as well as on psychoanalysis and women psychoanalysts. I belong to a university department that specializes on these figures. I am watching the pages on which I have worked hard together with other contributers. Lesmandarins (Talk | contribs) had simply to make an effort to do some reading himself or to ask for more references if he or she thinks that there are not enough, but not to proceed to delete materials out of ignorance. many references are included according to Wikipedia rules, and more can be added (I think that there is no need to add). In this particular case, there are around 300 book references in http://books.google.com/books?q=Bracha+Ettinger&lr=&sa=N&start=0 and there are around 300 essays referenced in: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bracha%20Ettinger&lr=&sa=N&tab=ps The contributer could ask for additional references, rather than delete. It is quite obvious to me from his contributions that he is only here to attack one living person and not in order to contribute. I wrote in the user's discussion age, and now I would ask to wait and see if the contributer continues in this manner, and if he does continue, to send him or her a warning. Doraannao (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see from a better reading on the top of the page, that this page is not for simple vandalism that can be reverted. Sorry that i have bothered you all. It seems that the vandalism had stopped. So, perhaps no intervention is needed. The deletions were simply reverted by us. lets hope that this is the end of this. Thanks, Artethical (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that the contributer stopped his vandalistic activity. No need to interfere I think, unless he reappears. Doraannao (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Child porn convictions in the lead?

A generic question with a specific application. If an otherwise notable living person, who already has an article, is subsequently convicted of having and sharing Child porn, does that mention belong in the lead? Yes? No? Depends if it's done for POV purposes? Case-by-case decision in each article depending on circumstances, WP:WEIGHT, and other things (if so, which guidelines/policies apply)? This arises in the Bernie Ward article, based on edits like this[4] and corresponding removals, but it seems like there might be a wider standard. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For lesser crimes, I'd say evaluate it on a case-by-case basis relative to the subject's notoriety, but for such a major felony it's got to be in the lede, as a key aspect of his notoriety. Rush Limbaugh's drug problems should not be in the lede; Bernie Ward's child porn conviction should definitely be in the lede.Verklempt (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is nothing more than a POV-fork that introduces undue weight into the introduction. The introduction should be brief and concise. At any rate, text regarding his convictions are detailed below. seicer | talk | contribs 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No. It is not a POV-fork, but rather Bernie Ward's talk radio career (and probably most any other type of public career) has been ruined by his self-admitted child porn conviction. It is not bias that placed this reliably sourced fact in the lede. It is by far the biggest impact event in Mr. Ward lifetime, not just in his career. Also, the fact that Mr. Ward based a huge part of his public career on his religious training and belief the child porn conviction really has had a tremendously large effect on that viewpoint and career. (Just as a side note, why is that folks that so worried about BLP violations never seem to find the time or inclination to clean up the Mel Gibson Drunk Driving conviction page Mel Gibson DUI incident, which a Wikipedia monument to BLP violations?). To sum up, Bernie Ward whole career has been ruined by the child porn conviction and it is central part of his life and it has to be mentioned in the lede. Not mentioning it would give the false impression that Ward's career has talk show host is still alive and well, when it isn't.--InaMaka (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Intros should summarize the article. A large part of this article is devoted to the pornography conviction. Therefore it should be in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As a start-class article with some weight issues and some POV edits I'm not sure we should use word counts on sections to decide what gets covered in the lead. Better to start with a solid lead that matches the subject matter and hope the rest of the article can catch up. Which all begs the question, how much weight to give it? Is a crime of perversion a "central" part of a person's life? That's a judgment from outside, nothing objective. The conviction is of interest to people because he is famous, not vice-versa. I.M. makes an interesting point - this is the presumptive endpoint of a notable career. So if the launch of the career is important so is the end. Yet how can we decide a few months after it happens that his life is over, or that a career is defined by one event? Society may have a rule by a scandalous incident gets a wave of news that may (or may not) exceed the constant stream of less intense news coverage. But is that the rule here? There is nothing particularly interesting, or useful, or educational about the sex crime other than it happened. I really don't have a conclusion, just a question. Wikidemo (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty amazing that Marv Albert still has a public career. Bernie has no chance of bouncing back from this. Is there anyone who doubts this? It's obviously the central fact of his life from here on out.Verklempt (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Introductions should summarize the article. Things like this should be handled on a case by case basis. If the child pornography conviction is a large part of the article, then certainly it should be in the article, whether its negative, positive, or what. It's verifiable and in reliable sources, and that's all that matters. Celarnor Talk to me 03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not always--whether it is a large part of the article is sometime a mater of how hard the POV is being pushed. If it is highly relevant to notability it belongs in the lead; if peripheral, not. DGG (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty

Pederasty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The following edits 1 and 2 seem to me to be personal attacks against living people by a tendentious editor. Are they BLP violations? // Haiduc (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a possible BLP problem, but you're edits are part of the problem. Obviously, it's unacceptable to say somebody supports adult-child sex, without excellent reliable sources. But, it's also absurd for you to cite a source (Rind) but exclude relevant information about the basis of his beliefs. All highly contentious statements need to be clearly and specifically attributed in the body of the article. You seem to want to present certain minority views as widely accepted. --Rob (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
PetraSchelm added nothing about the basis of Bruce Rind's beliefs. The (false) accusation that he condones adult-child sex is part of an implied genetic fallacy and, until a source can be found that connects Rind's publication history with his statements on paederasty, a violation of WP:SYN. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In this edit Haiduc is advancing Rind's views without even mentioning his name in the body (just the footnote). It's certainly policy to attribute contentious claims. Also, making *sourced* statements about Rind's background is not OR. Not all readers know who Rind is, and saying sourced statements about him, is legitimate. And Rind, certainly has a background. --Rob (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I categorically reject all of Thivierr's accusations against me, and his lumping me in with these abusive edits, on a number of different grounds.

  1. I did not introduce Rind into the discussion, as he is not necessary to the argument. He happens to be merely one of many who have pointed out this aspect of history.
  2. When correcting the slanderous edit (instead of simply reverting it) I linked to the article on Rind.
  3. Rind was recently inserted into the discussion by User:PetraSchelm, one of a pattern of tendentious and abusive edits, clearly in order to invalidate the statement and smear this researcher, all at one stroke.

I expect you to retract your accusations, and I hope next time you will not so lightly bandy such insinuations. Leave me out of it and address the injury committed against Rind and Hekma, unless you think that this kind of behavior is what the Wikipedia is for. Haiduc (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to make an apology here - I just realized that the Rind reference was in the article all along, probably added by me a while back. While that puts paid to my claim that User:PetraSchelm was the one who brought Rind into the discussion, in no way does that relieve that user from culpability regarding the defamatory and polemical edits attacking Hekma and Rind. My objections to the BLP infraction and to Thivierr's comments still stand. (I have added another ref to the info in question to show that Rind is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.) Haiduc (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have protected this page for 48 hours to permit discussion. There have been far too many reverts. DGG (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You make an edit where you remove Rind from the body of the text, to put forward a claim, but leave his name in the citation to support the claim. Now, if you want to "leave out" Rind, that's ok with me, but you need to leave him out fully, which means don't use him as a source, and find other authors to cite. Once again, all highly contentious statements need attribution in the body of the article, to make clear who is saying what. Without attributing views in the body of the text, you make your opinions appear to be accepted facts, which they are not. If Rind is "one of many" cite more of those many "many". Also, I'd note, that DGG didn't protect the article as intended. --Rob (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And now I have seen your most recent comment. I have to disagree with you - Rind here is simply being quoted as a published authority whose claim has been implicitly endorsed by the journal in which it has been published. For a Wikipedia editor to argue against the validity of such statements by adding defamatory information to the section is not only editorially unethical as an attack on a living person, but is also a kind of underhanded original research, in which the user is combating the cited authority. If that user wishes to contest the validity of the statement, the proper peocedure is to bring into play contrasting opinions, not to smear the scholar whose ideas this user does not like. Also, I do not see this as a contentious statement but a commonsensical statement of fact for anyone familiar with the history of homosexuality.
However, we should not get sidetracked here discussing the validity of this or that statement, but rather we should resolve the question of whether the descriptions of Hekma and Rind, which I see as a smearing, are ethical and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, or not. We should be able to get a clear yes or no, don't you think? Haiduc (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing "defamatory" about accurately characterizing the source--that's absurd. Rind has published in Paidika, and he is famous for arguing that the neutral terminology "Adult-child" sex should be used to refer to some instances of child sexual abuse, in his opinion. As Rob points out, the statement attributed to Rind is being passed off as factual, and not attributed to Rind, who is a very biased source. The statement should read, "according to Bruce Rind..." and some indication of who Bruce Rind is and what his baises are should be given, otherwise it's very misleading. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are not characterizing, you are smearing by taking things out of context. This is an encyclopedia, not shock TV. Who cares where he published if he is talking about historical times and saying something any fool can confirm for himself? Haiduc (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tuariki Delamere

This article contains a lot of unreferenced material about a living person that appears controversial to me. How much is it O.K. to remove? I am not in a position to evaluate the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced section of negative BLP; I think it may be sourceable, in which case it can be returned, as it would seem pertinent to his career. . The final section, though sourced, is still in my opinion problematic since he was found innocent. I invite other opinions on that part, w with respect to undue weight. DGG (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree regarding the last section. Having been found innocent, do we really need to mention it at all? If so, then it should be a small passing mention, not such a large part of the article. Also, with so much coverage, the finding of innocence is nearly lost as a seeming afterthought. I cut that section down considerably, feeling the details of the charges are not needed as he was found innocent of all charges. --Faith (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carlin (radio presenter)

I contacted the subject of the article and received this reply:

Dear Tony

Thank you very much for your email.

I appear to have been the target of a campaign of malicious vandalism for some months now on Wikipedia articles relating to Q96, Real Radio and, most recently, this "biography" - which has included some libellous comments which I've found quite upsetting. Thankfully, I see that the Wikipedia admins and 'bots' have done their job well and removed most of it.

I believe the people responsible (as it would appear there are a few) are a group of individuals who I went to school with (many years ago!) who clearly haven't grown up - but that's their own problem, and I'm not really interested in pointing fingers or getting back at anyone - I'd just like to put a stop to all the nonsense!

I don't believe there is any reason for there to be a biography about me on Wikipedia. I'm certainly not a 'noteworthy' person as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, and the page seems be nothing more than another outlet for pointless vandalism and false information/accusations 'backed up' by made-up citations.

Therefore, I would appreciate if some action could be taken - preferably the deletion of this 'biography' from Wikipedia.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind Regards,

Paul Carlin

Real Radio Scotland
Music You Just Have to Sing Along To

My question is administrative in nature: in view of this and the fact that the subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO, can I summarily delete the article now, or should I still wait for the AfD to run its course? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Protocol is that you should let the AfD run its course. Prior to the AfD it might have been a speedy or a prod, but once the AfD starts... however in my view you can and should delete it, with a statement that it's temporary pending the AfD outcome, if the material remaining is still an egregious BLP violation. It doesn't sound like that's still the case though, is it? At least not based on my quick look. Might have missed something though. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Myers

User:Bhbulldog is a SPA intent on adding false and liableous info to the BLP of Irish journalist Kevin Myers. Myres today ran an opinion piece about his wiki article in the Irish Independant[5] and specifically mentioned false info added by this account. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy Denning

I've reverted twice, and the edit has reappeared again.[6] Fairly silly, but not in the link given, so it has no place in the article. Could someone please revert and maybe semi-protect, as the editor seems quite determined. Ty 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

There is an obvious bias in this biography that is evident when Samir Kuntar's actions were referenced to that of the holocaust. An unbiased opinion constitutes not intentionally painting someone to be on the extreme of any side. The countries were at war and Kuntar is regarded as a political prisoner who is awaiting to be released (pending current Lebanese/Israeli negotiations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbmase (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify which article you're talking about? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My guess is Samir Kuntar in particular [7]. This has already been removed and I would have to agree with the removal at least the part about the holocaust. Other then the poor source, it doesn't seem to have much to do with the actual attack, especially bearing in mind this is an article on Samir Kuntar not the attack or Smadar Haran. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Barry Sisters

There has been some pretty tendentious editing in the (now deleted) history of this article. I've now speedy-deleted the edits in question per speedy deletion criterion G10 and WP:BLP, and turned it into a disambiguation page, and moved the current version of the article to The Barry Sisters (Australia) (currently the subject of a copyvio notice). Can people add both of these articles to their watchlists, please, to check that the deleted material is not re-inserted? -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Entropia Universe

This article makes a number of claims about living people but the sourcing in many cases appears to be dubious with a lot of forum posts, OR and press releases. I removed what appears to be the most serious violation [8] which accused someone of aiding and hiding a paedophile although the only RS is 'The Sun' (hardly a great source in itself) which doesn't mention the named person at all, but it would be good if someone else could go through it, preferably an established editor as it appears sock puppets have been removing information from the article and although the removal may have been proper it's obviously been controversial and usually reverted Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen A. Smith

Talk:Stephen A. Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There's some pretty hurtful comments on the talk page. I was thinking maybe archive the page, or just blank it? // Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redacted the header --Faith (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiner Hartenstein

  • I'm going to reblank it, with a template and talk page note, as there are no citations for the content, and it's being contested by an IP who says he is the subject of the article. I'm also leaving a note on the IP's talk page. If he is the subject, he should be getting BLP assistance. --Faith (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Over at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard, we DID think it was an autobiography, because of the user names involved. See a discussion at COIN, recently archived. Since the original author had not edited Wikipedia for months, we didn't think we could get his attention to the matter. But here he is showing up as 87.177.245.53 (talk · contribs). I'll leave a note and see if we can get a discussion started. It is not actually a bad article, even if it is an autobiography, and certainly does not appear defamatory. He must be unhappy about the tags. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact the only actual comment we have from him is this, from an edit summary: I blanked the article about me, being victim of wiki mobbing by labelling it as autobiography. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I agree subjects don't get to control their bio, I just was using huggle and remembered Jimbo's "Your an idiot if you revert someone removing libel" quote, so I decided I'd bring it here to the experts. MBisanz talk 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, please keep in mind, if this is the subject editing, English is probably a secondary language after German, and he may not be fluent enough to defend his position properly. --Faith (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

  • Violet Blue (author) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I went to make some changes here and had sourced edits reverted by editor KathrynA who edits as though she is the subject of the article. Now, I do not want to get into an edit war here, so would a few BLP folks keep watch on this article in the future. It reads like a press release for the most part. Thanks so much. // BenBurch (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll second this request for a BLP watch. I'm not the subject of the article but I do watch it, and there's a fair amount of trolling going on, so I'd be happy with a few more eyes on it to keep it civilized. KathrynA (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed one bit that was sourced in a circular manner to a site that used Wikipedia as its source material, and left message on the talk page. --Faith (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson BLP talk page archive breaches.

Hi, a number of archived talk pages on the Michael Jackson article have serious BLP breaches. More recent talk page archives are clean due to good watchlisting, however earlier ones are terrible. It might be appropriate to purge these earlier talk page archives. Thoughts. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If im in the wrong place i can take it somewhere else, i just guessed this was it. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What exactly are you referring to? Can you specify the archives and issues? Hiding T 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch

Hi, I have added some well-sourced, fairly mild criticism of Stephen Barret by Michael Colgan from the Townsend Letters (diff). The Townsend Letters has been published in print since 1983 by people with primarily MDs and PhDs. User:QuackGuru reverts me, but he won't dialogue on how Townsend Letters is not a RS. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The obsolete reference is dated and is a BLP violation. See WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. QuackGuru 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru has just taken out another reliably sourced, longstanding criticism of Stephen Barret (diff). He seems to be claiming ownership over this article, and refuses to discuss with reason. Criticisms on Barret's work don't become dated, especially after 10 years. And he refuses to give reasons for things, instead just asserting them over and over again circularly. Incidentally, he also claims ownership over Quackwatch, where he reverted this good edit, claiming that its controversial when all it does is reduce wordiness, make a title professional (Critics to Criticism) and put basic information on the founder of the organization to the lead. QuackGuru asserts that these two sentences are not redundant:

  • 1) Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.
  • 2) A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.

He complains because I took the second one out. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed has acknowledged there's no consensus. Read the comment as well as the edit summary. QuackGuru 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus that I could see that the Townsend Letters was unreliable, yep. As far as the change in my comment -- I originally thought WP:CON meant conflict of interest. Hate the acronyms. :p ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there was. Inspection makes it obvious that it is devoted to presenting one side of the question on all matters concerning alternative medicine. DGG (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. The same could be said about Quackwatch itself, yet it litters up many an alternative medicine article. I think the Townsend Letters pass WP:RS in this case. There doesn't seem to be any specific BLP issue. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The Townsend Letter is a fairly partisan and certainly non-mainstream source which has promoted, among other things, AIDS denialism. The presence of individuals with specific degrees on their board shouldn't obscure its lack of medical/scientific credibility. That said, it's not self-published and it is probably a reasonable source as to what the Townsend Letter claims (as opposed to The Truth). Insofar as Quackwatch and its targets go back and forth, it's probably acceptable from a WP:BLP standpoint so long as it's properly attributed and the status of Colgan and the Townsend Letter is sufficiently evident. MastCell Talk 20:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is also the issue that there is no consensus to use this ref. And the views of a tiny mirority is a WP:WEIGHT violation. QuackGuru 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think MastCell presented a balanced perspective. There's also the question of the other longstanding "criticism" which QuackGuru recently took out (diff) from the Village Voice. It's not very critical, but I'd like it to stay, considering how little criticism there is. It just quotes Barrett in saying that he doesn't look at much of the positive research. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration

I will be adding a "website review" by the aforementioned journal, listed on this page. The review is done by a Dr. Joel M. Kaufmann, who did his PhD in Organic Chemistry at MIT. Since QuackGuru and Fyslee will likely contest it, I'd like some input now. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is my response. QuackGuru 02:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
JSE is not a "Fringe Journal"; rather it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal which often times explores matters outside of the mainstream in a completely valid, acceptable and scientific way. In this case it meets WP:RS and thus there is no BLP issue. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
JSE is a fringe journal, as previously discussed many....many.....many, many, many times over at Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch. Nice to see that Levine cannot let this one go. I invite ImperfectlyInformed to become BetterInformed by reviewing the archieves on those particular articles. Shot info (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it has been discussed many times, but unlike you, I don't petulantly hold onto the belief that any of those discussions resulted in any sort of consensual agreement. The issue is still on the table and I remain of the belief that JSE is an acceptable source particularly in this case. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Curiously the consensus as established was for exclusion, you were one of the extreme minority at the time, something which appears not to have changed. Shot info (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Curious is how your version of history differs so greatly from the truth of it all. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
My reply to User:QuackGuru is here. Adding the review as a footnote as DGG suggests seems fine by me. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
JSE is not exactly fringe in the usual sense--it's there to encourage the discussion borderline subjects, not specifically to promote them. The avowed intention is to permit the expression of POV, and the articles cannot therefore be used for RSs for other than the POV being expressed in them. The book reviews cover a very wide range of opinions, and represent the views of the authors of the review, not the journal--they are not peer-reviewed in any sense. But neither are most academic book reviews. The job of a book review editor is mainly to select suitable reviewers, and give a light editing for format and the like, and to screen out any that are altogether useless. It is normal and common for academic book reviews to express strong personal opinions of the r reviewer--they have whatever authority the reviewer has, not that of the rest of the journal. The reviews in here can be used for the opinions of the reviewers--if they are sufficiently notable to have a valid opinion on the subject, they give their views/. The reviewer in question here is a frequent reviewer for the journal, and is an accredited biomedical scientist, with a number of peer reviewed publications. He reviews a much wider area than that, including many in which he isnt remotely likely to be an expert. I think the review however can be cited; but it should not be quoted. It should just called a negative review and left at that. It's not really an expert evaluation of the website, and can not be used for implying the professionalism of the editor of that site, but it is a review & all published reviews can be appropriately listed. The link to the article on the journal will make the possible bias clear enough., DGG (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that it was a website review rather than a book review. Shot info (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DGG on the points that JSE is not exactly fringe in the usual sense and that the Kauffman review is usable as criticism. However, I don't see any issue with quoting directly from the review, though I am not at all opposed to a faithful summarization of the review on the whole or any specific criticism of the review which an editor may wish to include. Obviously, WP:WEIGHT applies and whatever is used from this review should be concise - a sentence or two. Further, I agree with DGG that the criticism should be adequately attributed as the expressed opinions of the reviewer. (i.e. According to Joel Kauffman, PhD...) -- Levine2112 discuss 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, the surest recipe for disaster is for an individual with respectable academic credentials in one field to start making pronouncements about a largely unrelated field in which they lack expertise. Examples are legion. I can understand the temptation - but you wouldn't believe me if I corrected Kaufmann on matters of inorganic chemistry, so why is medicine the sort of area where everyone fancies themselves an expert? But I digress. The short answer is that I agree with DGG. MastCell Talk 20:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Multiple Wikipedians have deleted the Kauffman attack piece from the article, including Avb, + ConfuciusOrnis, + Crohnie, + Fyslee, Orangemarlin, + QuackGuru, + Ronz, + Shot info + THF. There is no consensus for using this ref. QuackGuru 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I know. Presumably, the lack of consensus is why outside opinions were solicited here. MastCell Talk 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a lack of consensus to include this unreliable ref and MastCell wrote: I don't think we should make an end-run around the discussions on the notability of this source. QuackGuru 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's great that you're familiar with edits I made in November 2007, but I can't tell what you're on about. My point then was that we should discuss the source. This is discussion about the notability of the source. MastCell Talk 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The majority of editors rejected JSE as unreliable and or has WP:WEIGHT issues. I don't think we should continue an end-run around old discussions that were resolved a long time ago. QuackGuru 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Paulo Pedroso

Resolved.

Considering the sex charges against Paulo Pedroso were dropped, is it giving undue weight in to center his biography around them? He is a living person. These charges against him are also discussed extensively in Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal and mentioned in Casa Pia. Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced that material, leaving the link to Casa Pia child sexual abuse scandal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

A group of editors has been working together here for years to preserve a highly biased BLP. They seem to prefer a hatchet job to presenting the facts in a neutral manner. They work together to oppose reasonable attempts to make the articles NPOV, seeming to be uninterested in other viewpoints, or in attempts to point out statements in the articles that are not supported by the citations, etc. These editors coordinate using power plays to enforce the over-the-top version they like. Critics' perspectives are presented as core material (even in the introduction), claims are made which go beyond even what a critic said in a source, etc. It's the best example I know of perhaps Wikipedia's main weakness - articles at the fringes of Wikipedia are sometimes so far from NPOV that they are absurd and disgraceful, because not enough neutral people care enough about them to make them decent. -Exucmember (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I linked the title of this thread to the article for the benefit of other editors. I just had a quick look at the article. It is true that a few of the sources, and a few of the edits, appear to be in direct conflict with our WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies, especially original synthesis (see WP:SYN). I also removed a couple of examples of unreliable sourcing to blogs (see WP:RS), but I'm afraid that I don't have time right now for a thorough review of the article. I hope that other editors will have the chance to scrutinize it. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
one of the problems is whether it is appropriate in the lead of the article, after saying he opposes Darwinism, to specify that Dawinism has the scientific consensus. Frankly, I think that's absurd--the article is linked to the article on evolution, which makes matters obvious--as if anyone didn't know. Similarly about AIDS denialism. The link is sufficient. I have removed the references which do indeed bias the article in a negative direction. It's like giving a refutation of communism in an article about a figure in the Soviet Union. 'The length of the critical quotes about him is also somewhat in excess of what is needed. I have edited accordingly, to supplement the good work that Readings has already done. DGG' (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Samir Geagea, editor refuses to get the point

User:Regman007 is doggedly insisting on including negative contentious information about the subject, sourced to a personal advocacy website. He's reverted like a dozen times now. Admin action needed? <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A number of statements on different sides appear unsupported or poorly supported. I've protected for 48 hours to stop the edit war for the time being DGG (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pat Lee

Can we get some more eyes on this article. It tends to violate WP:NPOV by focussing too much on the critical. Thanks. I'm going to have a pass at it, but I have done so before, so I'd appreciate help. Hiding T 20:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And you resolved that by removing ANYTHING critical? The man IS surrounded by a lot of controversies. That's fact, and it should be mentioned in the article. (the controversies are a huge part of what the man is known for these days) The article cites statements by the people involved that directly refer to Lee, and furthermore cites examples of statements Lee made that completely avoid the controversies. None of the accusations are claimed as fact. The only thing claimed as fact is that those persons made those statements. And since those statements are sourced, that's hard to dispute (unless you were to claim that all the various interviews are forged). BLP does not mean "Nothing bad should ever be said about a living person", nor "if the person doesn't address well-documented controversies surronding his person, those don't belong in the article". The Edison Chen article has a section devoted to the scandal his name is associated with. Are you also going to challenge that?--87.164.68.46 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Edison Chen article, it appears there are daily newspaper's listed as sources, not internet gossip columns and fansites. That fact alone differentiates the two articles and the approaches taken. Given that you state that the controversies surrounding Pat Lee are a huge part of what the man is known for, can you cite some newspaper coverage, or even Comics Journal coverage? If none such exist, I'm not sure it is the case that Pat Lee is as controversial a figure as you seem to indicate. Now, just because someone said something, this does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. For example, see WP:NPOV, specifically Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. and Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate." Hiding T 10:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
For god's sake. It's a comic book story! You're not going to find newspaper articles about comic book companies and their presidents, you're going to find it on these "fansites", as you call them. Wizard is essentially a buttkiss mag, much like video games magazines they can't say anything bad about a creator or a company because then that person or company will not work with them for content ever again. We've posted sources from people who have been personally screwed out of money by Pat Lee and you still say "Oh, you're lying, you all just want to make Pat look bad because that isn't from Comics Journal!". It's people like you that are hurting the flow of information in Wikipedia because everything according to you has to be sourced from Peter Jennings. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. You seem to be saying that because it is a comic book story we can disregard fundamental principles because someone said this so it must be true? You seem to have a very biased view by presenting this as involving people who have been screwed out of money by Pat Lee. When a company goes bust, people get owed money. You seem to be arguing that Pat Lee intended for all of this to happen, and yet you have failed to find a single source for that assertion. Hiding T 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The assertion is not that Pat Lee intentionally screwed people out of money. The assertion is that people are owed money, and Pat Lee never ever addressed this matter at all. That's what the interviews with him are for. All he ever talked about was "Oh, my company went bankrupt, how sad for me". He did not even include a word of pity for his former employees. That is the whole point of the controversy. He went out of the affair with a new job and never looked back. He did not communicate before the bankruptcy (which is abcked up by the Don Figueroa, Guido Guidi and Simon Furman interviews), and he went completely "what's past is past" following the bankruptcy.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So your point is that Pat Lee has not publicly expressed remorse? have you considered that he may not legally be able to? Yes, that's likely not true, but, you can't base a fact on a lack of evidence, you base it on sourced evidence. We can't say it's highly strange for Pat Lee not to comment on it. We can however, quote a reliable source who makes that same claim. Have we got one? You may hold Pat Lee to a higher moral standard than you believe he holds himself too, but that's not the basis for writing a Wikipedia article. That's teh basis for a journalistic inquiry. Hiding T 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made some comments on the talk page without making changes to the article, but there are some valid BLP concerns there. There needs to be more eyes on this, as unreliable sources are being used to added contentious material. --Faith (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I redacted a word from one editor's comment on the talk page for BLP. If it could have the strength of an admin telling the editor that's just not on, it would be appreciated. --Faith (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Manhunt (2004 TV series)

This article is not a BLP but it contains unsourced material about living people that may be considered controverial as it is about their sex life. I don't know what the rules are regarding this re BPL. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Which unsourced material are you seeing? The one contestant identified as openly gay cites a news article, which in turn cites the Bravo bio of the contestant. —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
These people are identified as "Contestants in order of elimination" in addition to Matt Lanter in the Manhunt (2004 TV series) without a reference source:
  • Sean Russell
  • Brian Bernie
  • Casey Ward
  • Micah LaCerte
  • John Stallings
  • Casey Weeks
  • Brett Depue
  • Blake Peyrot
  • Ron Brown
  • Seth Whalen
  • Jason Pruitt
  • Kevin Osborn
  • Paulo Rodriguez
  • Tate Arnett
  • Hunter Daniel
  • Maurice Townsell
  • Kevin Peake (Embedded Model/Spy)
  • Rob Williams (Runner-up)
  • Jon Jonsson (Winner)

–Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Although one is a "spy" (Kevin Peake) and therefore not openly gay, the others are not spies and are therefore being identified as openly gay without references. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Addionally, "Paulo Rodriguez ... was eliminated because of his hair problem" is unsourced. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I'm confused. Only one person is identified as openly gay, apparently with references. The rest are identified as male participants in the show, but nothing is claimed of their sexuality, unless you believe all male models are gay (in which case the spy would be gay anyway). I agree a better source for the names is ideal but I presume it's one of the things where sourcing from the show is acceptable? (Having said that, I don't see the list as that important and I don't see anything wrong with removing it personally) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the show was about openly gay contenders. The premise of the show is similar to the "Bachelor" series on U.S. television, only for openly gay male contestants. The Embedded Model/Spy, Keven Peake, was meant to be a hidden, not gay, contender to throw some drama into the mix. The person choosing a mate, ala the Bachelor series, could perhaps be unable to discern who was not gay and ultimately "fall in love" and choose the non gay person and thereby presumably be rejected. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Addendum - If the Embedded Model/Spy were actually gay, just not "openly gay", the premise of the program would not make sense. He, of necessity, was straight for the dynamics of the program to work. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cherie Blair

Could some interested persons take a look at this page? The controversies section is very long and given well more than due weight. A severe pruning appears in order.--Slp1 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it reads very much as a WP:COATRACK. I have placed a {{unbalanced}} tag on the page, and commented in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I cleaned it up a bit and left a note on the talk page. --Faith (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins article

"Clinton Richard Dawkins has no idea about anything and is the worst theologian in history (just read God Delusion for proof), and thinks he knows everything," Just check this start of the article and i think you know what i mean, What kind of way of starting an article about someone is this? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.214.139 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was vandalism and has now been removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Carole Migden

Could someone please have a look at the controversy and personal life sections? This is a current election senator up for election in 2 days. 71.139.56.18 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Nazis

Ex-Nazis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - a list of ex-nazis. Many lack inline citations, and have redlinked names, indicating that further information isn't in another article. Should all the individuals without inline citations be culled? Andjam (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that if the main article is properly sourced as to their being ex-Nazis then that is good enough though I would not object to adding one representative good source to the list article. I have mixed feelings about redlinks but if they are to stay in the list they should have multiple very credible sources present in the list. In other words, anything that is not very well sourced either in the main article or in the list must come out. You can make the call as to the sourcing and defend it as needed. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the article could use a little more NPOV. It makes it seem like every former member of the Nazi party was equally responsible for the Holocaust and WW2 war crimes. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I adjusted the lead a bit - see if it looks any better to you. Further adjustments may be needed. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, I do not see Oskar Schindler in the list although he should be there. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the article consistent with some discussion on talk, in edit summaries, and even in the lead sentence of the article itself. Hopefully this will reduce the confusion. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

question regarding BLP application to discussions

When a user posts substantially inaccurate, consistently unsourced, generally disparaging statements regarding living persons who are the subjects of articles being considered for deletion, is is appropriate under BLP to remove those statements from the AFD discussions? The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are refering to Paul Hullah, I agree with you that Qworty's comment goes beyond what is needed in an AfD discussion and skirts the edge of WP:BLP if not actually crossing the line. Have you asked Qworty to remove the offensive bits? Editing another user's comments is frowned upon especially if you have previous involvement with the editor. I will ask Qworty to please see this thread and perhaps s/he will amend the comment. However I must also say that I find this: This AFD is a sad display of the meanspiritedness, ignorance, and incivility of the several of the editors involved, on your part disturbing as that is a blanket condemnation of unnamed editors and I interpret it as an attack against the nominator. I see little wrong with the nomination and persons of good faith can disagree on the notability of a subject. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you should interpret it as well-founded criticism of the nominator, whose AFD comments seem to reflect a lack of interest in honesty and civility. Note this discussion [9], where the same nominator simply fabricates a claim that the subject of the article is a "vanity press," an action that many would see as demonstrating malice. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And Qworty has followed up on your communication by posting another personal attack in another AFD discussion. I think you should be more by abusive users who use Wikipedia as a soapbox to disparage random targets of their malice than by those who find such behavior indecent and uncivil. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would second the concerns about Qworty, who has for a very long time now been peppering his deletion assertions with downright nasty speech, often supported by unverified assertions, and accusing article creators of conflicts of interest and other misdeeds without so much as a cursory check. This ongoing pattern of negative assumption-making and deletionism for deletionism's sake is hurting Wikipedia, and whenever a user calls him on it, he goes on the warpath and reverts every constructive edit of theirs that he can scarcely justify reverting. In short, Qworty needs some serious reigning in. He is hurting Wikipedia, and he is driving good editors away. 72.241.103.218 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Behavior such as you describe as "warpath" would be stronger grounds for censure then simply being aggressive in his phrasing. See WP:STALK and WP:3RR if applicable. If you have convincing evidence of such then you should bring it to WP:AN. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samia Saleem I agree that Qworty has an agressive turn of phrase and that post has borderline WP:AGF issues. However this is not the correct forum to bring your concerns about another editor. You can try WP:AN or WP:ANI and post the most blatant examples and see if an admin will ask him/her to tone it down. If they turn you down there you can pursue WP:DR. Be aware that your own comments will come under scrutiny in either case. Wikipedia is tolerant of spirited discussion and addressing concerns such as yours can be tiresome. However if you feel strongly then I suggest you first approach Qworty in a collegial manner with your concerns and resist any temptation to vent in any manner and go to AN if that does not work. Best wishes --Justallofthem (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not see it as a violation of BLP, its clearly just his opinion about the quality of his work which no one has a reason to take seriously, rather than a specific allegation of anything. The importance of the subjects work is often a matter of discussion at Afd and there has to be a way to express negative opinions about it or we can;t have a proper discussion. But the way it's expressed does seem unpleasant, and doesn't contribute to resolving issues cooperatively.DGG (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To return to my original question, I note that WP:BLP states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and 'project space'. It also states that, in dealing with non-article pages, BLP should not be used as a rationale for deleting unfavorable comments regarding other editors, but clearly does not make a similar exception for inappropriate comments about article subjects. Given the stress the plicy places on immediate action, I see no justification for allowing the attacks on article subjects -- as distinct for the civil discussions of notability -- to remain. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been given responses to your original question from two experienced editors (one an admin) and advice on how to best proceed from one. You are free of course to interpret the policy yourself and act accordingly. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I would like to see some further discussion of the matter, particularly since the responses do not appear to be consistent with the applicable policy. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin and Muhammad al-Durrah

Ongoing BLP concerns relating to conspiracy theories that the former (a French TV journalist) had faked the death of the latter (a Palestinian boy) in a shooting incident in 2000. This has been the subject of a recent French libel trial, so there are significant and active BLP issues in this case. There have been some attempts to state the conspiracy theories as fact or to claim that the French courts have supported them (they didn't). There are also obvious undue weight issues as well. Some eyes on the articles, particularly on the Muhammad al-Durrah article, would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Rubashkin

Moshe_Rubashkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I reverted this article to a version with sourced information about legal issues, since the removals were unexplained. Please review my comment on the talk page, and whether the article should be reverted back because of poor quality of sources. Notice that the article has already received some checking of sources like here. I'm too unexperienced to do this by myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have notified of this thread to all users that edited the article on a significant way. I didn't link this thread from the talk page of the article so that readers of the article aren't directed to a place where BLP issues are being dissectionated. (On hindsight, I should have mailed them instead, damn >.<) ---Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Susana A. Herrera Quezada

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana A. Herrera Quezada (2nd nomination)

This article about Chilean architect is clearly a self-promoting entry. It is highly self-praising, and gives a lot of non-relevant information on her work. Articles about living people should be about relevant persons in their fields. The English translation is very badly done, as if made in a hurry only to appear in the english section of Wikipedia. Besides, it gives no links to her works, as to allow the reader to verify the quality of what is described in the text. --maxat (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if two blurbs in the same trade magazine Architecture week establish notability, but that magazine is in English, so others can evaluate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a good deal of puffery, rather incoherently translated into English. I went in and cleaned it out as best i could. I don't think this is a BLP issue, really. If anyone doubts notability, AfD is the place. DGG (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Various press. For more information, Google "Susana Herrera" +architect --Faith (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm restoring this to the main noticeboard because it's an ongoing issue. This article has been nominated again for deletion, despite the multiple independant magazine articles written on the subject. This is enough to establish notability. I would appreciate more eyes on this. --Faith (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

List of convicted Australian criminals

List of convicted Australian criminals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - not a dispute at all, but a question. I am concerned that some of those listed are not notable per WP:BLP1E, and would appreciate a second opinion. While I have no sympathies, my main concern is with the child sex offenders listed. Cheers Kevin (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why those in particular? At least one of the subjects in that particular section redirects to a page on the relevant case. Notability issues of individual entries aside, if the sourcing is enough to give the name of the subject as the one convicted, then why not organize that information into a list? It seems to me like the logical thing to do. Celarnor Talk to me 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess concern is too strong a word. Interested in opinions is more what I am thinking. I removed an entry in the child sex section recently that had a {{fact}} tag, and then I started wondering how WP:BLP1E related to those convicted of a single crime. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grant Shapps

A number of anonymous users (actually I think it's one user using multiple IPs) keep removing some sections from this biography. The facts removed, which were not written by me, are a little embarrassing to Mr Shapps, but they have citations and seem relevant to me. I keep undoing the deletes, but could someone who knows more about this than me check and see if it's me that's out of order here. Bangers (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Bangers edits are clearly based on a partisan motive which breach Wikipedia rules; including; "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner...", whereas your approach appears to be from a deliberately partisan Liberal Democrat perspective. "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented...in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." Bangers comments appear to be both out of proportion to the total biography and disputed in fact. Bangers has also removed BBC sources and largely replaced them with blog posts. "The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections." Bangers inserts appear to border on trivia and gossip, while removing fact. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist... An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." Again Bangers comments are disproportionate to this particular individual. However, in order to try and resolve an ongoing dispute we posted an updated bio which included more researched and properly referenced information mostly from the BBC, along with a more balanced reference to the specific information Bangers seems keen to include. However Bangers has still undone this more detailed work which cannot be in anyone's best interest if Wikipedia is to remain a reliable reference source. These types of disputes are rarely very productive and our last post was designed to incorporate some of Bangers concerns. We've replaced it once again and suggest that Bangers edit's in his/her comments to the more detailed biography which is now present without contravening any of the guidelines and we can all get on with something more meaningful elsewhere on Wikipedia. 69.10.33.199 (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This has turned into an edit war. Please can an editor take a look at this bio and adjudicate. There are better ways to improve it than this. Bangers (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a clean-up and added some fact tags. If these citations aren't added within the next week or so, I'm going to remove them from the article. --Faith (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Bangers seems strangely obsessed with this individual appearing desperate to include a section about a specific by-election (perhaps he was involved) which appears vastly out of scale and proportion to overall biography on file with Wikipedia. The by-election heading now strangely occupies more space than either of the descriptions of Parliamentary jobs including the individuals position in the UK Shadow Cabinet. Indeed the main allegation is in any case strenuously denied here http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/07/shapps-denies-astroturfing-allegations.html and so this section is dubious to say the least.

I'm not sure what else can be done because each time attempts are made to clear up this biography Bangers is there weaving his particular perspective back in place. 66.240.236.13 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bangers latest edit is part of his clear agenda to try to present this living person in the worse possible light. The new section added on donations is refuted here whtimes.co.uk link but either way your attempts to edit in as much bad news as possible is in danger of overstepping Wikipedia guidelines once again and is making this a slanted biography by any reading.

Bangers previously agreed to accept editors amends but has since simply reposted everything that was removed, adding in spurious headings which are apparently on a par with the main biographical details. For those of us who want to see Wikipedia being a worthwhile biographical resource he/she is making life difficult. See my previous post of 23:07 on 30 May 2008 above. 69.10.33.195 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded and edited the disputed entries to be NPOV, added more citations and added in Grant Shappes' and the Conservatives explanations. Bangers (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually what you've done is further extend the by-election section which is completely disproportionate to the overall biography, both in having a separate heading and by comparison to the other parts of this entry. Time for the moderators to intervene before Bangers destroys more biographies with whatever his particular perspective happens to be. As 69.10.33.195 said above, Bangers previously wrote that he would abide by the editors (mods) ruling, but has then completely ignored it. 66.240.236.55 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have abided by the ruling "I've cleaned the article up a bit, including removing the material about Hodgkin's Lymphoma and remission, which must be cited before it can be re-added into the article (text can be found in history if citation is found) ... if any parts are still under contention for BLP, make sure additions are well cited to reliable sources. If something is even a bit iffy, it should be left out until well verified. --Faith (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)".
I have add a lot of citations, I have reworded other peoples postings to make them NPOV and I have added in the explanations for the controversial incidents. The YouTube posting got a lot of coverage at the time, so I do feel it should be included. If an editor says that the YouTube postings and the donations should not be included I will not reinsert them again. If you feel that these areas are disproportionate then perhaps it is because the other sections are too light and need expanding Bangers (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It still represented some neg-POV which I fixed with information from the refs. I also removed a "cited" section, as the added refs did not mention Shapps at all and therefore were not valid as used. --Faith (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thomas W. Davis

Thomas W. Davis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Would some experienced hands please look at this article. What I consider biased, tabloid, cherry-picked "he said, she said" was added here. I removed it here citing BLP concerns but was reverted by a third editor. I find the Village Voice bit especially egregious as the only comment on Davis' statement was by the blogger Ortega who is an extremely biased source. I do not think this treatment of Davis reflects well on this project. Thanks Justallofthem (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed the blog portion for not being a RS and for BLP issue, but the rest are cited to newspapers, so will have to be viewed for UNDUE, rather than RS. --Faith (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help with this one since I have promised not to edit any Scientology-related articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Steve, your opinion on any BLP issues would certainly be welcome even if you do not care to directly edit the article. Good hearing from you again. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you invited, I'll make a comment on this one. Mr. Davis is really only noted for one incident in which he was rude to a TV reporter doing a story on Scientology. Sometimes people are rude to me too, but I don't write WP articles about them when they are. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I commented on the talk page as well. The material I removed that was cited to a blog comes from a tabloid newspaper's EiC's blog. It's not a RS, IMO, and the material was contentious, so it needed to be removed for BLP. --Faith (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This information should be restored. Tony Ortega is not simply a blogger - he is the Editor-in-chief of The Village Voice:

Press Release, Village Voice Media (March 5, 2007). Tony Ortega Named Village Voice Editor-in-Chief. The Village Voice.
Reply to FaithF: - Respectfully, there is zero source provided, so far as I can see, to show that The Village Voice is anything other than a respectable newspaper. Unless you can provide a third-party source for your assessment of "tabloid" ? And as for Tony Ortega, he is a Livingston Award and Eugene S. Pulliam Award finalist, and is a recipient of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year Award, the Los Angeles Press Club Award for best news story, the 2002 Unity Award and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column. This source is most certainly WP:RS. Respectfully request that you please reconsider your assessment of The Village Voice and Village Voice Media. It is simply not appropriate to call something a "tabloid" unless you have an assessment from a third-party source to back that up. The Village Voice is a WP:RS and the writings of the Editor-in-Chief of that publication should be considered as such. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see response at Talk:Thomas W. Davis. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication

The Village Voice is a respected and award-winning publication. Here are a sample of some of the more prestigious awards that The Village Voice has been honored with:

  • 2007 Pulitzer Prize (L.A. Weekly is owned by Village Voice Media), Criticism - Jonathan Gold, the L.A. Weekly’s restaurant critic, has won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism. This is the first Pulitzer Prize for the L.A. Weekly and the first time a restaurant critic has won the distinguished award. -
LA Weekly - Eat+Drink - Jonathan Gold Wins Pulitzer Prize - The Essential Online Resource for Los Angeles. www.laweekly.com (2007-04-16). Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  • 2000 Pulitzer Prize, International Reporting - Awarded to Mark Schoofs of The Village Voice, a New York City weekly, for his provocative and enlightening series on the AIDS crisis in Africa.
2000 Pulitzer Prize Winners - INTERNATIONAL REPORTING, Citation. www.pulitzer.org. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  • 2001 National Press Foundation Award, The Village Voice, the nation’s largest alternative weekly newspaper, today announced that their website www.villagevoice.com will receive the prestigious Online Journalism Award from The National Press Foundation. This distinguished honor will be presented during a reception on February 21, 2002 at the Hilton in Washington D.C.
www.villagevoice.com Wins National Press Foundation Award. www.aan.org (2001-12-19). Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  • 1981 Pulitzer Prize, Feature Writing - Teresa Carpenter of Village Voice, New York City
The Pulitzer Prizes for 1981. www.pulitzer.org. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
The George Polk Awards for Journalism. www.brooklyn.liu.edu. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

Here is a more extensive list of awards that The Village Voice has been honored with over the years:

The Village Voice - About us - Editorial Awards. Village Voice Media. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.

The writings of the Editor in chief of this highly respected and award-winning media publication satisfy both WP:RS and WP:V, and are as such most appropriate for Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony Ortega and Village Voice were accepted as a Reliable Source (by maintaining citation #8.) But User:FaithF rejected citation #20 by the same author in the same publication on the basis that it was in the form of a blog. WP policy does not outright ban the use of blogs as RS. Mainstream news blogging is becoming a more acceptable form of news presentation, as witnessed by the award-winning blogs by staff journalists at The Sydney Morning Herald. Having established that Ortega and Village Voice are Reliable Sources (whether published as a blog or main opinion piece or whatever), the only thing at issue is whether the quoted content is appropriate or not for inclusion in the article. --David from Downunder (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As stated on the talk page of the relevant article, don't put words into my mouth. Oversight of a citation from the same source does not equal acceptance of that source, as my statement at that time outlined. --Faith (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this discussion still ongoing? The Village Voice is a reliable source per WP polices. End of story. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a legitimate WP:BLP issue as regards using a derogatory remark made by one blogger, even if the blog is on an RS newspaper and the blogger is the editor of that paper. Further, BLP makes special conditions for barely notable people such as Davis and these conditions also speak against inclusion. There is an on-going discussion and you are premature in restoring the material especially in such a dismissive manner. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with admin Gamaliel (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice is certainly reliable, but this is not the Village Voice, it is a blog associated with the Village Voice. A blog is a blog, even if it's associated with a RS, right? ATren (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No it is not just associated with The Village Voice, it is published by The Village Voice on their award-winning website and written by their Editor in chief. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A blog is a blog is a blog, but a blog is a reliable source if it is published by an award-winning institution with a solid reputation and is written by an employee of that institution. It doesn't become suddenly unreliable because it is published on one part of their website instead of another. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this note seems to cover this exact case. I didn't realize before now that newspaper blogs could be considered reliable. ATren (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Popping by for a quick comment or two. The featured article search engine optimization contains a citation to Matt Cutts's blog, and had that citation when it passed featured article candidacy. Wikipedia accepts blogs by notable experts on the same basis it accepts other expert self-publications. To label the blog of the editor-in-chief of a Pulitzer winning newspaper self-published is splitting hairs: it can only be regarded as such in the sense that, as head of the publishing enterprise, he's already the most senior expert in the organization. It would be a strange parsing of Wikipedia policy to treat him as somehow less reliable than the junior reporter who gets edited by somebody that this author hires and fires. How "negative" is the statement, really? He's talking about the way that the public relations arm of an organization gives press interviews. That's a reasonable thing for the head of a major newspaper to discuss, and entirely within his expertise. DurovaCharge! 03:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily splitting hairs. Even if he is editor-in-chief, when he writes a published column he is writing for his newspaper, whereas on the blog he is generally writing for himself (though there may be exceptions to this, as noted here). The former is reliable, unquestionably, but I think the latter should be handled with more care, especially when it's a BLP. This does not necessarily mean it's unreliable (and I don't believe it is in this case), but it's just not so clear-cut and may need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis (as was done here). ATren (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That seems to describe this case, so the blog can be considered a RS. It's a "Village Voice" blog. I think the citation should stay. And obviously the Village Voice is not a tabloid in the pejorative sense, but rather in the formatting sense. ImpIn | (t - c) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike some other Scientology-related articles (like Xenu and Tom Cruise), I would expect there would be almost no public interest in this one. Probably the only people who will read it are Mr. Davis and his friends. And since being rude to critics and the media seems to be considered a virtue among Scientologists no harm will be done. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, we put notches on our e-meters. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't thinking of you when I said that. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Karin Pouw

The section Karin Pouw#Representative to media is a WP:COATRACK laden with WP:BLP violations against a number of individuals. I removed it but was reverted by the author and again by a 3rd party, both without addressing the pertinent issues. Please take a look at this section, I am pretty much appalled. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To uninvolved editors - every single sentence in that article is highly sourced to such WP:RS/WP:V sources such as Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, etc. The article describes Karin Pouw's role as a Church of Scientology official in some notable events which were extremely prominent in the media. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd trust Cirt if only for his reputation - if he can get articles under probation to FA, then he's got a good idea of what is and is not violating the content policies. Sceptre (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have known Cirt for as long or longer than any editor here and could certainly show you another side of Cirt but that would be equally irrelevant. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As a comparison, imagine if we filled the article on a Whitehouse Spokesperson, with every example of them dealing with the press on a controversial issue, or every case of a difficult/embarrassing question/answer. The key here is Pouw is a representative of an organization. The content is legitimate, but the location is what's really in doubt. There's no defamation. There's also not a proper biography. The info belongs in an article on Scientology's public relations. Sceptre, I strongly disagree with your "reputation"-based analysis. I think a read of the article and WP:COATRACK, shows there's a problem. --Rob (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
She is not simply a spokesperson, she is a Director of the organization and one of its highest-ranking officials. As such, her views on key issues that she has been quoted on are highly relevant. Especially when her comments have provoked subsequents actions and media coverage. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree Rob, it is a WP:COATRACK, pure and simple. None of those statements is about Pouw, none belong in her bio. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They are statements which directly concern her and executive activities which she was involved in, not to mention that many are her own words and direct quotes about key issues she was involved in at a high-executive-level in the Church of Scientology. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
They directly concern the organization. Move them to where they belong. Also, the bio doesn't actually make clear how signficant her role is. If she's so important, you should have included those facts in the article. You didn't. Instead you just included a bunch of typical Scientology positions, which she puppetted. --Rob (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
She has three direct roles in the organization - Director, Office of Special Affairs, and Spokesperson. She is not simply involved in responses to media but at the policy level as well. And FYI - she is Director of Public Affairs - and she described the Office of Special Affairs as a "public affairs office". So she has a high-level of responsibility in that role as well. The material in the article is not just her responses, it reflects her role in the actions of the organization itself - and at a very high executive level at that. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Cirt, how can you know any of what you claim. If you know Scientology then you know that policy is dictated by Policy Letters written by Hubbard and subsequently by Miscavige. I doubt she is involved in drafting policy and I wager that you cannot prove your claim either. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And on what do you base your claim that she in involved in the Office of Special Affairs. My dad had a phrase that would fit here but I will spare you that (smile). --Justallofthem (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And Cirt, you are once again carrying on the same discussion in two places with double-posting. I really wish that you would not do that - it makes discussion quite difficult. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is another example of a lot of time and effort being spent on an article that almost no one will ever read. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Cuddy

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Cuddy

Christophercuddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has twice blanked this page 1, 2 saying, "As the subject of this article, I would prefer not to have a wikipedia page. I think that this was done in a distasteful way. Christopher Cuddy." This article was the subject of a BLPN discussion in March (see this archive). Should this user be reverted or should this page be deleted? Cunard (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave him advice on his talk page and I see another editor has already restored the article. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the quick response! Cunard (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I nominated the article for deletion as non-notable. I did not find it distasteful however. It was actually very positive. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lazydork (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Please remove

Resolved. Let AFD handle this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Richard Stern the subject of this article. For personal privacy reasons I'm requesting it be deleted. Also, I am no longer notable in these sense contemplated by the original creator; in fact, I am no longer notable at all in the public domain. Please feel free to contact me at <e-mail redacted> re: this issue. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazydork (talk • contribs)

1) I've edited-out your e-mail; it's never a good idea to post real-life e-mail addresses, phone numbers, etc. to Wikipedia. 2) We don't delete articles just because the subject has retired. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The user has started a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Stern. WP:OPTOUT is not policy, but I'll give this request serious consideration. If consensus says "keep," you're out of luck. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaavya Viswanathan

  • Kaavya Viswanathan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I've gotten into a bit of an edit war with an IP user over the lede to this article and the inclusion of an info box. The lede was revised based on discussion on the talk page, in part because identifying the subject as an undergrad is no longer appropriate and in part to reflect the actual controversy. I also feel an info box is problematic because there is little info to report that isn't in the lede and it serves to condense the controversial aspects into a single word. Also the dummy image adds a wanted poster feel to the article, which is already quite negative. I'd welcome another opinion on this.agr (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with the intro as it stands. I think an infobox is not needed. I am aware of the controversy around this person from reading a newspaper article last year. Given the difficulty of balancing BLP and NPOV, I think this article is okay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson

Attempts to make minor edits to improve neutrality on recent events are almost immediately deleted, with name-calling and accusations made by user csloat in the discussion thread. These edits and the discussion largely concern a hoax now many people believe was started by Johnson and involving Michelle Obama. It is my theory that Larry himself is guarding the page via the user csloat to protect the bias of the page and perpetuate the hoax. He has also resorted to name calling when I asked for corroborating sources on his background. Since the content regarding Michelle Obama is unsourced and libelous, I think Wikipedia should investigate the user csloat and the efforts to prevent edits to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.101.205 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. User:Commodore Sloat is a senior editor here, having started in 2004. I don't think he has any conflict of interest. Please don't ask for outside opinion when you can resolve the matter on the article's talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did use the talk pages. He just said I was editorializing by adding one line that the alleged video never materialized. He also called it "weasley" to put that line in. The quickness the edits were made, the belligerence, and unprofessional scolding lead me to believe that in any case, your senior editor has a dog in the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.101.205 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me that about 90% of the article is a coatrack for Johnson's opinions on various issues. I think the rumor about Mrs. Obama should be removed since it is sourced only by a blog. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and took out the whole section on the 2008 election since it was not related to his notability. Most Americans seem to have an opinion but we don't put that in their WP articles unless it makes a difference. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it is news, since the hoax has now been repeated on Fox News several times. But as long as it's not just being used to perpetuate the rumor without noting that Johnson nor anyone else has a shred of evidence to back their claim, I'm happy to let it drop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.101.205 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon adding defamatory info to Jessica Valenti

The anon ip 71.124.120.64 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding defamatory info to Jessica Valenti, and attacking users (me, in this case) in his/her edit summaries. --Damiens.rf 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon is still reverting to the offensive version and using edit summaries like "DICKS EVERYWHERE!!!" and "vert per Damiens.rf smokes pole.". Am I reporting it to the wrong place? --Damiens.rf 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for 36 hours. We'll see if the anon editor get the message.--agr (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability and quality of sources for International Healing Foundation.

Edit war over the "International Healing Foundation" section of Richard A. Cohen. Discussion. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-04t22:29z —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)