Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:41, 23 July 2010

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Anthony Indelicato

Joshua Pellicer

Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

Gary Fitzgerald

Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

Libel sourced from Blog of living person

List of Scientologists -- Gloria Gaynor

Editors at List of Scientologists are of divided opinion whether a source identifying the singer Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist is up to WP:BLP standards. The source has also been used in the Gloria Gaynor BLP to categorise and identify her as a former Scientologist.

The source we are concerned about is a short piece in The Guardian, published in 2006 in the Guardian's G2 supplement, under "Diversions", with the title "Listed Scientologists". The piece, which is not available online, contained no text, only an alphabetical list of names as follows:

G2: Diversions: Listed Scientologists The Guardian (London); Oct 4, 2006; p. 29

Kirstie Alley

Beck

Sonny Bono

William Burroughs (reformed)

Nancy Cartwright

Leonard Cohen (reformed)

Tom Cruise

Jenna Elfman

Doug E Fresh

Gloria Gaynor (reformed)

Isaac Hayes

Katie Holmes

Chaka Khan

Juliette Lewis

Charles Manson (reformed)

Priscilla Presley

Lisa Marie Presley

Kelly Preston

Mimi Rogers

Jerry Seinfeld (reformed)

Sharon Stone (reformed)

John Travolta

Van Morrison (reformed)

This was the complete text of the item. It was published on Oct. 4, 2006. Some editors suspect that all the names were taken from the Misplaced Pages article List of Scientologists as it was at that time: status as of Oct. 3, 2006. As can be seen, all the names in the Guardian list were also present in the Misplaced Pages list at the time, and all the names that have "Reformed" after them in the Guardian list were at the time located in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of the Misplaced Pages list.

In some editors' minds, this raises the likelihood that using the Guardian list as a reference will be a case of WP:CIRCULAR -- using a source that copied from Misplaced Pages as a reference for material in Misplaced Pages.

The Guardian list is cited as a source for a number of entries in List of Scientologists, but Gloria Gaynor's entry is the only one that relies on this reference alone. The Guardian list has also been used as the sole reference to identify Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist in her BLP.

For reference, the source our List of Scientologists quoted in 2006 to justify Gloria Gaynor's inclusion in the list was the website of Station Avenue Productions, more specifically, this page. It says (spelling errors are in the original):

Gloria was now the undisputed superstar in a world fueled by money, sex and cocaine; her new realities began to collide with her quiet Baptist small town New Jersey upbringing, She began a quest for some spiritual solid ground: it took her through brief associations with Scientology, Buddhism, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation a1d Jehovah's Witnesses until she had completed 8 circle back to her beginning, In 1982, she became a born-agaIn Christian,

Beyond that, we have so far been unable to find any reliable source identifying Gloria Gaynor as a Scientologist, or former Scientologist.

The question is: Are the above Guardian list of names and/or the Station Avenue Productions website sufficiently reliable sources per WP:BLP to identify Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist in her BLP, and in List of Scientologists? Previous discussions on the article talk page are here and here. What are editors' views? --JN466 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One possibly circular reference plus an unreliable source seems weak by BLP standards. However, three other references are cited on the internet. The Daily Telegraph 17.7.1993 (allegedly: can anybody check?), Berliner Zeitung 11.11.1995 (checked: Anders als in der Musik hatte die baptistisch erzogene Sängerin alle paar Jahre einen neuen Gott getestet: Von Scientology, Buddhismus, Katholizismus, Transzendentaler Meditation bis zu den Zeugen Jehovas. - see Ressort: Kultur - Die Disko-Queen hat überlebt) and The Scotsman 9.4.1996 (allegedly: can anybody check?) AJRG (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this is a circular reference. As I gather, that's just speculation. If it's not circular, then the Guardian is generally considered a reliable source. If Gaynor has been involved in such myriad movements/faiths as "Buddhism, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation and Jehovah's Witnesses", then involvement in Scientology is not an exceptional claim. That said, if being a Scientologist or former Scientologist isn't an important part of her life then a related category is probably unnecessary. Categories, especially those for religions, shouldn't be applied to those with only slight involvements.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to political topics, where you are free to use categories as widely as possible in order to impute guilt by association. Can I get an Amen? Erinye (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing doesn't look robust enough to me to use to say that Gaynor is a Scientologist. With BLPs, err on the side of caution. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented to back up this spurious assertion that The Guardian is a "circular" source. However, Cla68 (talk · contribs) is most certainly correct. I will do some further research, and add additional sources to the entry, in addition to the source, The Guardian. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added two additional sources. Still in process of research for further sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

None of that makes "former Scientologist" an good description. What are the criteria for inclusion? Reading a Ron Hubbard novel? See Scientology#Membership statistics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some reliable sources commenting on Gaynor's interest in Scientology, that is very useful. I tend to agree though that applying a "Former Scientologist" category to her BLP seems undue. By that token, given the sources we have, Gaynor should also be categorised as a former Buddhist, a former Muslim, a former Catholic, a former secular humanist, a former TM practitioner, a former Hare Krishna follower, and a former Jehovah's Witness. She says in her book, "I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology", so perhaps she did a Scientology course, but we can't even say that with confidence from the sources currently on the table. For all we know, she may have just read a book by Hubbard and visited a Celebrity Center, and there is no evidence that she ever identified as a Scientologist (or a member of any of the other religions she looked into). In my view, the Guardian "Listed Scientologists" piece falls short of BLP standards, just because of what it is: a bare list of names, presented as a "diversion", and likely copied from us. --JN466 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no evidence given backing up this spurious claim (no matter how many times it is desperately repeated ad infinitum) that the source is "likely copied from us..." -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is that the Guardian list contains not a single entry that wasn't in our list 4 years ago, and that every single one of the entries marked "reformed" in the Guardian was in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of our article 4 years ago. That, combined with the fact that it is just a fun snippet in the Guardian's tabloid supplement, next to crosswords, TV programmes and the like, called "Listed Scientologists" without saying where these names were listed, is highly suggestive, and in my view fails Misplaced Pages:Blp#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. It is simply not a first-rate source, and for something like this we should do better; indeed, you've already identified a far superior source, i.e. her autobiography. Why hold on to this one? Just because it is the only one to call her "a Scientologist"? We don't need it. --JN466 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

so your argument is that when you have two lists that list scientologists, and the names on the significantly smaller list all appear on the list four times it size, that the larger list has to be the source for the smaller list? if you have additional evidence for this claim be my guest but this is one weak argument.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), that is indeed an extremely weak and spurious argument. -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be labeling people as things they say thay are not especially in weakly cited claims. If it was a strong claim there would not be these good faith doubts. There appears to be no evidence at all that she was a follower of this religion, and she should be removed. The Guardian cite is of no value at all and shouldn't be used to label people like that. The whole idea that some scientologist said anyone who ever came to a meeting is a scientologist it laughable and of course is nothing more than a christian priest saying anyone who is baptized in a Christian. We should allow people the freedom to express their own position especially when some people would see attachment to this group as a negative issue.Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • We should be very careful with labels, particularly those that may be seen as derogatory. In my opinion, being on the Guardian list is not enough for inclusion on the Wiki list. Other supporting sources are needed.Caution is needed here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We have many similar lists, including List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners, that use comparable sources. What is it about the Guardian article that makes it insufficient for this purpose?   Will Beback  talk  13:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

we now have multiple WP:RS including the guardian which is a WP:RS and not circular unless anyone...anyone at all can come up with more evidence than the personal speculation that is the only support for this claim so far. so it is not a simple matter of labeling a person, but rather supporting WP:V which is the touchstone for WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The point, Coffeepusher, is that we have so far been unable to find other sources calling the singer Gloria Gaynor a "former Scientologist", or "reformed Scientologist". We have good sources now saying that say she "tried" or "looked into" almost a dozen religions, including Scientology, but that is not the same as being, or having been, a member of each of those. Would you argue we should describe her as a former muslim based on these sources? The only sources we have describing her as a former member of Scientology are our own Misplaced Pages article from 4 years ago, and that Guardian list of names. I honestly don't appreciate editors insisting on listing a notable person as a former member of this controversial religion based on such flimsy evidence, when BLP asks us to look for top-class sourcing for controversial claims. --JN466 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism and Islam are also controversial religions. I'm not aware of any specific controversy about Gaynor's religious path. The only controversy about this claim seems to be on Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would be equally inappropriate to describe her as a former muslim, or a former catholic, based on the sources we have. We should have good, strong, reliable sources characterising her as a "former member" of Scientology (or any other religion). Otherwise, the only place where she is described as such will be Misplaced Pages, and an otherwise non-notable snippet in a Guardian supplement. --JN466 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should split her into a sublist - "Dabblers". ;)   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to have high standards when it comes to BLPs, erring on the side of caution. We shouldn't be labeling people as aderents of a religion unless it is really clear in the sources. If someone suggests that a person shouldn't be labled unless they have confirmed themselves, that seems ok to me. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Gloria Gaynor to a section for "dabblers" would be more accurate, given present sources. :) But adding a section for "dabblers", in addition to the section for "course participants" that we already have ("Individuals who have taken Scientology courses, but have not been identified in secondary sources as Scientologists or former Scientologists"), is a bridge too far. I appreciate Scientology gets people really excited, not to say obsessed, but we have to stop somewhere. --JN466 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asserting that Gaynor is obsessed with Scientology. As for WP editors, let's not start casting stones.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

the WP:BLP only asks for self conformation in cases of categories because catagories are unable to provide contextualization, otherwise it is pretty clear that WP:V is the standard. While I appreciate that people are questioning the guardian list, the fact is that of the 20 or so names on the list only 1 is being contested...so it appears to be a damn good "list of scientologists" which it is what it is being used for. of all the technicalities that people are trying to discredit this list with, the one thing that should be pointed out is that the guardian actually produced an accurate list of scientologists or former scientologists. In addition to the Guardian list, there are many other WP:RS that talk about her taking courses and affiliating with scientology among other religions. So I think that we have WP:V covered in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are these sources that talk about her taking courses? The sources we are currently citing aren't positive on that. Haden says, "Gaynor worked her way though Scientology, transcendental meditation, and Buddhism". (Cirt, in inimitable style, chooses to quote just the snippet "worked her way through Scientology" from that sentence.) Gaynor herself says, "I was looking into different religions: Secular Humanism, Buddhism, Islam, and transcendental meditation. I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology, but none of it seemed to go along with what the Bible said." If there are sources saying she did Scientology courses, we can add her to our list of "course participants", but then we need to cite those sources. And trying a course is not the same as becoming a member. --JN466 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself to be an inclusionist, but I wonder why we would care to give information on people who have "dabbled" in Scientology or any other religion, unless it had provided some context to other events or ideas in their lives. I definitely don't understand why we would have a category for people who have "associated" or "dabbled" in Scientology. Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) the reason is that if there are sources that claim she is a scientologist, we are trying to bring all the sources together so that the readers can actually read the evidence. this will avoid edit wars where people add her because they have a reliable varifiable source which claims that she is a scientologist, and other editors remove her to keep the label off. if there is a reliable verifiable source that has her labeled as a scientologist, and other sources back that up then instead of censoring that source out we should bring it together with the other sources not in WP:SYNTH but so that the reader can see all the evidence and get a complete picture. this isn't a category it is a list, it doesn't appear on that person's page, people only see it if they are looking for a list of scientologists and the sources are elaborated on and provided to the reader.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, Coffeepusher. But apart from Misplaced Pages and that Guardian list of names, we don't have any sources that say she is, or was, a Scientologist, or a member of the Church of Scientology, and that is what we are currently describing her as. We have sources saying she "tried" or "looked into" nearly a dozen religions and religious movements, Scientology among them, but that's it. We are putting the cart in front of the horse. --JN466 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But the Guardian is a reliable source which does describe her as a scientologist (reformed), or former scientologist according to our list's classification. This negates her inclusion into the "course participants" section which qualifies that they took courses but have not been identified in secondary sources as scientologists, and there is no secondary source disputing this classification. The former member section of this list does not have a minimum time of association or degree of association prerequisite, or even a minimum number of sources necessary but rather follows the WP:BLP and WP:V suggestions and allows the secondary sources to stand as is avoiding WP:SYNTH or editor opinion. There isn't even a confusion between secondary sources, the problem is that one source stated she was a former Scientologist and the other sources stated that she was at one time associated with the church of scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:RS isn't a reason for editors to suspend judgment. Of course The Guardian is a reliable news source, but this was a light-hearted piece of unsigned filler in the G2 supplement, very carefully headed as listed scientologists, and not as scientologists. It was a fun thing for readers to discuss over breakfast. A cartoon would not be a reliable source just because it was published in a serious newspaper. A reliable source is not a reliable source whatever it is doing.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

except it listed scientologists accurately. which makes it a perfect WP:RS for a[REDACTED] article called "list of scientologists". Now while I could go into a Foucaultian analysis of authorial intent and[REDACTED] WP:RS guidelines and contrast that with Leff's or Fish's ideals, I don't think that is necessary in this case. no matter what section of the guardian it was in, or what the authorial intent or intended target audience effects were, if it is an accurate list of scientologists (and since all of the members on that list had a history with the church and only one of them appears to be in dispute not because they were not associated with the church but because some editors feel that their level of association doesn't quite qualify them for the sublime degree of scientologists) then it is an excellent WP:RS for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"it listed scientologists accurately". Great, if you can just point us to a source which verifies that claim, we can be done with discussing this source. You're saying it reproduces information available elsewhere? If there is a better source, let's have it. I'm sure you're not suggesting that a poor source magically becomes a reliable source because it happens to be accurate (verifiability not truth, as I'm sure you know).KD Tries Again (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD Tries Again is correct on this, as are all those who are arguing that the Guardian piece is not sufficient sourcing. I think that's pretty obvious. None of the other sources discussed here establish nor even hint in any way, shape, or form that Gloria Gaynor ever was a Scientologist. During a period of her life of spiritual learning and exploration, she looked into a lot of things. Whether the Guardian list is circular referencing or not (though it very likely is, of course) doesn't strike me as particularly interesting - it's a space-filling bit of fluff, not an actual report. Do we imagine that the reporter interviewed a few dozen people to establish facts? No, the list obviously came from a quick look at something... could be Misplaced Pages, could be earlier news reports. If it's valid, then there should be some actual source to prove it (and so far no one has come up with one).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to say that Cirt's original source establishes more than anything else that she was never a Scientologist. In particular, Gaynor says "I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology, but none of it seemed to go along with what the Bible said." This suggests that she was reading about, studying, investigating many different religions, and evaluating them based on a standard of whether or not they went along with the Bible. These are the words of a Bible-believing Christian seeking a particular spiritual home, not someone who was ever even remotely close to being a scientologist. Cirt, who professes to be a strong BLP defender, is in the wrong here I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that no one's made the case to BLP standards, but special pleading for Bible-believing Christians crosses the line into OR. AJRG (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When all is said and done, it appears that WP ought not label people with what another person has surmised about their associations and beliefs. This applies, IMHO, to far more than just Scientology. John W. Campbell "dabbled" in Dianetics - but he would have been quite affronted to have anyone lable him a Scientologist in any context at all. Millions have attended LDS meetings without becoming Mormons. We well ought to only label people with labels they assume for themselves - we will have far fewer biography problems that way. This strange desire to label persons and groups ill suits the project in general. Collect (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

• Coffeepusher has removed the Gaynor entry from the list, in line with what appeared to be the consensus view here.
• Pieter Kuiper has removed further instances where the "Listed Scientologists" piece was used as a source.
• Cirt has reintroduced the Guardian's "Listed Scientologists" piece under Further Reading.

How do editors feel about listing the piece under Further reading? I think the consensus view of this discussion here was that it is a questionable source. If so, then per WP:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links, it would not qualify for use in the Further reading section. --JN466 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian list isn't useful for anything and should be removed. Her spiritual journey, however, is notable and sourced from her biography - it should be mentioned in the article. AJRG (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian piece has no reading in it and is not further reading at all, it is just some unqualified list. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose the Gloria Gaynor BLP would be a better place to cover her spiritual journey than the List of Scientologists article. --JN466 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly in her BLP and not in the list of Scientology article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Guardian 'list' does not qualify as 'further reading'-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, removed The Guardian cite, from sect, Further reading. -- Cirt (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another update = Talk:List_of_Scientologists#Removed_entries. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good edit and removes the weaker claims and disputed stuff and strengthens the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

• Mel Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. A contributor brought this up at my talk page, but given some severe time constraints I wanted to list it here in the hopes of attracting some feedback instead of heavily weighing in myself. I'm behind on my copyright cleanup. :) The issue:

• Does the "Personal life" section of the article on Mel Gibson focus too heavily on the negative, in presentation and perhaps in depth of coverage?

Please see Talk:Mel Gibson#Allegation of... and help address these concerns if you are able. --Moonriddengirl 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I already cleanup it up to some extent, so it's not as bad as it was. Fences&Windows 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! It certainly isn't. --Moonriddengirl 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fences and windows did a good job trimming the fat out. Unfortunately since his edits more has been added. I'm sorry but having these sections of 'allegations of' whatever only lets editors bloat things up again. The new section added 'Allegations of sexism and domestic violence' is for the most part already mentioned in the section titled 'Family'. If you read that section it reads and I quote, "The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has launched a domestic violence investigation against Gibson. Gibson has filed for a restraining order against Grigorieva to prevent her speaking publicly about the case." Why is there a need for another whole section? Misplaced Pages isn't a rags sheet and it doesn't need sections like this. The other sections are also addressed again in other articles. Braveheart#Accusations of anti-gay depictions, The Passion of the Christ#Allegations of anti-Semitism and Mel Gibson DUI incident. I think just looking at his main article which is Mel Gibson you can see that there is way too much undo weight given to his misbehaviors. I agree that he is wrong in his thought process about things but should this article be full of allegations of this or allegatons of that? I would really appreciate help from any editors who are interested especially those who really know biographies of living people policies since RL isn't allowing me the proper time to actually do this myself. Thanks for your attentions and any help I may get with this article, --CrohnieGal 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Going to take a look now, hope i can be of help mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The tabloid type commentry and the allegations could sure use trimming a bit. Whole sections are really in need of a rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it is also worth noting that the coverage has gone well past the tabloids and into mainstream reliable sources at this point. For example, the first page of today's Los Angeles Times Calendar section has two articles about Gibson's troubles, one entitled "Gibson scandal could doom his movie career". --21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)(comment added by User:Arxiloxos Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

There is also a comment about their dispute in the family section, all of this his career is doomed stuff is not worthy of inclusion, as are the titilating claims from some alleged phone call. Who has he upset? (don't tell me I know the answer} Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment "who has he upset". What do you mean?Hobson (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has been the target of myriad items the purpose of which is to bash Mel Gibson. The more that is added, the worse the violation of WP:BLP. At present the content being added takes the form of "allegations" as such is termed in even reliable sources, all based on the tape that Grigorieva "allegedly" didn't release. This is a serious issue, as far as I'm concerned. My view is that anything that is based on "alleged" should not be a part of this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, and the BLP is high profile and a lot of people see it and assume that is the[REDACTED] standard when it is more reflective of our lowest standard. I would support a quality writer re writing the article, perhaps in their userspace, to be fully compliant with policy and then we could replace what is there now and defend it from low quality opinionated additions. After reading the article it is so bad I was thinking that when BLPs are slowly added and added and become so bad as this one, that we should have a system to request its removal from the mainspace to an incubation location where it can be worked on and improved until it is of a decent quality to be replaced for public reading. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, any suggestion about who should do the rewrite? I know WHL could do it if she is intersted. Also, Steve Smith does a lot of rewrites too but he may have a full plate. I don't know you Off2riorob or for that matter others here that have posted well enough to know abitlities to rewrite an article like this one. I can tell you that I'm not the one you want doing it. I'm not a good editor. I try real hard but this kind of project will be too far over my head I think. Sorry, I'm just trying to be honest. I have tried to get rid of some of the uselsss stuff and anwer questions on the talk page. Suggestions for doing the rewrite would really be nice. I hit a couple of references that were horrible for a BLP and one that actually put my computer on alert that something wanted to download to my computer locking it up. I haven't had a chance to remove this yet. They are in the Faith section. Thanks to all of you, --CrohnieGal 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the article linked in Google News, and then the link to this discussion on the Gibson talk page. At the present time it seems balanced and fair, without overemphasis. Figureofnine (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

now mel gibson's movie star pals are writing propaganda on the talk page about what a swell but misunderstood guy he is, all he needs it love they tell us. the guy admitted his comments had nothing to do with improving the article, he just wanted to share his feelings about old mel with us. it was the most offensive thing I have ever read on a[REDACTED] talk page. obvious propaganda intended to create sympathy for a man who beats his own girlfriend and threatens to kill her. yeah, all mel needs is a little love and understanding we are being told on the talk page. i deleted his grotesque comments from the talk page but I that was reverted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are many more offensive opinionated attacks on Mr Gibson by POV users than there are anything else on that talkpage. Please take care not to delete others users comments just because they are against your POV, such deletions could lead to your editing privileges being restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Care should be taken on this article, but wholesale whitewashing of an issue that has received extensive media coverage by reliable outlets is unacceptable, and should and will be reverted. I know it's confusing, but this page is not the Mel Gibson fan page (nor the Mel Gibson attack page); it's an encyclopedia article. IronDuke 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to note that the same material has also been removed from the Oksana Grigorieva article, by an independent set of editors but for similar reasons. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wholly unreferenced subsections and claims at article

• Mel Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are multiple instances of completely unreferenced subsections and claims at the article, Mel Gibson, up to and including at least one identified instance of a wholly unreferenced purported direct quotation from the subject. I have tagged problems on the article page, and made notes on the talk page regarding the completely unsourced subsections. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oksana Grigorieva

• Oksana Grigorieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone ought to take a look at the Oksana Grigorieva article. It's starting to look more like a gossip column than an encyclopedia article too. Yworo (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that this comment only pertains to the subsection, Personal life, which is sourced to WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Roach

Abhayakara (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

• Article is repeatedly edited to add gossip about Michael Roach substantiated by a single gossip column in the New York Post. Gossip column in question quotes extensively from a single unnamed source, as well as making claims of the form "Geshe Michael has been seen wearing ..." without saying who saw this. The material is clearly intended to be salacious, and does not meet Misplaced Pages's editorial standards. Attempts to write a more balanced version of the "controversy" section in this article have been repeatedly reverted by two individuals. Other paragraphs in the article refer to a New York Times article from 2008 which is fairly balanced, but selectively quote from the article so as to present a non-neutral viewpoint. I am a student of Geshe Michael's, thus probably can't be considered neutral myself, but I am really trying to do the right thing here, not simply pretend that there is no controversy. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I appear to have gotten logged out before I submitted that edit. It was I who added this section on Michael Roach. Abhayakara (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not just the NY Post that is carrying recent stories relating to Michael Roach, see , . Because there are so many reliable sources, BLP concerns about poorly sourced material do not apply. Johnfos (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

John, the two sources you list are both based on the New York Post article: one quotes from it, and the other reproduces it. One of these sources is a quotation service, not even a newspaper. I honestly don't know what the other source is--it looks like it might be a weekly paper in Hawaii. But since both articles are directly based on the New York Post article, you can't say that the claim you are making is multiply sourced, and it is absurd to claim that "there are so many reliable sources BLP concerns do not apply." Abhayakara (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Post is an RS. But, the consensus generally is, is that it is too much of a tabloid, and it should not be used for contentious BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the Post is an RS. Also, when other papers report that the Post reported x, that is an indicator that it is appropriate for us to do the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the New York Post is, in this case, a reliable source for a BLP article. This article cited is not really an in-depth article, but more like a blog post. It also allows comments, so linking to it may also be a potential liability issue. The information it adds to the article is negligable. What the subject is currently wearing is simply not significant, especially as this is a more of a "seen about town" kind of blog-like post, even the author may not know how often the subject wears a suit vs. robes. It's pretty much unreliable trivia. Yworo (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Page Six magazine article, however, seems fine to me. It seems to cover everything in the sentence that needs supporting, and the NYP article was clearly just a blurb based on it. Why link to both? Yworo (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a concern that this biography violates, at a minimum, WP:UNDUE with this tabloid reporting. It is worth noting that the original insertion contained at least one extremely bad error on what is perhaps the crucial piece of information being raised here.

This edit contains the insertion of the claim that Michael Roach 'admitted' that the relationship was romantic, while citing the precise paragraph in the text of the Page Six article where it is made clear that he does exactly the opposite: "maintains the relationship wasn't romantic". That's a pretty appalling state of affairs, I must say.

I hope that several more people will do what I did and read the Page Six article with a thoughtful eye. It is a gossipy story from a tabloid, using classic low-quality journalistic techniques like changing the name of one of the sources. (The story contains a made-up name for "Mia", the primary source for the "Armani" claims.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Yworo marked this as resolved, but I don't think that's the case. User:Jimbo Wales asked for several more reviewers to read the page with a thoughtful eye. He seems to agree with my assessment of the article and the story. I would really appreciate it if a few editors who are not particularly familiar with a particular branch of Buddhism could do as Mr. Wales suggests and review the article. In particular, please read the NYT article that's used as a source, and compare the impression you get from reading that article to the impression you get from reading the paragraph where it's used as a source. Also, look at the wiki article as a whole and see if, even if you agree that something should be drawn from these articles, the amount of text covering this controversy, and the content of that text, is really representative of a high-quality article. Yworo, no disrespect intended: I see that you have tried to see this from a neutral viewpoint, but you seem to agree that the gossip article was a good source, and Mr. Wales didn't, so that's why I'm hoping a few editors who haven't already weighed in on this will do additional review. Thanks, and sorry to be a pain--I know I'm in no position to make demands. Abhayakara (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Jimbo was making a distinction on the reporting in the article. Some of the reporting uses multiple named sources, some of it was only sourced to Mia-not-her-real-name. It appears that the latter material has been removed, and a discrepency between the article and the source has been fixed. As it also appears that Roach was interviewed for the article, it would seem to me there is no reason not to use the article to report what he said when interviewed. That said, I'm not an expert in this branch of Buddhism and I don't believe this is the best place to find an editor familiar with a particular branch of Buddhism as you are trying to do. Have you tried WikiProject Buddhism? I'd think you might find the educated eyes you'd like more readily there. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case the review Jimbo asked for has not, as far as I can tell, occurred yet. I don't feel qualified to speak for him as to what he intended to say, but the distinction that you are making and attributing to him is difficult to locate in his comment. He backed out the one clearly unsubstantiated edit, but asked for more review, stating that the article as a whole used "low-quality journalistic techniques," so I don't think that the edit he made was the limit to the criticism; rather, he was being much better behaved than I and looking for consensus rather than simply cutting that part of the article out.

I don't see the need for more review from Buddhist experts. The Dalai Lama is pretty authoritative when it comes to how the Gelukpa lineage treats monks' vows, and he said in his book, How To Practice, that monks who engage in this practice do not break their vows. So I don't think there's any basis for dispute over this point. I myself am a knowledgeable Buddhist, and according to my understanding, Geshe Michael's actions are in accordance with the scriptures. The people who seem to be pushing the opposite viewpoint as also knowledgeable Buddhists, and don't agree with me. Hence, it seems clear to me that appealing to Buddhist authority here is not going to improve the quality of this article.

What I really want to see is commentary from a few disinterested readers who can say whether or not they think the disputed text makes the article a better or worse article. The reason I raised it here, and not somewhere else, is that it seems clear to me that the article as it stands now is inappropriate in light of the policies on BLP, and so people who are more expert in this policy than I would be able to make that determination. So far the only person who has expressed an opinion on this question is Jimbo, and he seems to think that at a minimum it violates WP:UNDUE, so it seems to me that if I am mistaken here, my mistake is a matter of degree, not essence.

In accordance with the instructions, I didn't copy the disputed text into this discussion, but it's the last three paragraphs of the "Modern Day" section of the article. I don't think the text needs to be removed entirely, but at present it seems to be unbalanced and presenting a decidedly non-neutral viewpoint. Abhayakara (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there is a controversy seems to be true and have reached the New York Times. The length of the remaining paragraphs seems to be due to giving all sides of the matter. Please remember that Misplaced Pages is for the general reader who has no understanding or even knowledge of the intricate reasoning of Buddhism. It doesn't seem undue to mention the controversy as the average Joe expects monks to be celibate. Given that it needs to be mentioned, the discussion around it needs to be presented in a balanced fashion. It appears to me that Sylvain did a relatively good job of writing about all views neutrally. What do you specifically suggest is still wrong with it. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the reporting seems unbalanced to me. The second and third paragraphs are mutually redundant. There's no need to quote both Lama Surya Das and His Holiness saying that the practice is okay; one or the other would be enough. I think His Holiness' book is a better source, because it's more like an academic journal than the NYT, but either source would be adequate. Both is too much. But the main problem is that if you read the NYT article or even the NYP article, I would expect you to come away with the idea that the partnership was a positive and constructive thing that some people had trouble with. When you read the Misplaced Pages article, I think you come away with a completely different impression: that there was no reason for the partnership, that it was a negative thing, reviled by all, and that it went down in flames. This is why I'm calling for some new editors who are not involved in the discussion already to review this, and specifically to compare the sources with the[REDACTED] article to see if they agree that the two present different viewpoints.

The fourth paragraph is weird. It's appropriate to report that Geshe Michael is no longer practicing with Lama Christie, because it's true. But the only authority we have for the assertion that begins the sentence--"A left B for C"--is the gossip column article. I myself have never heard either of them say precisely what happened between them, and I am very skeptical that they would have told the NYP reporter. The sentence is written as if the two were married, but they were not, and never claimed to be. And Geshe Michael is quoted in the same article saying that the relationship was not romantic. So the implication of the final paragraph of the "Modern Day" section is really not supportable. It's not unreasonable for a tabloid reporter to tie "GM and C were practicing together," "now they are not" and "C is marrying T" into a story of love lost, but it is unreasonable for Misplaced Pages to repeat that when even in the article that is used to justify that claim, the opposite claim is made by the very person who is the subject of the biography. In particular, mentioning who LC is marrying in an article about GM just seems weird--if you think that's notable, put it in an article about LC! Abhayakara (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading it again more closely and checking the sources, the worst problem that I see is the inclusion of the Dalai Lama quote you've referred to, "Yogis who have achieved a high level of the path and are fully qualified can engage in sexual activity, and a monastic with this ability can maintain all the precepts." I find this problematic because it is not directly about Michael Roach. It's a hypothetical statement predicated on having "achieved a high level of the path" and being "fully qualified". It give the implication that Roach is so qualified, but no source presented says that he is. So using this quote would seem to be synthesis by implication. Do you have a source that states that Roach is so qualified? Yworo (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Office of the Dalai Lama is not a spiritual institution. It is part of the Tibetan Government in Exile. It is entirely qualified to make statements on matters of protocol, like whether or not a monk should appear in public in Dharamsala with his female practice partner. It is not qualified to make determinations as to whether or not a spiritual practitioner is or is not qualified to engage in a specific practice. The text of the letter from the Office of the Dalai Lama is very careful to speak in terms of protocol and not to make assertions about Geshe Michael's qualifications or lack thereof. This would be like someone in the Registrar's office at your university making an assertion as to whether or not you are able to play a musical instrument.

The qualifications, or lack thereof, of a practitioner are not objectively measurable. Whether or not you are *permitted* to do a particular practice is either up to you, the practitioner, to decide, or in the case of a monk, up to that monk's abbot. In this case, that would be Sermey Khensur Rinpoche Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, who was the abbot at Sera Mey Monastery in India at one time, and who was the abbot at Rashi Gempil Ling in Howell, NJ, from the early seventies onward. His reincarnation has recently been recognized, so I guess you could go ask him. Otherwise, you can either take Geshe Michael's word, or not, but you will not be able to find an authoritative source other than Geshe Michael himself justifying either the position that he is qualified, or the position that he is not. He has stated that he is qualified. I think it's better for Misplaced Pages to leave the question of his qualifications unanswered, other than (if appropriate) to report what he has claimed. Abhayakara (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay.... I certainly don't want to say anything negative about the subject, but what I see is this: In 2002, the Dalai Lama wrote words to the effect that if qualified -> the practice is okay. In 2006, the Office of the Dalai Lama says something to the effect of This thing Michael Roach is doing is not okay. Now, I know the office of the Dalai Lama and the Dalai Lama himself are not the same thing, and might not always be on the "same page", but the implication here is not that Roach has done nothing wrong, but that the Office of the Dalai Lama does not consider him sufficiently qualified to meet the exception. But putting it in the opposite of the chronological order, the article text seems to use a past conditional statement of the Dalai Lama to refute a more recent statement of his Office. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Yworo (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement by His Holiness was generally applicable. It was not my intention to imply that he had corrected his office. I think he has remained wisely silent on the subject, if it has even come to his attention. He has never been quoted as having taken any stance one way or the other on Geshe Michael's qualifications. We would do well to emulate him.

BTW, sorry for the volume--while I was composing my first answer to you, you did two additional edits. Abhayakara (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW, I think a good compromise has been reached on the wording of Michael Roach article and see the matter as resolved. Let's move on. Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

John, let's wait a few days and see if anybody aside from those of us who have already weighed in decides to review the article, okay? Aside from that, I agree that this discussion is consuming way too much space here. Abhayakara (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see that my application of logic was perhaps not correct. In that case, I still think presenting all sides of the matter is dicatated by our policy of NPOV. However, I see Abhayakara's point about describing the parting of ways as if it were an average relationship breakup. Whatever these two are, average is not a word I'd use to describe them. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ramiro Helmeyer

Ramiro Helmeyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is currently mostly blanked, but for BLP reasons I'm hesitant to restore it. The article as it was before the near-blanking is pretty savage to the guy. It *is* sourced, though most of the sources are in Spanish, and thus I'm unable to confirm what they say. Of the ones in English, two make no mention of the guy, and the third makes passing references that do confirm that some of the article may be correct, but it, by itself, is far from sourcing for everything in the article. So could I please get someone with the ability to read Spanish to assist in validating whether the sources so support the pre-blanking article? If so, then it likely can be restored. If not, then it may need a major BLP pruning. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like it was created as an attack type article. Perhaps it is better prodded. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • PROD has been placed on it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It has already been PRODed in the past and therefore needs to go to AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can anyone that perhaps understands spanish have a look at this article and see if he is notable for an article and see if it is possible to write a decent BLP from the citations that were in the article. Previous content, recently stubbed (see edit history for details) seems attack like and the citations weak. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• It's a bit of a coatrack. Helmeyer was reportedly involved in the bombings of Caracas in the summer of 1993. But all of the sources that I can find and understand report as fact little more than his arrest, conviction, incarceration, and apparent release in connection with that one event, as well as the allegations he made against Thor Halvorssen Hellum and later retracted. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I speak Spanish and went back to the revision of 31 May. All but one of the Spanish sources are in my opinion unacceptable for some of the claims made. One of them is a campaign website autentico.org fighting for a "Cuban Cuba." Reading through it, they seem to have a major beef against Venezuela and therefore it can't be trusted for objective information. The second, this one, is a blog/personal webpage and thus fails WP:RS. The third source returns a 404 and with no access dates can't be verified. The last source El Universal is one of the leading newspapers in Venezuela and mentions that Helmeyer was sentenced to 30 years in prison for murder, bombing and financing terrorism. Other mentions do occur in El Universal. Valenciano (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding a bit more as requested by Off2riorob, el universal doesn't really have anything about him unconnected with the bombs. This seems to be a case of WP:oneevent so the article is best deleted or else redirected to Thor Halvorssen Hellum. Valenciano (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• - As per this discussion I have sent it here to AFD for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fergie Olver

There is a pretty serious issue around this article that has been going on for a few months. Olver is a Canadian broadcaster. He hosted a children's game show in the early 1980s. His onscreen interaction with female contestants on the show has attracted some online interest on youtube and the blogosphere. There has been some coverage in legitimate sources, such as Toronto Life magazine which has commented on the internet phenomenon, such as it is. I am not convinced that the information belongs in the article at all as this has been a fairly recent thing and there is no evidence that there will be lasting notability. As it is, the article is attracting some IP and new account traffic which clearly violates WP:BLP and can be reverted. However, some established editors have included the sourced info. We've edited the section to a fairly workable version, however I am still not convinced that this does not violate WP:SYNTH in that there are some legitimate sources and there is a bit of an internet phenomenon at the moment, but including the info is a bit of a stretch as it is implying certain things about Oliver that are potentially libelous. In short, his interaction with young female contestants appears odd but given the context of the time it is more like someone trying to be cute and flirtatious for the camera. As I said, the obvious violation can be and have been reverted but the larger issue is the appropriateness of the main text. It has been discussed on the talk page but I feel some more input is necessary at this point. This information is also in the article Just Like Mom, the game show in question. You can find it easily on youtube and see it for yourself. freshacconci talktalk 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the section. Full explanation on talk page but essentially this was just bad implications from opinion type sources. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Biographies should include both the pleasant and unpleasant as long as its verifiable and relevant. This section is well referenced in the article with reliable sources such as Macleans, Toronto Life magazine, the New York Post and an AOL new service. Not including this side of this man would leave the biography incomplete. It happened, it was widely reacted to in the press so it is appropriate to include here.--RadioFan (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Content is under discussion Radio fan and has been removed as controversial please don't reinsert it without support. I support its removal as tabloid titillation that says more about the changing opinions of society and press reporting than it does about the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it out until the discussion here is complete as this is a BLP question but contend that this information is far beyond tabloid gossip if just based on the breadth of coverage it has received.--RadioFan (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pure titillation and actually nothing to do with him or his life story. Perhaps add it to changing opinions in society or something like that. Basically blogs and the lower aspects of the press and worse on utube have started speculating that because he used to kiss young girls on his show 25 years ago that he is a pervert (and worse) its not the type of quality content we should be wanting to add to our BLP articles, some users would do well to actually stop reading tabloid reports and pick up an encyclopedia and see the type of issues in someones life that are worthy of adding to a life story as anyone who thinks this is that type of content belongs here is mistaken. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Video montages of the original show received attention in 2010 due to his interaction with young female contestants. The videos depicted him kissing young girls and asking them for a kiss. Olver's actions were called "unbearably creepy" and "pervy."

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/04/19/latest-viral-video-creepy-canadian-game-show-host-fergie-olver

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/15/for-all-you-fergie-oliver-fans-across-the-world

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/04/watch_an_unbearably_creepy_mon.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/mindless_minute_today_secret_word_AL4Zkoehe7frExtiJg1bHI

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/hype/pretty-young-things/2010/04/15/watch-a-game-show-host-get-to-first-base-with-children

I think we may be reading more into it that we should, especially for a BLP article. The references above label it as "creepy" but make no accusations of anything else. Accusations of him being a "pervert (and worse)" are pretty serious. Where are you seeing that in either the article or any of the references?--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry radio fan I know you are attached to this content as you have added it repeatedly but it is rubbish and doesn't belong in a[REDACTED] BLP, it is still in the moms and dads tv prograsm so at least you can be happy for that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please dont put words into my mouth. I am not attached to this content and couldn't care less about Olver. I am attached to the neutrality of Misplaced Pages, it goes both ways.--RadioFan (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be creepy if it weren't suggestive of perversion? If you don't suspect perverted motivations then it's innocuous, not creepy. — e. ripley\ 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am wondering considering the quality of the reporting about it and the fact that it is about a living person even if it is not in an actual BLP, should be alowed to stay in the Just_Like_Mom article? A look through the edit history of that article you will see the much worse pedophile accusations and additional opinionated content that has been added and removed there. That article and this one need at least semi protection, I have removed it from Just like Mum as well, it is the same content, and requested semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources cut the mustard. Even the ones that are obstensibly mainstream publications fall under their "gossip pages" type of content. There's no hard reporting here and no serious articles, just a lot of unpleasant innuendo and implications. We must get our BLPs RIGHT, there's no room for error here. As I said elsewhere recently we're not operating in some kind of intellectual ivory tower, our actions here can and do have real world consequences for people. We must adhere to the highest standards of editing when it comes to the reputations and livelihoods of real people. Until these "allegations" receive serious mainstream press attention or legal processes come into play there's no way we should include them. Exxolon (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to come down to a difference of opinion on how WP:BLP is to be used. Its primary purpose is to protect the foundation of lawsuit. The concerns about this material listed here so far include that it is "titilation", "potentially libelous", and that questions the sources as "tabloid gossip". There have been versions of this article where "titillation" and "potentially libelous" concerns are very valid, those have been quickly removed and should probably be removed from history (any admins here?). However, some editor at some point calling this man a perve, does not make it impossible to cover this information in a way that meets WP:BLP. The latest version meets WP:BLP guidelines especially in it's tone as it addresses the subject very conservatively and focuses on the facts of the situation. Any words that could imply judgement of the situation are direct quotes from the (multiple) references.

If I'm reading the above comments correctly, no one is questioning the reliability of any of these sources (which seems to be in agreement with WP:RS and its guidance that mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable but rather their coverage of the incidents in question as "gossip". Looking over WP:RS further, there is caution of passing rumor on even if it is reported in a reliable source, but I think we can all agree this isn't rumor and is well documented in reliable sources. I see no synthesis of opinion in the latest version nor do I see any particular position being pushed. The latest version simply states that the video received attention recently and reflects reaction from reliable sources. If the New York Post were the only source here, I'd also have concerns about the information being gossipy in nature but coverage in Macleans, New York Magazine and the Toronto magazine temper that.

Accusations of the sources being "gossip" are also covered by WP:RS in the caution to always, consider the context. The context of each of the sources is that the video surfaced and is being reacted to many years after the show aired which is consistent with how the latest version of the article treats the subject mater. WP:RS also cautions editors to include information verified by reliable sources but I dont think verifiability is a problem here.

Before we disallow this side of Olver from being included in his article, consider WP:N's direction that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This view of Olver is significant, it has been published by reliable sources, it is presented in a neutral and conservative manner (at least in the latest version), there is no synthesis of opinon and no original research. A balanced, accurate biographies will sometimes include unpleasant things. While WP:BLP cautions us from going to far, we should also not go so far in the other direction an disallow something because we WP:DONTLIKEIT.--RadioFan (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We're definitely in disagreement on the purposes of our BLP policy. As far as I'm concerned the primary purpose of our BLP policy is to do no harm to real people, not to cover our asses legally. When it comes to this kind of material several sections of the policy come into play:-

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (emphasis mine)

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

The sources in question might be part of reasonably reliable publications, but they are not good sources in themselves being blog type/gossip type posts that have picked up and repeated some pretty iffy speculation about something that is, at least until EVIDENCE emerges to the contrary, entirely innocuous. Adding in that the issue resolves around suggestions of inappropiate behaviour towards minors which is an INCREDIBLY sensitive issue we have to have really cast iron sources to use. This isn't a "he was so drunk he fell out of a nightclub" type of thing, we're far into potentially very damaging territory. At this time given the low quality of the sources, the seriousness of the subject and our overriding BLP principle of "do no harm" I can see NO way we can include anything about this at this time. Exxolon (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see this as gossip, or unsubstantiated rumor. It makes no sensational accusation (again, those edits have been removed). The article is also not the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. A Google search on Olver produces pages of hits with far worse treatment of Olver on this subject, so this article is far from the primary vehicle and the current version isn't titillating. Again, it treats the subject in a very conservative manner. I'm not seeing any "iffy speculation", it happened, its being reacted to, and it becomes a part of how this person is viewed now. To leave this part of how Olver is viewed out of the biography makes the biography incomplete and violates WP:NEUTRAL by not representing all points of view here. Have you read the latest version of the section? No accusations are made, no speculation about the behavior is made, it covers only the recent reaction to the incidents. I agree that this is a sensitive issue that must be approached very conservatively but I also beleive that this has been accomplished in the latest edit. Just because its a sensitive issue, that doesn't make it impossible to cover it at all. It's easy to delete and whitewash the article. I'm suggesting we not be so hasty and do the hard thing, treat the subject in a way that meets WP:BIO and WP:NEUTRAL. --RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The last version included the phrasing '"unbearably creepy" and "pervy."' and overly detailed descriptions of alleged activities - this really wasn't encyclopedic language, even as direct quotations. The primary vehicle argument is the fact that our articles in general rank very highly in search engines - Google currently has our article as #1 result for his name so anything we have on the article becomes highly visible immediately. We also can't point to other sites saying worse things as any justification for inclusion, they are outside our remit, we shouldn't fall into a trap of "lot's of people are talking about it so we should at least mention it". IF we can come up with better sources then we MAY be justified in a brief mention. However the most recent version is totally unacceptable - we'd need something like : "In 2010 Olver's run as host of Just Like Mom was subject to renewed interest due to allegedly inappropiate behaviour with underage female contestants"<impeccable source><impeccable source><impeccable source> - no salacious details about the exact alleged activities, no emotive language such as "creepy". However until we get impeccable sourcing even this cannot be justified. At this point you may wish to consider opening an RFC as I'm pretty sure any attempt to include this information will be blocked by multiple editors on BLP grounds. Exxolon (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is anything in it, reliable sources will become available. Until then, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. AJRG (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how WP:CRYSTAL applies here at all. No one is predicting anything.--RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any reliable sources at all as of now. If you're not predicting their existence in the future, why are we still discussing this? AJRG (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear how you have concerns about WP:CRYSTAL here. You appear to have WP:RS concerns. Could you expand on your concerns with the reliability of the magazines and newspapers mentioned above? --RadioFan (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about the detail - you're completely off-base. But since you asked:

• parentdish.com is not a reliable source
• macleans.ca is occasionally a reliable source (for example its University rankings) but also drums up circulation by covering scandals (see Most Read on the current front page)
• nymag.com is better but your link is to an off-the-wall entertainment piece, not a serious article
• nypost.com would be fine if your link wasn't to a blog
• torontolife.com is a celebrity gossip sheet, which in this case is just rehashing the nymag.com piece

No reliable sources at all. AJRG (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• This tabloid material doesn't belong in either article, per WP:GRAPEVINE. –xeno 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sources - Not everything published in a reliable source is itself a reliable source - reliable sources don't operate on the osmotic principle, reliability doesn't leach into everything they publish. Things like op-ed pieces, gossip columns, blog posts from commentators etc generally fall outside the reliable sources envelope, even if the publication is otherwise considered a relable source. We need HARD news reports in reliable sources to even consider including this - not blog style opinion posts. Exxolon (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS allows blogs from professional journalists such as those appearing on mainstream newspaper and magazine websites. Also the editors of the 100+[REDACTED] articles that link or use Toronto Life magazine as a reference will be surprised to learn that it's a "celebrity gossip sheet". Sure looks to be equivalent to similar monthly city magazines like New York (magazine), Los Angeles (magazine), Washingtonian (magazine), etc. Maclean's is compared with U.S. News and World Report. The editors of the 1000+ articles that link to or use Maclean's as a source might also be surprised to learn that it is only "occassional"ly reliable. Again, the references listed above aren't being used to source any accusations against this person substantiate any gossip, only that he was the subject of scrutiny due to the videos resurfacing. --RadioFan (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Google, less than 500 pages link to macleans.ca - a lot of them are (surprise) universities. The links to Toronto Life are mostly from celebrity articles. But this isn't about the detail of the references - you're in total violation of WP:BLP. AJRG (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Stringing these gossipy articles on some youtube montage together effectively turns the BLP into a hit-piece; the result is wholly inappropriate. –xeno 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The content & sources heavily suggest that they think it means the guy looks like a paedophile or creepy around children. I'd call that a pretty strong suggestion/opinion needed rock solid sources (i.e. in depth analysis or an authorities investigation rather than "heres a really creepy video someone made") :) --Errant Tmorton166 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I'm failing to see how a claim that the videos were the subject of discussion recently is an exceptional claim. Shouldn't we be discussing what was written in the Misplaced Pages article and not what the sources might be suggesting or even on versions of the article that have been removed from public view? This Misplaced Pages article makes no suggestions that the guy looks or acts like a pedophile. You are also absolutely correct that rock solid sources would be necessary to include any accusations of pedophilia but those claims have been correctly removed from the article and are no longer publicly visible.--RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still see no compelling reason for us to become a vehicle for the spread of titillating claims that just happen to be the gossip-of-the-week. See also relevant comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28#"the primary vehicle" vs "a vehicle". –xeno 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I am confused what you are arguing for; if there was a substantial claim of "creepiness" or worse along with these videos then with the right sources it would be notable. But there isn't. It is just a video someone made and that someone else called creepy, and because that is a "hot topic" at the moment it made it to a few opinion blogs. The same will happen with something else next month etc etc. I see no notability in his life story... but the sources are very suggestive and linking to them is unfair to his character --Errant Tmorton166 19:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If the argument being made here is essentially that the discussion of the video is of little relevance, I can go along with that and agree that it should be left out of the article. However the discussion got widely sidetracked with suggestions that the article included accusations of pedophilia despite the fact that those had been removed. As long as we are all discussing the same thing, which I dont think we were for a while there.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reading the extended discussion I strongly support keeping this low grade titillation out, its viral rubbish. I semi protected the Moms article and the unconfirmed users are simply posting what they can on the talkpage, I will go and no-index it. If anyone is watching please watch out for BLP violations on that talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

Aside from Radiofan, I can't see anyone in favour of including this unless and until mainstream reliable sources pick it up, at which point we can revisit it. Can we mark this resolved in favour of keeping it out of the article? If Radiofan strongly disagrees they can open an RFC for wider input. Exxolon (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Halevy

Halevy appears to be a barely notable fitness trainer. Most of the editing to the article has been done by WP:SPAs. As a result, the article contains a great deal of poorly sourced and unsourced information. The article is often used as a battleground between fans and his detractors. I think the article should be trimmed to a near stub, unless much better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The article appears to be a bit fluffy and promotional, with a dash of COI thrown in, basically the gentleman is a personal trainer and certified fitness coach in Manhattan. and could well be not very wiki notable with a few little mentions in fitness sections and lower grade write ups. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Any objections to trimming it down? --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Why not simply propose it for deletion?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I've looked at the edit history. My goodness! This doesn't appear to be a fans-and-detractors issue, but rather two people who have fallen out over business dealings, one or both of whom are abusing Misplaced Pages as a battleground.

  It's worth reviewing John Sitaras (AfD discussion) here, partly because it's apparently the other side of the coin (with yet more single-purpose accounts) and partly because from that you'll find a still-accessible copy of the the Men's Vogue article whose citation was erased in this edit. For what it's worth, that information wasn't unsourced because the source didn't exist, as claimed. However, there is no actual mention of this person in that article. I suspect that the original writer of the content was using that source to justify "exclusive". The other source cited there, the CBC article, does support the rest of the statement, but doesn't support "exclusive". Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the responses. Yes, at least some of the editors appear to be people working for his former employer.
  • After reviewing the references more closely, I am going ahead with the AfD recommendations. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, from the AfD page:

• • And yet even further Halevy is a spokesperson for a national brand by the creator of vitaminwater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ix_M0Jvpq4 - 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO in these links. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's the definition: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
    • So a fitness expert who's on TV regularly, is an authority on certain subjects, has written articles, spoken internationally, and represents a national brand isnt significant? How many trainers do you know that meet have done this? What would that make Halevy represent -- maybe 1% at most of fitness entities? Exactly. This meets Misplaced Pages's exact criteria. If you think I'm wrong, walk into a gym and see how many trainers there have done any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.3.102 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Just came across this discussion, and from an outsider's perspective (I had absolutely no idea who this was before stumbling on this BOLP thread), I'd say that Halevy is borderline notable. Sources are borderline as well. I would suggest perhaps giving him the benefit of doubt for now, and keeping this as a stub to be expanded on as his notability seems to be on the rise, i.e. possible that more (and better) sources are to follow. Those parties who are suspiciously "interested" in Mr. Halevey's promotion need to take a step back and let some outside editors determine valid info. You can post some sources on my page if you want me to look at them. I'm sure others would be happy to help as well. It's not so much that the info is bad, but that there seems to be some POV issues and if you get and outside perspective, the info you want to include is much more likely to remain. Anyway, I suggest revisiting AFD in a couple of months if no new info or better sources turn up. Just my 2 cents. The Eskimo 15:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)

• Halevy was named as one of "America's Ultimate Experts" in July 19th Woman's World - the largest selling woman's magazine. Updated entry including ref + exact page number. > added to AfD page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Halevy

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian McGinlay

90.197.224.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added allegations to the Brian McGinlay in this edit. I am not convinced that the source is sufficient for a lot of that material and, after being asked by the IP to take a look at the source, raised those issues on the talk page. Which was ignored along with the comment Thanks for that, although I'm not sure your personal reflections on the subject matter are of any relevance. Rather I simply wanted you to confirm what was in the source so I can put it back in the article. I'm struggling to see this user maintaining GF... so can someone else try and explain the issue with the content. The text of the source is posted here temporarily so you can see it (my concerns are that the allegations are all on or two lines in the source which does not constitute reasonable coverage) --Errant Tmorton166 07:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But the "allegations" were published in national newspapers, see WP:WELLKNOWN. Accordingly I suspect it is you who has the issues and require the explaining to. I stand by my comment - with all due respect - it doesn't matter what you think about the material, but what is in the sources. If you or other editors you are friendly with find it objectionable that is no reason in itself to exclude it from the article. I hope this helps you to understand. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, much of it is incidental information in a report about the fraud allegations. You need, I think, a much better source about, say, the toilet incident. It's also worth pointing out you put it in the Sexuality section - can you see how that is making a connection that the source doesn't make comment on? We have no information on that event and certainly no indication it relates to his sexuality. :) You can cite WP:WELLKNOWN if you like - but it actually invalidates this source for most of the info you added. I dislike the comment If you or other editors you are friendly with find it objectionable, this has nothing to do with objectionable. Trust me :) allegations of gay sex (what is that about BTW? it's a very vague assertion in the article...) are certainly nothing I would find objectionable :) --Errant Tmorton166 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations in tabloid newspapers don't qualify as WP:RS. The article massively fails BLP standards and references to the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the Daily Record need to go. Misplaced Pages is better than this. AJRG (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment the 1987 matter is not an allegation but a matter of public record which is significantly documented in the Daily Record. The Times also covers the 'late night incident' which brought about his early retirement. How do you propose we conceal all this information/sources while expanding the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.224.58 (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have remopved the disputed content, please don't replace it without consensus support here. The content and the citations are awful, the toilet incident where there was no conviction, in a section titled sexuality and then adding that he left his wife the same year is a pure and simple attack content. Off2riorob (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - another IP has appeared adding the same content back. Just a heads up. --Errant Tmorton166 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agim Ceku

Agim Ceku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has reverted to its previous state before editing by me. Mr Ceku is not married to the sister of the Serbian General Staff, and such an allegation would be considered libellous in Kosovo. He is married to Dragica Punos, not Ponos. She is no relation to General Ponos, and has only one brother who is 35 years old. Mr Ceku does not spend most of his time in Croatia but in Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.7 (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? I agree that the reference cited in the article doesn't support the current wording, but it doesn't give her surname either. AJRG (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Strachan

194.80.52.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding this content to the Gordon Strachan article. The wording seems non-neutral to me. Also there were other concerns raised by other editors over the context of the inclusion. I am at the limit of WP:3RR on this --Errant Tmorton166 11:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - sourced to a quality source and is clearly a direct quotation. Suggest you add a counterquote from the source from Strachan being "suprised and disappointed" by the comment to balance things up perhaps? Exxolon (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Coolio - the quote itself never concerned me. Only the wording. I never re-added it because others reverted due to the content --Errant Tmorton166 11:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper this seems to be part of a long running feud between the two men. Perhaps a section in the article could document this in a bit more detail to give this kind of thing some more context. Exxolon (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are dead right. I added a section at the end of his managerial career section. --Errant Tmorton166 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

David Kernell

I'm a bit concerned about the status of David Kernell. I don't want to turn this into a he-said-she-said, but I think our BLP policy about what to do with articles about people who are notable only for one event (in this case, the Sarah Palin email hack) is pretty clear. User:Constitutionguard, who it should be understood is a relatively new user, prefers to keep David Kernell as an article about the man rather than redirecting it to Sarah Palin email hack. I have argued against it, and tried to keep it as a redirect, but I don't want to be edit warring really so I'm hoping exposing this to some more eyes can help Constitutionguard see that this isn't the right tack to take. (I should note that David Kernell has been nominated for deletion here, where Constitutionguard offers more of an explanation of what he'd like to see.) I'm a bit at a loss as to how to help him proceed in the proper direction at this point, since his reasoning is sound (Kernell shouldn't only be associated with the email hack incident), but his proposed solution is not (create an entire article on Kernell that only references the email hack incident, along with some probable WP:SYN about an attack on the U.S. Constitution as it stands now). Anyway, I'd appreciate a few more eyes here. — e. ripley\ 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• AFD discussion closed, article now redirects. This appears to be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Biographies re-listed at AFD

• Jason Mohr (AfD discussion)
• Jeff Horowitz (AfD discussion)
• Melkamu Tebeje (AfD discussion)
• Josh Evin (AfD discussion)
• Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen (AfD discussion)

All of the above biographies of living persons have been re-listed twice at AFD because of low participation in the discussions. Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Jones

Jeffrey Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I took a look at this article following a request at WP:RFPP ("vandal" was removing section). The section in question appeared, to me, to be largely poorly-sourced (primary sources (court documents) and The Smoking Gun...) I reverted the most recent addition, and semi-protected the page for a week.

I'd appreciate more eyes on this, and I'll accept a {{trout}} if I'm simply being paranoid ;-)

TFOWR 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some users like the smoking gun we have 971 links to it. I don't like it myself a and find it sensationalist and tabloid, but I have seen it defended at WP:RSN. This content has been in and out for some time, imo we should have a simple comment about the offense and the result supported by the stronger of the citations and leave it at that. It is ongoing presently because he appears to be having issues registering correctly, it happened previously and was dropped, but imo unless there is an official punishment that is a minor issue and simply bloats the section and gives it undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is replaceable if a bit bloated, anyone is welcome to disagree.....I think the semi protection is a very good idea.If we wanted to take some weight out of it we could remove the failed issues, like the civil suit was a non event, that is not really notable and failing to register is not notable unless it comes to anything. After a discussion with User:TFOWR I replaced the majority of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I'm more than happy with Off2riorob's replacement. Happier still that I dodged a {{trout}}...! TFOWR 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was the one who raised the complaint regarding people removing stuff from the J Jones article. The fact that he has been arrested & charged MULTIPLE TIMES for failing to register as a sex offender is a big deal. He is facing up to three years in prison. His child porn conviction was not a minor deal. Maybe in the UK such things are looked at differently. But in the U.S. it is a HUGE deal. Either you register or you don't, and if you don't, you go to prison. It's as simple as that. Some states, such as California, can chose to incarcerate these people indefinately, even after they have already served their prison sentence. Someone has been trying to white-wash this guy's page. That is why I bitched and asked for it to be protected.

The reason why I included the reference to Pee-wee Herman is because BOTH men were under investigation as a result of ONE complaint by a 14 year old boy. Pee-wee Herman is also a well known movie star AND a sex offender. So the fact that the two of them were involved in a child porn complaint is relevant and important.

As far as the news sources that I cited, you may not be familiar with some of their names because you are not from the U.S. For example, The Smoking Gun website is owned by owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner Broadcasting (aka: CNN the cable news channel). While I don't agree with their political bent, they are highly reputable.

To say that failing to register is a 'minor' issue is to ignore the seriousness with which Americans treat the issue of sex offenders. Your Pete Townsend of the Who was almost barred from entering the U.S. on account of his 'issue' with child pornography and the NFL took a lot of heat with regards to him being here.24.243.2.132 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Buttigieg

Peter Buttigieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a notable person as per the WP:Auto standards. Buttigieg is only 28 years old and is running for his first elected office. There has been minimal media coverage sourced on the page and the coverage he has received has been obscure (the majority of the links are the party website and his own site). The information located on his page is comparable to his campaign website and is nothing more than a campaign ad. Redwngr333 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User Trudyjh at article Oksana Grigorieva

• Trudyjh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have some concerns about this user's edits at the WP:BLP article, Oksana Grigorieva. At the talk page, editors have come to a consensus regarding previous WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the section, Personal life, please see talk page discussion subsection, Talk:Oksana_Grigorieva#Undue_weight_in_Personal_life_sect.

However, the nature of edits by Trudyjh (talk · contribs) seems singularly focused on advancing a particular concerning POV, within this particular Personal life subsection. See edits, including:

• - adding unsourced contentious info to BLP page.
• - adding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to lede of BLP page.
• - adding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to Personal life section.
• - POV-pushing in Personal life section, note phrasing (repeatedly added), "her senior...", etc.

I have posted multiple requests to User talk:Trudyjh, asking the user to engage in discussion at the article's talk page. The user has refused to do so. Perhaps it would be helpful for another editor or admin to attempt to bring up these issues with this user, at the account's user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to Fences and windows (talk · contribs)! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

John Zuccarini

John Zuccarini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've just blocked a new editor for edit warring at John Zuccarini; this guy was convicted under cybersquatting laws. This bio needs cleanup and better sourcing. Fences&Windows 01:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Danielle Staub

• Danielle Staub (AfD discussion)
• Real Housewives of New Jersey#Danielle Staub

This is quite concerning. We have biographical material asserting an identification of this person, sourced to sources that, if one actually reads them, one finds carefully do not do so. We have the person concerned denying the identification very angrily. And we have public challenges to the legitimacy of the book that is the original source. Oh, and we also have a quite appalling track record of BLP vandalism, from editors both with and without accounts, in the history of both articles. I've cut much of the badly sourced content out of the second article and set the pending changes level to match that of the first. Further excision may be in order. Have a look at what is left. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the last bit in the second article, which referenced "vague references". I don't know about the rest of that section, or even that whole article, as it seems to be loaded with negative unsourced material.  –Joshua Scott  06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Image being used in Sex tourism

This isn't the first time we've had an image problem here, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Image BLP.3F. We now have an image on Commons, depicting two unnamed men, whose permission we don't have, with the clear suggestion that they are sex tourists. If I'm right and we shouldn't be using this file on the English Misplaced Pages, is there any Commons BLP issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's from the US State Dept. and clearly attributed as such. Though the larger issue is that it is a violation of NPOV to suggest that it could be a BLP issue. Misplaced Pages should be neutral; to remove photos solely on the belief that prostitution is wrong and depicting someone engaged in is defamatory is clearly asserting a POV. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This NPOV vs BLP stuff is nonsense. The point of BLP is to remove information that, if untrue, has a reasonable possibility of being hurtful to, damaging to, or otherwise unwelcomed by, the subject. Thus such "negative" information is removed unless verified. It is not POV to take a reasonable guess as to what a subject might reasonably object to. If we followed your line of reasoning, we'd not remove unreferenced remarks like "Joe was an antisemite" or "Bob was a self-confessed paedophile", because calling anti-Semitism or paedophilia "negative" would be POV. Articles should remain neutral, but in protecting living individuals against unfair remarks that are likely to offend them, we can use reasonable subjective assessments of what is likely to be harmful or objectionable. Most people, who are not prostitutes, would object to be called, or identified as, prostitutes (or indeed sex-tourists), and thus for the purposes of BLP, the inference is negative and requires us to take care of our sources.--Scott Mac 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we have no way of knowing what people might object to, then by your reasoning we must remove nearly all photos from Misplaced Pages. To single out and target sex work-related photos is asserting a bias; it's equivalent to saying the official position of Misplaced Pages is that sex work is shameful and wrong. Either NPOV is a core policy or it isn't. TJ Black (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The site the photo was copied from does not state that these men are involved in sex tourism (WP:OR anyone?); in fact, it doesn't indicate whether the photo is real or staged or merely illustrative. Without either a clear reference or the permission of the subjects, the assertion that the people in the photo are engaged in soliciting prostitution is a problem. NPOV doesn't mean we throw common sense out the window - making a claim that a living person engaged in or solicited prostitution (a crime in many nations) is contentious. Shell 06:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find any number of photos on Misplaced Pages that could potentially have been staged or not really depict what they immediately appear to. Unless you're proposing they all get deleted than there's a clear bias at work here. TJ Black (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly inappropriate to include a photo of two men as an example of sex tourism without any sourcing that these particular men are engaged in sex tourism - even with sourcing it would be a problem. Hypothetical arguments and reductions to the absurd aren't very helpful here. The bottom line is we can't lightly imply that people are engaged in sex crimes. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to address any of those photos as well, so long as you aren't silly about it (see WP:POINT if you aren't sure what that means). The point here is that you have no solid reference nor permission from the subjects so this particular image is being used inappropriately - that things might be wrong elsewhere doesn't make ignoring the rules acceptable in this case. Shell 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Above, an argument is made that it violates NPOV to claim that two guys might object to being used to illustrate Sex tourism. That argument violates commonsense: Misplaced Pages does not need to decide whether using a prostitute is good or bad since we do not right social wrongs – we just reflect the real world. Of course it is reasonable to assume that John Citizen would object to being labeled as a "potential customer" in Thailand.

The original image is #8 (here) with a caption that is even worse than ours. In recent months, Misplaced Pages has been getting a lot more BLP conscious, mainly from a sense of what is ethical rather than what is legal, but I do not know of any clear guideline for a case like this. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. The main concerns, as I see it, are that the two males are recognisable, and that they are identified as "potential customers" of the two women (who I agree are clearly prostitutes, but since they're only seen from the rear they are not clearly identifiable). I think these concerns can be met by doing two things: (1) blur the faces of the two men - I see that this has been partially done for the left-hand man but not for the one on the right, for some reason - (2) and change the caption from "Prostitutes talk to potential customers..." to "Prostitutes talk to Western tourists ..." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The thought that we could fuzz out the faces of the two alleged abusers is reflective of the fact that the picture is contensious and adding it is controversial and as such it is a simple solution to leave the picture out. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearcut BLP violation - we cannot imply someone uses the services of sex workers without clear evidence. Find a better picture. Exxolon (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the additional point that the photo is almost certainly a copyright violation. The photo is clearly marked at the original source as being (c) 2005 by Kay Chernush. The copyright page of the site says "You do not have to contact the State Department in order to use the photos in this Web site (tipphotos.state.gov), but they must be used with the credit:"Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department." - notice that we do not do this, and this vague statement is not a clear copyright license.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure we do. That exact credit is on the photo page on commons, that's what we do when attribution is requested. If that weren't sufficient, every single photo that required attribution would be copyright violation, since we put all attributions like that. Also, of course, photos produced by the US Federal government are public domain. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're a bit off the mark with this one, Jimbo. The copyright page is clear enough about the terms of use , which amount to PD with attribution. No claim of exclusivity or copyright is made. Note that the images are attributed to "Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department" - in other words, they're clearly a work produced for the US government, not just images that the USG has licensed from the photographer. If the USG didn't own the images it wouldn't have the right to say how they should be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the photo is indeed public domain, then the context in which it is used is a non-issue unless a complaint is made directly by one of the men in the picture. In that case, we can remove the picture out of courtesy, but I think for now it is fair for us to assume that the State Dept. obtained these men's permission before posting their picture in the public domain for anyone to access.The Eskimo —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

Why do you think that's the case? I'd be surprised if that happened. Dougweller (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP

An editor has entered and, after I deleted it, reverted at this diff a report carried by the International Socialist Organization in its Socialist Worker-USA publication. The report said that it had deleted an interview with Gilad Atzmon because of allegations against him made in letters to the editor. As I explained to the editor at at this diff] this edit violates both Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources and especially Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 which reads: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Additionally, this edit ads no new information but is just part of the piling on of allegations against him, turning his BLP into a WP:Attack page.

Socialist Worker USA is not used as a reliable source in any other[REDACTED] article, so I considered it just an advocacy group outlet and haven’t bother to go to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But if that seems the more appropriate place, I will bring it there. (Frankly, it's not clear in this situation which board to approach first.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol has misconstrued the situation.

• (a) Does Socialist Worker -- a newspaper for more than 40 years -- even count as "self-published"? By that standard, are all newspapers are "self-published" in the same sense? Is every masthead editorial ever printed now disallowed on Misplaced Pages?
• (b) Even if we accept, as I do not, that "self-published" is the proper category for SocialistWorker, self-published articles can be used to establish that the self-publisher has indeed said something; they just can't be used to assert the truth of what that self-publisher has said. If X self-publishes, "I think Y is Z", then the site can't be used to substantiate the claim "Y is Z", but it can be used to substantiate the claim that X said Y is Z.
• (c) The BLP article in question has several articles from the subject's own self-published website. If Carol really believes that self-published articles are verboten, why doesn't she complain about those, which have been there for years?

The particular case here is a newspaper that retracted an interview with the subject of a BLP article, citing letters that they'd received that the subject was a racist and bigot. The newspaper published two of those letters the next day. The citation was not to substantiate the absolute claim that the subject was a racist and a bigot, but the sourced claim that Socialist Worker had retracted their interview because they'd received letters calling him a racist and a bigot, and decided they agreed. To cite their editorial statement to this effect as WP:RS for the claim "Socialist Worker retracted the interview and gave their reasons" is not a violation of WP:RS. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced, but does it deserve mention in a biography? Without independent sources, I'd say it probably doesn't, but certainly not in such detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So your saying that socialistworker.org (which still is not working btw) did an interview with a guy, some people wrote in saying he is a racist and a bigot, socialistworker.org agree and retract the interview with that as the excuse. And you think it is ok to call a BLP a racist and bigot using a third party partisan site why exactly? mark nutley (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you're asking, but I'm saying that while the information is verified, it probably doesn't belong in the article, and certainly doesn't deserve such a lengthy presentation in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Mark, try to understand what I'm saying. I did not use the Socialist Worker citation "to call a BLP a racist and bigot." Let me repeat that: I did not use the Socialist Worker citation "to call a BLP a racist and bigot." That wouldn't be WP:RS. I and most others who have spoken up agree that the citation can be used to support the claim that Socialist Worker has called the BLP a racist and bigot. Whether or not it's a true claim that the guy is a bigot, it's certainly a true claim that Socialist Worker has called him a bigot, and the latter is what I seek to document, and there is agreement that the source is WP:RS for that claim. This in an important distinction and you would do well to note it. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That site is still down, and has been since i got involved here. Until such a time as they sort their server out i request you do not reinsert the content until it can be checked. mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Found it via google cache. The article you are using as a source is i think this one? If so then it can`t be used, those are letters to the editor being printed and calling a BLP all manner of things. mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone to the site. The editorial statement I'm looking at is called "An article retracted." I have just loaded the page three or four times in a row so I can't explain your inability to reach the page. Try this Google cache: RT-LAMP (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The cache copy worked, i still am of the opinon that this magazine is not a suitable source to claim in a blp that the subject is a holocaust denier. How much press coverage has this received? I suspect it also falls under wp:undue mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The text removed from the article does not declare the subject a Holocaust denier and does not use the SW source to undergird that claim. -- it goes no farther than repeating with attribution Socialist Worker 's claim to have received letters stating the subject associates with Holocaust deniers, and repeating with attribution Socialist Worker 's decision, upon deciding the evidence was "damning," to withdraw their previously published interview. In light of this you may wish to reread the section you retracted from the entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is less how the source is being used but rather, should it be included at all? Unless the fact that Social Worker removed the interview received coverage in multiple reliable sources, then it's a rather insignificant fact and not worth inclusion. Shell 06:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a self published primary report and clearly is not suitable for inclusion. It is so accusatory and biased it is an awful thing to add. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Misplaced Pages policy stating that only sources positive or neutral toward the subject can be used in BPL. Is there one? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has published this and[REDACTED] isn't going to either. It like talking to yourself and then rushing off to add it to wikipedia, its rubbish, total POV rubbish.WP:TOTALPOVRUBBISH After publishing an in depth interview with ..... the socialistworker said that although the interview had no anti semitic comments or opinions, some unnamed people had written to them suggesting the interviewee is anti semetic so we have decided to retract the interview we published previously which as we said contained no anti semitic views or comments. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the editorial statement? It does not say "we got letters calling him an antisemite so we pulled the interview." It says, they got letters calling him an antisemite, and upon looking into it decided "The evidence for these serious charges is damning." That is quire a different matter than what you describe. It would be helpful if you could describe what you think separates this case from the case of quoting any other editorial statement. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the comments here? Multiple editors are saying that without an independent source, it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could describe what you think separates this case from the case of quoting any other editorial statement Simple. It is a character attack. Particularly as it was added to the article; which quite conclusively indicated that they believe he is a holocaust denier. It doesn't matter that it is just repeating what the socialist worker editor concluded; it is still, by indication, calling him a holocaust denier. I would say there needs to be a much wider body of evidence for a start - and from intensely reputable sources (i.e. not letters to the editor :)) --Errant Tmorton166 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none, but to post disparaging information it needs to be rock solid sourcing. The source presented here is not that. It is also giving undue weight to the story as it seems to have only been printed in this one magazine mark nutley (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Side comment: that whole section (on anti-Semitism) needs a pretty deep clean/rewrite. It's quite heavily written from the point of someone who agree he is an anti-Semite. That might be true but still needs to be dealt with neutrally. --Errant Tmorton166 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong. If the subject is an anti-semite, his views will have drawn comment in more mainstream sources with a somewhat wider circulation, which should be cited in preference over the Socialist Worker. And if they haven't, that marks the view of the Socialist Worker as a fringe view. --JN466 01:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The source should not be used to label the subject a holocaust denier. It could be used to note that Socialist Worker retracted an article on him on the grounds of his alleged anti-semitism, but only then if SW's actions are noteworthy (test: what other sources have commented about the action taken by SW?). --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather unsurprisingly, no one does seem to have commented on it. --JN466 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Thanks to all those who noted that mentioning this incident is not notable. Re: Errant Tmorton166's Side comment: that whole section (on anti-Semitism) needs a pretty deep clean/rewrite. It's quite heavily written from the point of someone who agree he is an anti-Semite. That might be true but still needs to be dealt with neutrally. Even worse, neutral info about him from highly WP:RS has been routinely removed by the same editors as WP:POV or WP:Coatrack, even as they keep piling on that section. (See this diff and same info after clarification at this diff.) I've been procrastinating on organizing and putting in new WP:RS info lately because of such reverts, but the common sense I've seen in this thread makes me more optimistic and I'll be sure to bring such examples of POV reverts here in the future. While it is true that Atzmon can be loose with his words, making it easy for enemies to cherry pick and use them out of context, it also is true that there are organized campaigns by left and right to shut up this high profile musician (and former Israeli IDF member) and to destroy his career. We can't let[REDACTED] be used for such purposes. (I bet the SWP people looked first at the WIKI article for information about him and read that section full of vitriolic opinion rants.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ozzy Osbourne

The personal life section needs much better sourcing, or the unsourced claims removed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything uncited and controversial or contentious should be removed. I would take it to the talkpage to allow anyone that finds supporting citations to replace it. Simple clear as day stuff can be tagged as uncited or likely easily sourced. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Darrell M. West

Darrell M. West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Material in following paragraph from article is biased and contentious.

"His book "Brain Gain" has earned praise from leading people. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Darrell West understands that more than any stimulus or bailout, the most important step we can take to strengthen America's long-term economic health is passing comprehensive immigration reform.... West provides the kind of facts and analysis we need to move the issue forward in Washington." Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush that "a key element in a high growth economic strategy is changing our immigration policies to enhance productivity and innovation. 'Brain Gain' provides a roadmap to do just that." Carnegie Corporation President Vartan Gregorian says 'Brain Gain' is an invaluable work that as dispassionately, factually, and objectively as possible analyzes the political and economic aspects of immigration and their effect on our nation. Writing with a level of thoughtfulness and intellectual rigor missing frm the current debate and informed by rich sources of data, Darrell West tackles the question of why, despite so much evidence that immigration brings substantial economic, intellectual and cultural benefit to the U.S., immigration policy has been so difficult to resolve. In doing so, he has helped raise the level of national discussion about this issue to a new, more enlightened level" (see book's back cover)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.86.131 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-19 02:45:05 (UTC)

• So why did you copy it here in its entirety? There's the article's talk page. There's the talk page of the editor who added the material. And, given that this is clearly DarrellWest (talk · contribs) copying the advertising blurb from xyr own book jacket into Misplaced Pages, there's the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest noticeboard. Moreover, what do you want done by others that you cannot already do yourself? Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Micah Jesse

• Micah Jesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Recent removals of cited information  Chzz  ►  04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

it:Alejandro Peña Esclusa

Alejandro_Peña_Esclusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• During 48 hours I have tried to make the Italian editors firsts correct the article that contains clearly libelous and unsourced claims, later had material translated from English and edited the page myself, but in every step of the way been met by opposition, reverts, and finally being blocked completely. They have no understanding of the rules for pages on living persons. This is a serious problem for the foundation that needs to be addressed from outside Italy, it appears. (At this very moment, somebody else has reverted the Undo of the last change, but we will see if it is allowed to stand this time.) Lindorm (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You were blocked for accusing other editors of being political mouthpieces, not for anything to do with that actual article. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not about me, this is about the veracity of the information and the libelous claims on the page on Alejandro Peña Esclusa! What is wrong with you? Can't you read??? The man is a political prisoner who risks torture and death in prison, and the libelous claims on Italian Misplaced Pages protects those who hold him, and you think that this is about ME? Are you for real? (BTW, his excuse for blocking me is a lie, but since he blocked me, I can't say it to his face. I was trying to prevent the character assassination of a political prisoner, but every effort to remove the patently libelous claims in the article was undone. To make the point I made it clear that he acted as a mouthpiece of Hugo Chavez, but I never said that he was one. I just said that he acted as if he was one, and that remains true no matter how much he puts his fingers in his ears. The article was libelous and it needed to be edited, and since nobody was doing it (the rules here are immediately, but I waited 48 hours) I had the text translated and edited. And what happens? Complete UNDO. Someone is really, really acting as an agent for Pena Esclusa's political enemy, which we all know is Hugo Chavez. A man's life is in the balance, and that guy let his ego get in the way. May God forgive him.) Lindorm (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You need to raise these issues on it.wiki - we have no sway there (as was pointed out). As it stands the en.wiki article is pretty biased so I've dropped it in my tag list to work on - thanks for the heads up on that.(comment added by User:Tmorton166) Off2riorob (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Which I cannot, since Vituzzu blocked me, conveniently, and that is the reason for bringing it up here. Every hour counts!!!!! That is why the rules say IMMEDIATELY. This is literally about life and death.Lindorm (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I highly doubt what was written on it.wiki will affect what the Venezuelan govt./courts decide to do (whether legally or not). It makes more sense to calmly approach the issue and work out what is accurate or not. --Errant Tmorton166 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I think you are seriously underestimating the power of the word. I didn't make that statement out of the blue but from knowledge of what impact this has. I tried to talk to them to no avail, and finally they blocked me from even making the case. I am trying to protect Misplaced Pages and them from a lawsuit, but they are their own worst enemies it seems. -And now a revert to the libelous text was made again today, plus they decided to block me permanently. Somebody else must help them now, I can't.Lindorm (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
              • I didn't make that statement out of the blue but from knowledge of what impact this has - if you have legitimate, authoritative and provable concerns there is a venue for you to raise them directly with Wikimedia people: WP:OTRS. Though, note, you have to have a legitimate concern and to demonstrate that the article on it.wiki is endangering his life. You probably need to represent the guy directly (I have no idea what their actual criteria is). I am trying to protect Misplaced Pages and them from a lawsuit - so are you worried about the content affecting him or us? Make your mind up :) Vaguely threatening lawsuits (or the potential for lawsuits) against WP in general or users is a no-no though. As I said; if there is a genuine concern this probably needs to go to OTRS. --Errant Tmorton166 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Thank you, FINALLY someone who contributes something useful. Look, I don't care about him but I do care about Human Rights, and Misplaced Pages, and when Misplaced Pages writes things that violate his Human Rights, the two coincide. Let me give you an example of how this works. A person (in the US) mentioned in a forum a statement on Italian Misplaced Pages, and the next one commented, "I saw that in this other site and thought it a lie for being so crazy, but if it says so on[REDACTED] I suppose it is true". The statement has no source and is the article is flagged as lacking sources and being unbiased. That is why those things have to be removed immediately. The rule was not created out of the blue. And as for courts in Venezuela, they have nothing to do with his release. This is an entirely political imprisonment, and the only thing that can set him free is if a global public opinion demands it. Which is why Misplaced Pages matters, and why Chavez supporters have a reason to try to smear him on Misplaced Pages. You have to understand that you are in the middle of a political PR battle here.Lindorm (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What is wrong with you? Can't you read??? ...and lay off the personal attacks, please. TFOWR 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Whatever it takes to save a man's life.Lindorm (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • That's the reason why I've blocked Lindorm for 36h on it.wiki. Anyway it.wiki has not a BLP policy but at least two trusytworthy users are dealing with the issue (if there's one). --Vituzzu (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I note that the translation from English was been reinserted by another user, and I hope that some Italian user will asap get on it fixing the grammatical errors, which surely are many, but I can't point that out since I was blocked. Unless there is another vandalic deletion leading to the reintroduction of the problem, and that is prevented from being removed, I will now consider this issue resolved.Lindorm (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • • As I can see your scope is not wiki's improvement but adpting wiki to your ideas and POV, furthermore you're ignoring en.wiki's policies or discussions (such as this one) have no effects on other wikis, finally personal attacks "never takes" and you **must** be polite, for all these reason I'm not so sure you'll ever be able to edit it.wiki. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • A brand new user, with his first edit. Seems unusual behavior... if it is a direct translation of the en.wiki copy then it needs serious work. The en.wiki is an weasely, badly sourced mess :) --Errant Tmorton166 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
              • • Vituzzu, you are so out of line. I have tried for 3 days to get patently illegal and libelous claims out of Misplaced Pages TO PROTECT[REDACTED] and all I have got for that is reverts and abuse. The one who does not belong is you.24.127.208.87 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Final word is that the reinserted text got removed again by Vituzzu. Since I was banned from even raising the issue at Italian Misplaced Pages, I have turned to the legal counsel of the Misplaced Pages Foundation. Over and out.Lindorm (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • To protect[REDACTED] putting a text full of mistakes? That's great! I think that's the main issue: you cannot understand Italian at all (the way you tried to write on it.wiki is quite clear from this point of view) and so you go on figuring "strange things" about page's content: content is quite similar to english page, just without the long section about the NGO but with italian politics reactions. The unreferenced part has just been hidden. Since you go on claiming that it.wiki's page is endangering his life I'm considering you has a troll and finally, take a look to your crosswiki edits (I've just seen you added on wikiquote a pov sentence about the supposed "constitutionality" of Honduras' troubles, which are considered by EU as a golpe), a pov-pusher. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Lindorm: You created your account 4 days ago, and in 4 days you violated the WP:SPA, WP:POV, WP:EW and WP:NPA policies. And you're doing theese things all over the wikis. Your indefinite block on itwiki is sacrosanct, and you should be blocked (IMO) in all wikis. On itwiki 5 admins out of 5 agreed with your block, so it seems to be right, isn't it? If you do not follow the rules we can not even begin to discuss Jalo 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And you should not discuss here about itwiki, since we have different policies (as we told you several times...) Jalo 09:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Take a piece of advice from someone with more experience: Don't embarrass yourselves by defending the indefensible. Jalo, if you don't want me to take it up here, and I can't take it up on Italian Misplaced Pages, then you are welcome to make your case in comments on blog.erlingsson.com Lindorm (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to add; I would probably have temp-banned you for your remarks/attacks and over concerns of SPA/POV editing on that wiki. As I suggested earlier if there are demonstrably libelous claims in the article I advise contacting OTRS because they can deal with it better in such situations. If you have evidence that this individuals life is in danger because of the wiki article (which seems quite dubious) stop typing here and go to OTRS - that, again, is the correct article. it.wiki is a separate entity to en.wiki and if they don't have the same policy as us, well, they don't have that policy. I advise calm and constructive contribution --Errant Tmorton166 12:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tmorton116, I'm one of the two or three guys which manage the most of these kind of issues via OTRS, so I'm used to be right dealing with similar stuffs ;p --Vituzzu (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

John Major Jenkins

Issues regarding hallucinogen use / advocacy, biased paraphrasing, poor sources and WP:SPA involvement:

• John Major Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jschiapas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VRTS ticket # 2010071410045091
• VRTS ticket # 2009021410023992
• VRTS ticket # 2010071310000121

Please review. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the books, but the "corrections" made by Chambers109 (talk · contribs) and clones are clearly incorrect. If there's a potential BLP problem, the entire sections (not just the paragraphs) includling hallucinogens should be blanked while the discussion is going on at OTRS or at the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that is the present state. However, if Jenkins did advocate hallucinogen use in his books, that would be notable and appropriate for inclusion. The extensive quotes which used to be in the article certainly appear to be advocating hallucinogen use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I saw, the subject does not advocate that, if you or anyone wants to add that claim, please provide independant secondary[REDACTED] reliable citations that support that claim, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I capitulate. I trust that will be a satisfactory "consensus", and have edited the article again. Misplaced Pages needn't obtain a copy of Jenkins' latest book, the "The 2012 Story", since that book is viewable with Amazon.com's "Look Inside" feature. I was able to view the critical pages 384, 395, 396, 397, 400, and 401. I assume Misplaced Pages can do the same. (Note that the publisher had to give Amazon permission to display that material.) Since Off2riorob's only objection is that Jenkins' advocacy of hallucinogens is inadequately sourced, I agree to remove all mention of advocacy, and will add that Jenkins denies advocating hallucinogens. I will cite Misplaced Pages's JzG as the source for that denial, since JzG insists that that denial be included, and has cited no source for it. I have expanded one quote, which Misplaced Pages can verify online.Jschiapas (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not add it again , there is no support for your content at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this one little point of contention is corrupting the integrity of the entire article. Perhaps all this effort should be focused on getting the article to a more encylcodic state rather than consiting primarily of excerpts from the subject's writings? The Eskimo —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

Eido Tai Shimano

Eido Tai Shimano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please look into the fact that Tao2911 reinserted again a section in Allegation of Misconduct which was excluded long ago. Now it is again with links to Tricycle blog. One link is to a letter of Aitken Roshi and this source was decided at ANI as not acceptable. Second link is to ZSS answer, which only one editor says it is OK at ANI. I do not think this is acceptable, but perhaps more senior editors can look into this matter. It is frustrating to see the same person inserting again and again the same stuff, sometimes re-published in different location on the internet and supported by the same group of people. Sorry, I cannot add internal links to lead you there. I do not know yet how to do it.Spt51 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard in question is actually RSN rather than ANI, , and some discussion has also happened here in the past.

Tao2911 has again reinserted inappropriately sourced material about Robert Aitken, contrary to the unanimous opinion on RSN. The second sentence and source in this edit has support from an editor on RSN, and I find it fine too. I have removed the first but not the second, and I ask other editors to keep an eye on this article. --Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spl1 for adding the links to my poor notice here. Your effort and effort of others is to no effect. As of the moment Tao already reversed your edit.Spt51 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I "reverted" what was added & left a comment r.e. this dscussion; it does seem badly sourced & POV (though a little borderline). --Errant Tmorton166 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I had the support and clearance at RSN of GRuban for my version - there was no unanimous decision against it whatsoever. this is an absolute lie, and a total manipulation of[REDACTED] process for a what is appearing more a more to be some sort of personal vendetta. Here is how my version read: "In May, 2010, Robert Aitken wrote an open letter to Shimano requesting he respond to allegations of sexual misconduct spanning "more than 40 years." Tricycle Magazine reported on the letter, and contacted Zen Studies Society for a statement. The president of the Society responded that due to unspecified "allegations of clergy misconduct", on July 4, 2010, both Eido Shimano and his wife had resigned from the ZSS board of directors after 42 years." This is perfectly accurate to sources and compltely NPOV. I had the support of another editor. There is a major "ownership" issue developing on this page with Slp1 and Stp51.Tao2911 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Over there it was recommended taking the problem here to BLP/N. You only had one reply to the RSN proposal which you then added 19 minutes later; for a BLP issue that includes a pretty wide allegation that is probably not reasonable consensus. Reading into the ongoing issue the particular source seems entirely inappropriate - I might support inclusion of the letter's existence with a better, solid and neutral source. --Errant Tmorton166 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you will allow the response to the letter written to the same source that reported on the letter, in response to that report, but not the report of the letter itself? Hmmmmmm. What interesting logic...Tao2911 (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. There is no bad logic involved; the first source repeats allegations, the second is a reasonable reference for the ZSS statement (which is factual) --Errant Tmorton166 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm, please. (Isn't Zen supposed to encourage that? :-) ) We all have the same goals here, to make the best encyclopedia we can. No need for accusations against other editors.

I was against including the note about the accusation, because it was so vague and indirect. But it's not just an accusation any more, it's a statement that the person in question has resigned his leadership of a rather important position, from Zen Studies Society, the organization in question, specifically saying that these accusations were why he resigned, printed in a reliable source, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. It's an important couple of sentences. --GRuban (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To Tao: Tricycle blog, as it says in its own words contacted ZSS when they discovered that paragraph from original statement about Shimano resignation was deleted from ZSS site. If you can read, Tao, than you can see what they say. Of course this was a part of comment in Aitken letter post, but this is the main reason they contacted ZSS. They did not ask for response to the letter. They could not do it legally, as I was informed. So stick to the facts, please, same as we editors try here. Please, do not accuse anyone and call names, which you are so quick to do. This is a discussion and we try to get consensus here.Spt51 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify; are you supporting the inclusion of the first source which reproduces the open letter as a source of allegations? That seems to violate WP:BLP policy because of the nature of the statement and where/how it was reported. I can see an argument for reporting the open letter, actually, but I think there needs to be clarification on a) whether the ZSS was referring to that particular allegation (it is not explicitly noted) and b) it would be better to have independent sourcing of the open letter (preferably with solid links to the resignation too). Bear in mind I know little about Zen :) but it looks pretty simply BLP policy --Errant Tmorton166 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I do not support the first part. I am strongly against it. I was not sure about the second part either, but I trust Spl1 decision.

I am responding here to Tao's "rationale" that we have the statement of resignation because of the Aitken letter thus the letter must be included. Please, read his response to me at the discussion page for Eido Tai Shimano and my response to him. Spt51 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. If I understand your comment there, you think the ZSS weren't directly influenced by Aitken's letter specifically, just by the many allegations. They may well have read lots of letters about these, not just Aitken's. Makes sense. Tao, any objection to taking out the part about the Aitken letter, as long as we keep the part sourced to the ZSS statement on Tricycle? After all, the important part is that Shimano resigned from the ZSS due to the allegations, not specifically that Aitken brought them up. Right? --GRuban (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think GRuban and Spt51 have identified the problem. There is no documented connection between the Aitken's open letter and the resignation. The proposed text implies that Tricycle asked for a response to this letter, which is not correct. The Tricycle Post says that they "contacted the Zen Studies Society (ZSS) regarding Eido Shimano Roshi’s status at the organization" , a very different matter. In addition, the Aitken letter is, as GRuban said on RSN, a request for comment about possible allegations. The Tricycle blog is by no means the best source and it makes serious accusations about allegations which no reliable source has published, apparently for legal reasons: if you read the responses to the tricycle blog from James Shaheen you will see that both Tricycle and another more mainstream publication (probably Village Voice, based on this) have declined to publish due to sourcing problems. Perhaps they will in the future. In which case the problem is solved. In the meantime, the Aitken stuff needs to stay out due to problems with poor sourcing, failed verifiability and original research.--Slp1 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to GRuban, not yourself (I never even saw your message as I replied) sorry. (also no idea why my text is streaming off the page.... uh... --Errant Tmorton166 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'm going to lose this one, but just to be perfectly clear: the Aitken letter is not some inconsequential blog rant by a disgruntled former student (of which there are many and sundry, across the web.) Slp1 says: "the Aitken stuff needs to stay out due to problems with poor sourcing, failed verifiability and original research." What? We should be reporting on the FACT of the letter, not disallowing it because of our personal opinion on its content. Aitken is not the source here: Tricycle is. That source is accepted. So why not what they are reporting on?

The fact of the letter is, I argue, in itself worthy of mention in entry - that is the only reason why I want it included, and the standard I used in phrasing the inclusion. Tricycle reported on it because of who wrote it, and the reaction it is causing in the Zen world. Aitken is (around) 90 years old, the most senior figure in American Rinzai Zen, in particular, but in "Western" Zen generally. This is something like if the Bishop of Canterbury wrote a letter to the Bishop of Boston that he also circulated publicly, saying "There are persistent reports you have slept with parishioners for 40 years, and we can no longer ignore them. Please make take some kind of action." Of course, this is predicated on there being evidence of this persistence - as we have in a section in the Shimano entry called "Allegations of Misconduct." I doubt it, but perhaps this analogy gives you some indication of weight of this exchange. Believe me, if it wasn't little ol' American Zen, but Catholics or Baptists, we would have CNN as source, not just Tricycle. But Zen? Who cares? Oh, I know, people involved in Buddhism. But who cares here about someone who is knowledgeable about that? He must just have some axe to grind, in collusion with a small cadre of evil stalking Zen web pirates (which Spt51 has accused me of over, and over, and over).

I would argue that the passage could be adjusted to make clearer that the Tricycle story included more than the letter from Aitken. But the way you have it now, it makes no sense. Why if its been since 1982 that there was any controversy is he suddenly retiring? The Aitken letter gives us some indication, saying that there are recent allegations, though the passage in the entry does not make any specific causal link to just Aitken's letter whatsoever. They are separate significant but clearly related events (as shown but them being reported as part of the same (very short) story). Also, the statement was not just a public statement, just issued without coercion (as is implied now). Tricycle had to request it.

Again, this is just cherry picking info from the source, with very little respect being given to the material as it was reported.

And Spt51: please ease up on the self-righteousness.Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

the Aitken letter is not some inconsequential blog rant by a disgruntled former student it has little impact who wrote the letter, it is the content and allegations in the letter that are the issue. As it stands they make vague reference to allegations they can "no longer ignore", fair enough. To report on that in WP risks giving credence to the allegations - for which we have little or no evidence/backing. Currently no one reputable has openly drawn a solid link between this letter and his retirement; it is not appropriate, surely, for us to draw that association (as the previous wording insinuated). If there are more modern allegations from reputable sources then the letter is not appropriate - they are.

if it wasn't little ol' American Zen, but Catholics or Baptists, we would have CNN as source, not just Tricycle - you're probably right. And I do lament that with you. But it isn't a reasonable argument to include the content just because no reputable source will report this. Possibly in other articles it might stand - but in a BLP we simply have to take additional care.

The issue with the letter, as it stands, is that the allegations are not substantiated or dealt with. And there is no citeable source which reputably links the letter to his resignation. --Errant Tmorton166 14:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"just because no reputable source will report this." So you are saying Tricycle is not reputable? Why then are you allowing is as a source?

"it has little impact who wrote the letter" So you are saying that there is no difference if the President of the US writes an open letter to the Prime Minister of England that is posted on his official website, and then is reported on, versus you writing the same letter and publishing it on your blog? No difference? Really? Hmmm.

"for which we have little or no evidence/backing" Uh, we have the statement from the ZSS ITSELF saying that Shimano is resigning because of "allegations of sexual misconduct". Aitken only says that there are "allegations of sexual misconduct" and that Shimano should address them. there is no implication that one causes the other. Again, absolutely fallacious logic.

"it is not appropriate, surely, for us to draw that association (as the previous wording insinuated)" Then let's fix the wording, not toss out sourced facts.

"reputably links the letter to his resignation". who says they should be linked? They are separate facts, both equally significant, and both are only known through the same story and source.Tao2911 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course sources can be treated differently. The resignation is factual and it seems fine to use the Tricycle reference for that. But the letter mentions vague allegations; if it had no bearing on his resignation it seems non-notable to include it. Certainly if a well respected person makes allegations that carries more weight than, as you say, me making the same allegations. But their notability within the field does not mean that their allegations are immediately reportable; the fact that the letter is so vague and reproduced on that article with additional commentary quite firmly links the letter to the resignation - something we can't substantiate (along with the allegations). It has no place in the article. Or put more simply: if we can comprehensively link the letter to the resignation and substantiate what allegations are being discussed and both are adequately reported then there may be a case for it's inclusion. --Errant Tmorton166 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I have to reiterate this: I am not arguing for inclusion of the Aitken letter mention as the reason Shimano resigned - but simply because the letter itself is significant. Because it is - as demonstrated by Tricycle printing it in full (along with the other ZSS website issue), subsequently forcing ZSS to make a statement.Tao2911 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You say "But their notability within the field does not mean that their allegations are immediately reportable": This is exactly the issue. Again, Aitken is NOT making allegations. He is saying allegations exist, as ZSS itself acknowledges, and (quite respectfully I should add) asking that Shimano please address them. Again, Aitken's stature is everything here. He couldn't be more significant.Tao2911 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ZSS itself proves that allegations do indeed exist. Aitken only says as much.Tao2911 (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The ZSS reference is fine because it explains, from the horses mouth, reasons for the resignation - there is no suggestion either way of the allegations being true or false. The letter on the other hand makes a direct allegations: There are many reports of your abuse of women published on the web which indicate that you have been involved in breaking the precepts over a period of more than 40 years.. The non-neutral language is problematic as well as the vagueness as to which reports are referenced. reports of your abuse of women is strong wording. --Errant Tmorton166 15:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tao2911, I appreciate that you seem to accept that you don't have support for your position; I prefer this formulation, as WP isn't a battleground, and isn't about winning and losing. I hope and expect that some more reliable sources about this matter will appear in the next weeks and months, and then we can of course include it. But I will try to clarify a few things; very few sources are considered good sources for everything. The BBC, for example, is usually a highly reliable source, but for medical and science articles (for example) the BBC isn't generally considered a reliable source.. It is the same with the Tricycle blog. I (and others, it appears) believe that it is an adequate reliable source for a statement from the ZSS, especially as it is informally confirmed by the list of board members on the ZSS website. On the other hand it is not a reliable source for controversial allegations about living people made in a blog and then quoted in the Tricycle blog, such as the claim that these allegations have been ongoing for 40 years. This is clear as determined by multiple editors here, on RSN and on the talkpage of the article. We know that allegations exist from much more reliable sources. Slp1 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"...is strong wording." Yes, exactly. For one highly reputable Buddhist elder and Zen master, who essentially developed the entire concept of "engaged Buddhism" and founded the Zen Peacemakers Order, to use such emphatic language exactly made the letter newsworthy. Again - LETTER. TO SHIMANO. Not "blog post" or aspersion cast to the wind. He also used the respectful and affectionate form of address "Dear Tai-san." The part you didn't include: "I would like to urge you to come forth and make a statement in response to these accusations. Sincerely yours". Your personal analysis and evaluation of the letter continues (to me) to be completely besides the point - it was reported by a specialized news source, who recognized its import. Again, the fact of the letter is the issue - one religious leader to another. However, I read that lawsuits are pending, and Shimano has yet failed to make a statement, so news will surely follow.Tao2911 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

However, I read that lawsuits are pending, and Shimano has yet failed to make a statement; good, that may make it notable.

to use such emphatic language exactly made the letter newsworthy; but it does not add substantiation to the allegations. So fails WP:BLP

Not "blog post" or aspersion cast to the wind it was exactly both of those things. --Errant Tmorton166 17:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

no it wasn't. "yes it was!" no. "yes". blah blah. It was a letter, posted online, from the guy with a university archive of his papers documenting 40 years of allegations of misconduct as well as his other myriad calls (public and private) for Shimano to be held accountable. The time will come when we will have a source that can't be absurdly quibbled over like this. I emphatically disagree, as is clear, with your assessment.Tao2911 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal involvment makes it difficult for you to independantly judge the reliability and neutrality of the supporting citations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911, you are perfectly correct in your interpretation of Wp:Policy. Unfortunately this area of the site is stalked by editors with a veritable obsession for keeping BLPs "whitewashed" of any and all material they deem to be negative. They have quibbling over sources down to a fine art, Tmorton166 and Off2riorob are two prime examples. 90.207.76.207 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for personal attacks --Errant Tmorton166 08:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is false, and Tao2911's statements about policy above are incorrect. A way to illustrate the matter is to consider that for almost any person with some prominence in a field, you could find negative statements about the person on some website. Misplaced Pages absolutely does not report that a website has an open letter asking Joe Citizen whether he will resign because of his misconduct. We don't even do it when we "know" that Joe is guilty of misconduct, because there is no procedure to verify that knowledge. Instead, we do what the policies actually say (in particular, see WP:REDFLAG). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about Joe Public - we're talking about Eido's longest term colleague, onetime friend, and close peer, if not senior. Letter is newsworthy - hence, a news story about it. So, again, you completely miss the point. But you are happy there. Enjoy.Tao2911 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to not grasp the rules of a BLP on Misplaced Pages IP person. Any negative unsourced unverifiable false information must be removed. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point - whoops, too late for that - we are not actually talking about "negative unsourced unverifiable false information". We are talking about a letter, reprinted in full by a news source that is being accepted for another piece of information from the same story, that is from one esteemed Zen master to another. The fact of this letter is newsworthy and significant. That's why it was reported as news. The letter exists - it is neither unverified or false, or negative in itself. It calls for subject Shimano to respond to allegations of abuse. That's all. At some point, someone will write either the complete news story contextualizing the significance of this letter, or the the book, and we will have the source to posit this letter in context. It is different in kind from other accusations or discussions on the inet. This is what few seem to understand - but Tricycle did. Hence, their reprinting it in full in their story. Done. Ciao.Tao2911 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If and when it is reprinted in other books etc. you will find yourself back here, being confronted by the same stalwarts, who will be arguing that no source can ever be good enough... 90.207.76.207 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can of tend to agree - I think it can become an editor's pet project to keep articles from becoming subject to unwarranted slanderous material. I understand that threat, and have acted against it. I think however that this can lead to an inability to evaluate each case in its own particulars, losing sight of the whole picture. I think we are seeing much evidence of this here. Some real zealotry, masked by "anti-zealotry". Ironic.Tao2911 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I will say this only once (more). :) the letter makes direct allegations - unless those are substantiated then it is unusable. end of. --Errant Tmorton166 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Listen carefully, I will say this only once (more). No it doesn't. It says allegations exist - as confirmed by ZSS response to Tricycle report - and that Shimano should address them. Thus, saying that "allegations exist" "for 40 years" is more than demonstrable - the section itself at this very point says as much. Whatevs. "I said good day, sir!"Tao2911 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tao2911: Allegations exist == someone made an accusation. Why does the reader care? According to you these allegations have been extant for 40 years now, and they have yet to be proven. An accusation is not the same thing as proof—if it were, the jails would be even more full than they are. Until these allegations are reported by a reliable source as having been proven, reporting on them leads the reader to a conclusion not supported by the source. The reader doesn't care about unsubstantiated allegations: by presenting them, you imply that they have been substantiated. This violates WP:OR—forget about WP:BLP! This is unfortunate for you if you want to present this conclusion—Buddhists are notoriously loath to formally censure each other, and chances are that you will never have a source that reports more than accusations. But it's not Misplaced Pages's job to fix that. It's inappropriate to try someone in the court of public opinion using a Misplaced Pages page. That's the whole point of the extreme care that the Misplaced Pages guidelines urge us to exercise when editing biographies of living persons. Abhayakara (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tim Pallas

Tim Pallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slow-motion edit war over a few months. The vandal needs to get b&, and it wouldn't hurt if someone watched the page since in most cases the vandalism stuck around for about a week before being noticed. 76.211.5.153 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've revoked the privileges of the main vandalism-only account, and enabled pending changes on the article. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter

There are news reports of a 4chan attack going on against an 11 year old Florida girl who calls herself Jessi Slaughter online. The RL attacks have gotten so bad that the police have had to take her into protective custody. We've already gotten Jessi "Slaughter" Leonhardt and edits to the Cyber police article. Any sightings should be removed on sight. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an edit filter be set up? Fences&Windows 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

NY Confidential

• NY Confidential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being actively edited and is currently in a shocking state. I don't have time to deal with this now, but someone should radically overhaul this BLP catastrophe. -- zzuuzz 12:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed anything controversial and poorly cited and badly written, which left about eight words. Also left comment, "either write something decent and well cited or don't bother. This article could use a couple of additional watchers to stop any poorly cited claims returning. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I added in a sentence about Dupre which was supported in the citations & watched the article. --Errant Tmorton166 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. — e. ripley\ 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

• Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a former star of Gilligan's Island is under dispute regarding the inclusion/exclusion of an October 2007 arrest.

The arrest was widely reported in March 2008, e.g. . Wells was initially arrested for reckless driving and possession of marijuana. The arresting officer says she failed a sobriety test. She was sentenced to six months probation and a small fine in February 2008. Wells disputes that the marijuana belonged to her and says that a friend admitted it was theirs and served time for this. She says she was swerving as she was adjusting the heater controls on her car, and admits reckless driving. She and her lawyer said in March 2008 in an interview with Entertainment Tonight that the arresting officer was suspended and under investigation for issues connected with another arrest.

There is a long-running dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of the material: a vote in February resulted in support to exclude it on grounds of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The dispute is ongoing and the article is now under pending changes; I was invited to comment by one of the participants and I believe that further outside views are needed to resolve this. Fences&Windows 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this has been hashed out many times before...but the issue in question is NOT note-worth unless the person has a well establsihed (i.e. "reported on" by reliable media sources- NOT tabloids) history with the issues in question that in some way relates to the reason she is noteable in the first place: her acting career. In short, the info in question should not be included the article. Or the talk page for that matter. The Eskimo 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It has only been discussed among a small number of editors, which is why it needs outside views. There are reports outside tabloids. What is the basis in policy for the events needing to be related to what people are best known for? I am not aware of this convention. WP:WELLKNOWN states that "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It is relevant as it led to the withdrawal of a speaking engagement, indicating the potential impact on her career of the incident. Fences&Windows 16:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• My researches suggest that there are plenty of reliable sources about this from clearly non-tabloid newspapers and media including CBS USA today, and the Australian Daily Telegraph , that it should be included in the article. I don't think the level of detail needs to be that great, per WP:UNDUE, given that the article currently is pretty short on details about other matters. Slp1 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with Slp1. Given the length of the overall article 1-2 sentences should cover it. --Errant Tmorton166 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• This content has been discussed to death and rejected with quite a strong consensus of involved and uninvolved experienced users on the article talkpage. If someone wants to add something about this will they please present it and the supporting citations here for discussion, the prevous discussions revolved around rejection through undue and the fact that she was charged with this and that and not found guilty and someone else was found guilty and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor incident resulted in six months unsupervised probation for reckless driving. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the above editor is one of the four editors working to prevent the information from being in the article, and presenting the usual argument ("This has been discussed before!"). —Prhartcom (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is close to a WP:NPA. Please do not accuse me of such issues, I am a single editor working to improve the quality of the content in the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeh, I don't think the drugs are notable to be mentioned - as you say the charges were dropped etc. CBS seems the most neutral (least drugs focused) source so I propose something like....

On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party. She later pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving and was sentenced on Feb 29th 2009 to 6 months probation.

Thoughts? @Prhartcom - Off2riorob has a very legitimate view point :) no need to lay into him --Errant Tmorton166 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about something like this- I think we can mention the marijuana in part because Wells felt the need to explain it herself. In February 2008, Wells pleaded guilty to reckless driving and was fined, sentenced to five days in jail, and placed on probation for six months as part of a plea agreement in which other drug and alcohol-related charges were dropped. Wells and her attorney stated that marijuana found in her car belonged to others.--Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is undue commentary regarding issues that turned out to have nothing to do with her. The fact the she posted such a denial on her webspace doesn't make it notable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, I'm afraid. A conviction obviously has something to do with her; and her explanations came in media sources, not her website.--Slp1 (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she was convicted of reckless driving and received the minor punishment of six months unsupervised probation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the addition of the drug allegations in our article as she was innocent of those allegations, someone else was convicted of that. IMO Tmortons write is a very neurtal uninvolved addition, and he has added one cite and you can add another so that interested readers that want all the gory details can click on a link and read all about the allegations and suchlike.

• - On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party. She later pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and was sentenced on Feb 29th 2009 to 6 months unsupervised probation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• How about putting this suggestion on the talk page and see what editors there think? I think that should cover everyone's concerns. --CrohnieGal 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks --Errant Tmorton166 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully we are seeing reason over at Talk:Dawn Wells and it looks like we will no longer be censoring Misplaced Pages. But should we mention the marijuana or not? Please head over there and state your opinion. (Note: This is the only other place in Misplaced Pages I am writing this.) —Prhartcom (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Prhartcom, your comment of censorship does not assume any good faith. Disagree with the opinions expressed, and challenge the arguments presented, but don't dismiss what's been said by putting an incorrect label on it, just because you happen to disagree. It's good that this has been brought to a wider discussion. It's the most balanced discussion that has so far taken place on this subject. Tmorton's suggestion seems like a reasonable option to me, and I'll also say that at Talk:Dawn Wells. Rossrs (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just posted on the article talk page, nodding at Slp1's approach. It is appropriate that this get a small, neutral mention that hews to the facts in the better sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is wrong to mention marijuana at all. No conviction, no trial, just dropped charges. To mention this minor incident - the sort of thing that could happen to anyone - gives entirely the wrong impression. That tabloids went bonkers over it and she felt compelled to respond on her website is no excuse. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. Editorial judgment is important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course it's a minor incident; the irresponsible media ran with it because she's "Mary Ann". That's the significance; *they* damaged her. Thanks for highlighting that. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we've got the proposed new paragraph almost decided; I think it is down to two possible submissions. If you are interested, take a look and let us know which one you like better. (Note: This is the only other place in Misplaced Pages I am writing this.) Thanks. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Edits on Football articles

A week or so ago I (and others) ran into a dispute over edits to Football (predominantly scottish football) related articles. The IP 90.207.76.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back making the edits but I am too close to the subject now to make a sufficient call. this edit concerned me, I reworded that section from the original here and this new edit feels like putting the content back in a different way. Particularly I take issue with with an unconscious racism which is quoted out of the source (seems a little flowery for a bio) and the later content is verging close to the same issues previously. He/she has also been adding content back to Brian McGinlay that was rejected in the past. I could do with some more thoughts on this - esp as prior history suggest the IP may add back more disputed content. (point being - I don't want to cross over into making bad judgements) --Errant Tmorton166 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I didn't add the 'unconcious racism' quote in the first place but I don't agree with amending direct quotations to suit POV on the grounds that they are "too flowery." Your other edit to the Walters article was nonsense because he did indeed mention (racist) abuse but said that it was made worse by the object-throwing. I'd welcome more eyes on the McGinlay article because it is a BLP that is being whitewashed/censored on the most ridiculous of pretexts. Thanks, 90.207.76.207 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern with the wording was with an unconscious racism is wordy, an opinion and not really needed to report about the issue. There seems no need to dramatize the event. I'd have to dig the article out again to remember my exact concern over the last sentence - but I think it was because it was cherry picked. As to McGinlay, you want to add tabloid allegations that he quit over a "late night incident"... vague stuff about "charges over gay sex"... and about a fraud investigation. This was already well cleared at BLP/N as being not applicable to a biography because nothing was convicted (which for a start surely means it was untrue) :) --Errant Tmorton166 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your issues with the wording are nothing to do with me, but please don't breach WP:MOSQUOTE in altering direct quotations. I suggest that readers of this, your latest BLP/N, would be assisted if you could "remember your exact concerns" before posting.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. McGinlay resigned from the refereeing lists, on the eve of going to the World Cup, in relation to this matter. This received widespread coverage in, amongst others, The Times (which is not a tabloid). See WP:WELLKNOWN. Thanks 90.207.76.207 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Beck University

Joshuaingram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regarding the phrase Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page of the BLP guidelines, I'm concerned that this edit (comments made about a BLP Keith Olberman--intentionally misspelling the name and making reference to a political position that has not been sourced on the subjects page) on a talk page violates the guideline. I requested that the editor making the comments removed the statements, and they refused stating that I will absolutely not redact my comments unless an administrator comes and explains exactly what is absolutely unacceptable. I would have removed/reverted the possible violation myself, but am seeking assistance because I want to make sure I'm understanding the policy correctly myself (that I'm not in error). Akerans (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith Fimian

Keith Fimian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Keith Fimian, a candidate for Congress, read like it was written entirely by his polticial opponents. I rewrote the whole page, and some users, namely Critical Chris are re-adding the poorly sourced and potentially libelous information, and making the whole tone of the article negative. I took the article from this to this. The bias on the page is horrendous and needs to stop. BS24 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Anne Garrels

A rather bad biography including such outrageous polemics as "On October 26, 2007 NPR aired a story by Garrels that was mainly based on information extracted via torture. Garrels herself described the victims as "blood-soaked" and "sobbing", but used the information anyway, despite the fact that information obtained this way is notoriously unreliable."

I would edit it myself but I have to get some sleep now - gotta get up in 4 hours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The text was inserted on this edit. My first impression is that it is an original research; the user draw conclusions from the refs he/she used. Sole Soul (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph concerned is clearly original research and have removed it. --Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wang Hui

I'm concerned about the recent edits over Wang Hui (intellectual) by a new user, which seems to me might contain non-neutral opinions based on original research. I tried to remove the edits but realized that my reversions violated 3RR, so I decide to keep the redaction unchanged. I have already informed the editor User:Turk tab. I hope it can be reverted to an version where I tried to incorporate the contributions of the Turk tab. --Mondain (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Language barriers make the references extremely hard to check. Is there a Chinese speaker about to discuss them? --Errant Tmorton166 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, everything not about Wang Hui needs to go. That's most of the Problems in the Chinese Intellectual World section. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I scrubbed most of that - I'm not expert in the subject to comment on whether the dispute that seems ot be going on it notable in the academic community there; but it does need a more neutral rewrite. --Errant Tmorton166 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Goran Bregović

• Goran Bregović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - accusations of theft in article and Talk page. Not my field, not marked as a BLP at all (but it is), unsure how to deal, would appreciate experienced help, thanks. DBaK (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Specifically - in the article, under the section head "Musical Style", the third sentence which begins "although" mentions accusations but provides no reference. Then on the Talk page the last section header beginning "Discuss: Bregovic as an arranger" is itself potentially defamatory as is much of the content of the paragraph under this header. Someone clearly has an axe to grind: whether truly or not I wouldn't know but on its own and unreferenced it looks highly dubious in the light of my (extremely limited) understanding of policy. Hence my request for help from a grown-up! thanks DBaK (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I scrubbed that particular sentence due to the lack of references and NoIndexed the talk page (I am cautious of removing talk page comments that are misguided but made in Good Faith). --Errant Tmorton166 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for stepping in to help. What does NoIndex do, please? Presumably it's to do with leaving IN the allegations - which are I guess therefore *not* cause for serious alarm?? thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The BLP policy covers articles and talk pages. You're quite right to be concerned about assertions that a person is a thief on a talk page, even if those assertions are made as part of a request for sources for the same. Notice that I've refactored the heading and altered what User:Frankieparley wrote to preserve the substance of the request without repeating the unsourced allegation in the indicative mood. Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah yes, many thanks. Much less alarming in this version. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Wilson

Why does this article continue to have this note in the heading:

"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (October 2007)"?

There are several reliable sources listed in the references section, yet the unsightly exclamation point and note still remain.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Marie Payne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electromagnolia (talk • contribs) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of her biography is unsourced still. There are sources there for some sections but Musical beginnings and Musical association with M-Base are unsourced and Solo career/Personal Life are only lightly sourced. The tag is simply to highlight the fact that adequate sourcing is still needed for the content :) this is my brothers expertise area so I will try and get him to take a look later --Errant Tmorton166 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tales Schutz

It is about the name of the football player.

User:Hoiwa852 is keep changing the name of Tales Schutz to Tales Schütz (u to ü) without any source. There is a list in the article Schutz, with the name using 'u' instead of 'ü'. So which name should be used for Tales Schutz?--FootballHK (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• What name is used in sources? You're looking in the wrong place. Don't look elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Look to sources. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be supported by nothing but itself. It's supposed to be supported by what is recorded and published in the world at large. So put the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy into actual action. How does The Standard spell this person's name, for example? Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Accroding the sources, Schutz is used. But another user Hoiwa852 keep changing the name to Schütz, so what should I do? Thanks and sorry for my English.--FootballHK (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ask that editor what sources xe is using. Point to the verifiability policy for why you are asking. When you've got the two (sets of) conflicting sources side by side, look to see which ones are more likely to have checked the facts properly. Take into account how the world may differ on the subject of "ü"/"ue"/"u".

      If the other editor fails to provide sources, and of course you don't turn up any such sources yourself (You, also, should look.), ask for help from other editors in keeping the article in its verifiable state at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football. But look outside of Misplaced Pages for sources and ask for sources. These are two of the most important activities here at Misplaced Pages. Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Header change

I've added a new report into the header: Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. It is pretty much what it says it is,and though I've made a couple of stabs at it I'm afraid its much too big for me. Currently we have over 400 BLPs which are interwiki linked to other language wikipedias where the person is dead. In some cases the interwiki link will be wrong, and in many cases our article has been corrected but the tags and categories are no longer correct. Any volunteers to fix a few would be appreciated, most of these are somewhat problematic articles. ϢereSpielChequers 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of nontheists - a list of people identifying as atheists but we call them nontheists

Some time ago, Lists of atheists was renamed Lists of nontheists. In the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nontheism this has been discussed, and the basic argument for keeping the article is the distinction between nontheism and atheism. In any case, in the entire list I could only find one subject who called themselves a nontheist, all the others identify themselves as atheists. I consider it a BLP violation to call them atheists (and also a WP:VERIFY issue). Mainly because of the AfD discussion I moved most of the relevant articles back to say 'atheists', which has now been reverted by the person who did the original move. I'd like comments as to whether there is a BLP problem in calling self-professed atheists 'nontheists'. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a slight BLP problem in my mind. Anyone claiming to be atheist needs to be on Lists of atheists anyone claiming not to be atheist and those for whom it is uncertain should be on Lists of nontheists. There seems no need to generalise in the case where we know a specific. --Errant Tmorton166 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "nontheists" is improper for that article for several reasons: (1) the word "nontheist" does not exist an any reliable dictionary; (2) most readers of this encyclopedia have no idea what "nontheist" means; and (3) most people in the list (all?) did not identify themselves as "nontheists". Note that the article was named "List of atheists" for a long time, and was only recently changed to "list of nontheists", and that not many editors participated in the re-name discussion. In the spirit of compromise, how about "List of atheists and nontheists"? --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The only reason I raised the split idea is because I know some, uh, non-theists ;), don't consider themselves atheist because of the connotation or for other reasons (disclaimer: I come under the latter :)). Most probably don't care but it seems worth thinking about in terms of BLP policy. As it is I'd support a full move back to the atheism title with a note that it is being used as a general term. --Errant Tmorton166 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, Jimmy Wales is on the list. Now, I think I remember reading that Jimmy is an atheist. However, the cited source is Jimmy saying (in response to a question of faith and religion) "I'm a complete non-believer". That's not exactly the same thing - or is it?--Scott Mac 21:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That comment would just put him in the people who have said they are complete non believer category. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Asher Milgrom

Can somebody have a look into the article of Asher Milgrom?--Stone (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. It may be referenced, but it was clearly written to disparage.--Scott Mac 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Said Bourarach

Can someone take a look at Murder of Said Bourarach? It asserts in its title that a man was murdered (by certain living persons discussed in the article). But there appears to not have been either a confession (just the opposite) or conviction of the accused people. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• There was a dead body, though. Multiple sources (giving the correct date of the event, for starters) are already given in the AFD discussion. Feel free to take them in hand and write without mercy, rather that relying upon "someone". Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a dead body. The title says there was a murder, however (by living persons, as amplified in the article). There is a small but important distinction between saying a living person was arrested on suspicion of murder (or even charged with murder), and saying that a murder was in fact committed (when the suspects say that no murder was committed). It would appear to me that the title is a BLP issue, but as I've edited the article I would think it best for someone else to address that. "Death of...." would be more accurate, and avoid the BLP issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed it to "Death of ...". Crum375 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Many thanks, Crum.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death of Said Bourarach - see this too.--Scott Mac 10:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski

Wow, User:Hoping To Help/Roman Polanski is a HUGE BLP violation. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you would point out what parts you feel are BLP violations. I've copied a section of the existing article to my user space sandbox to see if I can improve it. I haven't made many changes yet and the ones I have are cited with WP:RS -- but if you have a particular objection I'd love to hear what you object to and why. Right now this draft article fragment is in a messy sandboxy state ... but if you want to be helpful you'll need to be more specific on how and where you feel it violates BLP. Hoping To Help (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The very first section, which just starts off with his arrest record, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • As Errant points out below and I stated above this is a SECTION of an existing article that I made a copy of to work on to see if I could improve it in private before showing it to the world for feedback. The first sentence that you object to is unchanged from the article that I borrowed it from. Of course this would violate WP:WEIGHT if it was a published stand alone article. But this is a small *segment* of an existing article in *draft* form. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • You have the wrong idea of a wiki. Nothing that you do here on the wiki, even on a userspace page, is "in private". Everything that you do here is public, and visible to the population of the planet. This is an important principle to remember. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Last night the content contained large swathes of what looked like copy and paste content from locations some of which that are not[REDACTED] reliable sources, the content has been trimmed to a third of its size since then, when I looked it was a whole POV write up that will never ever be useful to insert or improve in any way the actual[REDACTED] article. I see Doug has noindexed it now, which is good. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The content appears to come from this article; it all looks fine to me in that context. My knowledge of this case is actually quite extensive (I work in LE and this was one of my theory revision cases) and it all looks factual. I'd suggest NoIndex is a good idea and when Hoping To Help is done with improvements he gets a friendly admin to delete it - just in case --Errant Tmorton166 08:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist anyways. Here it was at its violating worst at 4am last night. Off2riorob (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, never noticed that :) --Errant Tmorton166 09:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I asked him about it late yesterday afternoon what he was doing there, and mentioned it to an Administrator. When I asked him it was at 8000 and after I spoke to him he increased the content with a lot of swathes of copyrighted and policy (BLP) violating text to 30000 from some reliable and some unreliable sources and then this thread was opened and he has since cut it back again. Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sources section was *never* meant to be published. It was just a place for me to collect information that some small part of which might *possibly* be integrated into the article. Yes, it was links and some direct cut and paste so at a glance I could see what those links were about. I moved them off of Misplaced Pages mainly because I realized it would be more convenient for me to store them elsewhere -- and b/c some of my longer clippings might have been copvio. But I guess my mistake was treating the sandbox like it was a private place to work on an article. My understanding is that the user spaces are not indexed and so that no one lands there from doing a search ... but maybe I'm wrong. ... Off2riorob(talk), I'm still curious why you're spending more energy trying to police my draft user-space sandbox article than you are the published main space article? You objected to a citation I had in the sandbox article that was only there because I copied it over from the main space article. Why didn't you object to the citation when it was used twice in a *published* article by some other editor? Hoping To Help (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I stopped looking at that awful article long ago, I stumbled on your article, it was visible to search engines and I saw no need for you to be creating it there, I still don't and your policy and BLP violations to the content after I spoke to you yesterday strengthen my feelings. Off2riorob (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, as we discussed here you pointed out two links you thought were WP:RS questionable -- which I actually appreciate the effort to help. I then explained that I was never intending to use those sources in the final article and one (http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html ) was just there because it was part of the original article that I copied from the main space (that some other editor had inserted). What I'm still curious about is that you are so worried about about it's inclusion in a *draft* sandbox user-space scratch pad -- yet you've allowed it to remain in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case even -- even after I pointed out to you that it exists twice in that main space published article? I guess I'm confused. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I was unable to help improve that article and it was being defended by multiple users and I came to think of it as a place to keep the policy violations and took it off my watchlist as it was awful to watch the additions and talkpage commentry. I concentrated my energy on attempting to keep the similar violations out of the main Polanski article, which I think was managed pretty well. As I said I stumbled on your article and it was easy to deal with so...you know the rest.Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious but why are you trying to rewrite a current article? Why don't you go to the talk page and make suggestions there or even be bold and edit the article? It doesn't make sense to be doing a rewrite since there are active editors there who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion. My suggestion would be to join the editors at the article and request a speedy deletion of the article you have in your sandbox since there are problems with it. --CrohnieGal 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why am I doing this? Because I think that the article could possibly be improved ... And I think improving it might involve rearranging/changing a number of sentences that I would have a hard time doing on a live article without messing things up. I've copied part of the article to a non-mainspace area so I can try out different ideas before I propose something. I may want to propose a new layout/structure -- but it is hard for me to do that without being able to tryout different versions and see how they read.

Your comment: "since there are active editors who will probably not be too happy to have all their work redone in this fashion." Seems like you might be unconsciously in violation of: WP:OWN Hoping To Help (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is now the second time you accuse me of ownership issues. I will tell you again, I have not edited this article. There is no ownership issues and I would appreciate it if you would stop saying this, please strike it out. Thank you, --CrohnieGal 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Elchin Khalilov

See Frams description Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination) for the concerns related to a self promotional walled garden. Someone has recently been aggressively and promotionally editing Elchin Khalilov one of the related articles. Active Banana (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of a reader's blog post as a source in a BLP (Climate change BLP)

The article on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley cites a statement by the British House of Lords that the subject of the article "is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." The cited source unfortunately appears to have disappeared into the archives but you can still see it here for the moment in the Google cache.

An individual using the name of "The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" has posted a response in comments at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/ , a blog run by a third party, arguing that the House of Lords is wrong and that Monckton is in fact a member. A Wikipedian argues here that it is "libelous" to include the House of Lords' statement that Monckton is not a member without including a citation to this blog post arguing that he is.

I see two problems with this: first, there is an absolute prohibition on using readers' posts as sources (WP:NEWSBLOG). As in all such cases, there's no guarantee that this is in fact written by the individual in question. Second, the blog in question would not meet the criteria of WP:BLPSPS, as it is not written or published by the subject. I also very much doubt whether we could use the subject as a reliable source on the membership rules of the House of Lords - as a self-governing body, the House is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. I'd appreciate some feedback from other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the blog post is bollocks anyway. "general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent" - rubbish, has he never heard of the doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament?--Scott Mac 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple of sources ,, which are Guardian newspaper blogs; not sure how they would rate in the reliability stakes, but the latter links to Monckton's explanation, giving it something of a nod, to my mind.--Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is a pretty weak claim of an authoritative comment from the house of lords, possible so weak as to be unusable. Surly there must be better claims somewhere? written by Judy Fahys of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that Barry Bickmore (someone Monkton was in a row with) has posted on Real Climate blog that he says Monckton is no member of the United Kingdom's House of Lords as he sometimes claims.. Monkton replied: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise." and then according to Bickmore he contacted the information office House of lords asking them if Monkton was a house of lords member and says he got the reply "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." ... all a bit weak to accuse someone of falsely claiming such a thing in my opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Monkton's explanation Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic link - includes statements insinuating a living person engaged in all kinds of malfeasance, and is selfpublished. If a reputable news agency picks it up, perhaps we can link to the reputable news agency. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Also noted in . I take no position on inclusion/exclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob that the Salt Lake Tribune citation has a bit too much hearsay to make me feel comfortable. Here's another source a Chicago Tribune article which says that "He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by a member's death." (see page 2)--Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Currently in the article cited to the SLT article we have this comment which is written as if we have an official announcement from the house of lords, we clearly don't have that at all.

the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."http://www.sltrib.com/ ..presently cited to the front page of the SLT, supporting a very poor and misleading unattributed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It actually appeared in the Tribune on April 9, 2010. You can find a copy at your local library, or you can read the cached web content by googling for "http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14856887?source=rss" and clicking on the first link's "cached" copy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I have seen it and read it, that is one of the reasons I am joining in the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found Monckton's comment also at SPPI here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The Salt Lake Tribune article states that SPPI sponsored Monckton so it is credible that he actually wrote it. I dispute that the House of Lords is the only definitive source of information on its own rules and composition. The dispute between Monckton and the (other?) Lords is a political and legal dispute. Misplaced Pages can trust neither side of such a dispute as definitive. If suggestions of dishonesty by Monckton are to be included, minimum decency requires at least one sentence for Monckton's defense of himself. If Monckton's defense is not included then no source of any level of reliability is sufficient to back Misplaced Pages including the libelous suggestion, and certainly not an obviously hostile Salt Lake Tribune article. In the guardian source above it is interesting to note that the House of Lords appears to call Monckton a Lord. So I guess the dispute is only about whether he is a member of the House of Lords, not whether he is a Lord. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well said. There has also been a related discussion on the article talkpage Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another page that goes into some more detail of this dispute http://worldreports.org/news/282_all_uk_legislation_passed_since_2000_is_null_and_void The page has very doubtful credibility but it includes some interesting letters such as this one about 40% down the page:

29 September 2008 : Column WA398:

House of Lords: Letters Patent Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government: By what means Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed; and in what legislation that has occurred. :

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):

The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can be changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application.

Thus, the Peerage Act 1963 allowed Peeresses in their own right to sit in the House of Lords regardless of the terms of any Letters Patent creating the peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of anyone to sit in the House by virtue of a hereditary peerage unless they were specifically excepted from the provisions. Conversely, the House of Lords decided in 1922 in the case of Viscountess Rhondda that the terms of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 were not sufficiently specific to allow her to take her seat in the Lords when her Letters Patent allowed her to inherit the peerage, but not the seat in the Lords. I am aware of only one case in which the effect of individual Letters Patent has been changed by Act of Parliament, which is that of the Duke of Marlborough in 1706. Mindbuilder (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)In short, Moncton is a "Lord" and has "Letters Patent" which state he can sit in the House of Lords, however in 1999 the House of Lords was substantially altered by legislation which (effectively) annuled such Letters Patent, though without specifically addressing each such. In a sense, the "Upper House" and the "House of Lords" are not necessarily congruent? Is that the gist of this entire teapot? Seems to me that the entire bit has only arcane relevance to anything at all. Collect (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's not correct. Letters Patent are what give someone the right to a peerage. They do not give the right of membership in the House of Lords. That comes from writs of summons, which are basically royal commands to attend the House. The House of Lords Act 1999 did not annul any Letters Patent - everyone who had a title kept it. Instead, it eliminated all but 92 hereditary peers from the pool of those eligible to receive writs of summons. Monckton only gained his peerage after the passage of the HoLA 1999 and therefore was never a member. The relevance of this is that his relationship with the Lords is of high importance - if he's a member that's highly notable, and he has repeatedly claimed or insinuated that he is one. Others, including the House of Lords itself, say that he is not a member. It's thus of intrinsic significance, as well as being covered in a number of reliable sources as a topic of controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well -- read the blank form for Letters Patent for Viscounts at which, as far as I can tell, is an authoritative source for. "

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts

Which, om its face, specifies "seat place and voice in the Parliaments". Your mileage apparently varies as to what this means. Collect (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This dates to 1992. The Forms of Letters Patent were amended in 2000 so that they now read:

Willing and by these Presents granting for Us Our heirs and successors that he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom amongst the Viscounts And also that he and his heirs male aforesaid successively may enjoy and use all the rights privileges pre-eminences immunities and advantages to the degree of a Viscount duly and of right belonging which Viscounts of Our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy

(I've used the 1992 text, striking according to the 2000 amendment. This is arguably my own WP:OR, but the 2000 amendment only indicates what to strike - it doesn't provide the full text). TFOWR 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But does that 2000 amendment change pre-existing letters patent or just new ones? Mindbuilder (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting - since he's the 3rd Viscount Letters Patent would have been issued to his grandfather using the pre-2000 Form (pre-1992 as well, but for our purposes here that's not really relevant) and it'll be that Form that the subject believes applies. Let me dig further... TFOWR 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article seems to be full of problematic BLP issues. For instance In 2004 Monckton advised a London-based employment firm which was investigated by the National Crime Squad probing an alleged immigration racket involving hundreds of eastern European migrants who were brought to Britain on bogus visas. Monckton was their immigration adviser., now I might be wrong but that looks like something we would cut? On the actual issues we seem to be at one of those impasses; where interesting information about the individual exists and may deserve a mention, but we can only source it through bad means. The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him. We cannot, either, reliably verify his defence/counter claim. For that reason I think we should wait for a more official/neutral discussion of both issues. (Mindbuilder; yes, you are right, he is definitely a Lord - that is his hereditary title and can't really be disputed :)) --Errant Tmorton166 13:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

TM - I have to admit I'm a bit confused. You say "The sources that discuss him not being a member of the House so far appear to do so only to discredit him." You believe the STrib is discussing the issue with the movtive of discrediting him? You believe the house of lords said he wasn't a member of the house of lords with the motive of discrediting him? What, exactly, is more offifical/neutral than the deliberative body and a reasonably major newspaper? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the Tribune and the Guardian are good sources for this. The only caveat is that there is no evidence that Monckton has lied, only that he has a diagreement with the House of Lords. A little bit of an eccentric disagreement, maybe, but that is not exactly breaking new BLP ground with regards to the subject of the article. It also seems obvious to me that Monckton is wrong and the House of Lords is right, but there is no reason for us to say that and it doesn't mean he is lying in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The original source (STrib) is awful; lots of mud slinging - the bit about the lords is used before a direct quote trying to undermine his credibility from one of his opponents. The insinuation is that the HoL response was to Bickmore and not the STrib - which is even more problematic. --Errant Tmorton166 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if that is the case, it does not make the source unreliable, as long as the SLT has a reputation for fact-checking. --FormerIP (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It does. It's a major, long established newspaper, which has won at least one Pulitzer prize for its reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask a seperate question? Why is Monckton excluded from Members of the House of Lords if he claims that he is a nonvoting, nonsitting member? Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose because his own statements would not be considered an RS in this matter (they are an RS only for the fact that he has claimed to be a member). --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a BLP violation by exclusion? Either it is a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords, or it is not a BLP violation to state he's not a member of the house of lords. How could it be a BLP violation in article A, but not in article B? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I presume that list is built from the list of members published by the House. I doubt his exclusion is based on claims in these articles --Errant Tmorton166 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The list dosen't say that. Shouldn't you edit the list to make it clear why Monckton, and the other HOLA99 exclusions, while still possibly members of the house of lords, are not on the list? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, isn't List of excepted hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999, wrong, in that it states "The House of Lords Act 1999 excluded all peers sitting by virtue of a hereditary peerage?" And isn't House of Lords Act 1999, in that it states "The Act prevents even hereditary peers who are the first to hold their titles from sitting automatically in the House of Lords." These statements of fact are all disputed by Monckton, and thus shouldn't this dispute be made clear in all the relevent articles? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It would be a BLP violation to say that he was a member of the HoL, because there is insufficient sourcing for that. However, the sourcing appears to me to be strong enough to say that he has claimed to be a member of the HoL (but that this is denied by the HoL). AFAIK, there is not wider controversy about this. If it were the case that there was a significant body of legal opinion that agreed with Monckton, then that make make a difference (ie shaping the MOHOL article according to Monckton's SELFPUB comments would be UNDUE, but including them in his own aritcle may not be). --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Are ya all still going on about it with the debating skills honed over lengthy periods of warring and climate change disputes, At least we can look forward to the forthcoming Arbcom result to this infernal dispute. The content, if no one has touched it needs at least attribution, the reply from the house of lords is from that guy he has a dispute with and we have no way official statement from the house of lords at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Salt Late Tribune it was an "official response." Are you saying the SLT is not a reliable source? Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The information was given to them by the person Mopnkton was in dispute with, all the newspaper did was report what the person told them. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What, other than your own personal opinion, leads you to believe that? Can I apply my personal opinion to sources that say things I don't like? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It not my personal opinion it is what I understand from the loose way the article is written. It matters not anyway, Monkton is a Lord as collect states and others, in 1999 or there abouts they changed the door posts, and Monkton is absolutely correct in what he says about it, the content is rubbish, utter rubbish and is only being supported as it portrays him badly, yawn at least all this rubbish will soon be over. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No one doubts he was a lord. There is a difference between being a lord, and being a member of the house of lords. Monckton was not a peer in 1999 - he inherited his title in 2006. Shouldn't we be "getting it right" regarding his peerage? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Further, the article states, with full context

Meanwhile, the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore's inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He'd made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: "I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise."

The official response on Thursday said: "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."

I don't see how this is unclear. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This official response was told to the reporter by the person in a dispute with Mongton Bickmore, Bickmore said he wrote to the HOL information and Bickmore said he got this reply. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. The source makes it clear that the official response was X, not that "Bickmore said the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So where do you think the response came from ? Bilmore said he wrote to them, so if he wrote to them then they replied to him didn't they? and he told the newspaper interviewer about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I report on what sources say, not what I personally think happened. For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? If you can't verify something, you can't assume it - in this case, I can verify that a reliable source has said "the official response was x." Hipocrite (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Such low grade opinionated editorials are very often written so loosely as to deceive and misrepresent and sensationalize, we are required to use our editorial intelligence. I disagree with this POV and I am sick to the back teeth of BLP articles being disrupted and warred over and attacked and I really look forward to the result of the arbcom case, and I am sure many other editors are sick of the disruption as well. I like to imagine Mr Monkton and the other living people that have had their articles attacked and disrupted will be laughing their socks off when the big ban hammer is waved around. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it appeared on the news papges of the online publication (/news/, as opposed to /opinion/), what leads you to believe it's an editorial? Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, it's clearly not an editorial. It's straight reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance, can you say for certain that the reporter did not call the HoL to verify the email? Can you say for certain the reporter was not copied on the email chain? - woah hold on, you are as in the dark over that as Off2riorob. The ambiguity is enough, surely, to cast doubt on the argument. Anyway - the whole argument is an Ad-Hominem attack on Monckton (look, he's lied about being in the HoL - do you think he is telling the truth about XYZ). I think that source is way way off the table. The Guardian source is much stronger and if it has to be reported that is the one to use. --Errant Tmorton166 19:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What ambiguity? We have a straight piece of factual reporting, directly quoting correspondence from the HoL. There's no reason to suppose that it is anything other than a reliable source. It appears that you don't like what it says, but that has no bearing on whether it meets the reliable sourcing criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you don't like what it says can we get over this constant nonsense. I'm really bored with people using this as an argument all the time - it is bad rhetoric. Anyway; my issue is that the article is an Ad Hominem - that undermines it's suitability as a RS. It quotes a piece of correspondance without explicitly attributing it's source (which is via Bickmore). The Guardian article has none of those issues and is actually accessible online :) --Errant Tmorton166 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The content of an article is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source. Please refresh your memory about what WP:V actually says. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't come here asserting, I have a reliable source and if you don't like it read this policy or that policy and I can add it if I want and if you can't find it go to the libary and this is indisputable as the fabulous not notable reporter is such a good fact checker and then the same people argue the exact opposite when it is against their POV, and another one comes and its like rotating discussion with different users I realize this is never ending, at least for a few more days so forget about it, it will soon be over anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant questions here are: What is the reputation of the newspapers editorial policy? Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and getting things right? Does this "jive" with what other reliable sources say? Does it raise a red-flag? etc.

Your assumption, that we can judge it on whether it is critical or not, is not a part of the process - in fact: what we think about the article is irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

iIts some kind of a local Mormon paper doing an interview with a Mormon apologist global warming supporter about a skeptic, lets not sing its fantastic praises of ace NPOV reporting, Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Salt Lake City's main newspaper. I've never been there, but I doubt your characterisation is fair. At least we know the reporter is relatively unlikely to have been drinking whilst researching the piece, which, reliability-wise is a big bonus compared to most newspapers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune is a major metro daily with a circulation of around 300,000 which makes it the largest newspaper in Utah. Its parent company is based in Denver. Your comment is really off the mark. — e. ripley\ 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And if you knew anything about the SLT, Off2riorob, you'd know it was actually an anti-Mormon newspaper for many years. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V has no relation to the content of the source, it is about the content of the article and attributing it to a RS. We say the HoL has said this (and they certainly did say it - not that it matters) - but the source currently used to verify it is not suitable (to my mind). Reliability of the entire website is important - and I wouldn't really dispute that in this case. But we do need to consider individual sources (articles) on their own merit. In this case I think Ad-Hominem pieces fall easily under Questionable Sources. All of which is moot when you consider the questionable source is, uh, dead and that the Guardian article (live) is a much better alternative :) --Errant Tmorton166 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken. See WP:V#Questionable sources. None of those criteria apply to a news report by a major, long-established metropolitan daily newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Chris, but, if it would make this discussion shorter, what would be the problem with using the Guardian instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I'm very happy with the Guardian source (well done to whoever found it). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: We have considerable expertise over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and they should be consulted about the precise wording here. My own understanding, which is limited although I take an interest in these matters, is that Lord Monckton is a peer of the realm, but not a sitting member of the House of Lords. He is among those eligible to be elected by other conservative hereditary peers to sit the House. (Or at least, he was, in one election, listed as someone who got zero votes. He is now a member of UKIP, and I don't know if that means he isn't any long a Tory peer - beyond the scope of my limited expertise) I personally do not know whether it would be appropriate for those who either formally sat in the House of Lords by right, but who do no longer, or those who have inherited a peerage and yet never been elected, to call themselves a "member" of the House of Lords.

A completely separate question is whether this minor terminological dispute is worthy of note in his BLP. Let's be frank about this: he's an outspoken skeptic of climate change, a leader of a controversial political minority political party, and some people dislike him quite intensely. Therefore, there can be political motives to come up with a "gotcha" if he has ever appeared to be misleading about his actual status. That at least gives rise to the serious potential for a BLP violation.

I would be interested to see a reliable source for the House of Lords officially saying he isn't a member - the source cited seems to no longer work. In order to be notable, though, we'd need more than just a list of members, of which he is not a part. We'd need to see some definitive statement that the House of Lords proper doesn't want him calling himself a member, or something similar to that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. A lot of this is demonization of Monckton. "You lied about X, Y, and Z, therefore you must be lying about climate change, too." The House of Lords issue isn't the only issue on which Monckton's assertions have been challenged in this fashion. Unfortunately, the people making these charges mostly haven't seen fit to document them properly, putting their names to them, researching and checking their facts, and publishing them in full detail in some reliable permanent form. One can turn up people writing on the subject. But people with credentials in U.K. constitutional law, or other identifiable expertise, or even real names, are much harder to come by. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement supposedly made by the house of lords is not very well verified by the SLT article. It's not well verified enough for a controversial issue. But I don't think it is controversial that the HoL made that statement. Monckton hasn't disputed that the Lords made that claim. In fact Monckton himself states that the Lords revoked his pass, asked for the return of his letters patent, and instructed the information office to deny his membership. The only controversial fact here is whether the 1999 act lawfully removed his claim to be a member. The political HoL can't be trusted to make an unbiased evaluation of that fact, so Monckton's defense should be included. It would be legitimate to simply remove the accusation of false statement, but it is such a major issue on the internet when he is mentioned, that I think it should be dealt with here. We're not hurting him by mentioning the accusation one more time, and it is only fair to mention his self defense. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't agree with you but my disagreement is somewhat subtle. The claim that the 1999 act did not lawfully remove his right to sit in the Lords is so fringe that I'm unaware of any serious authority who would accept it or even put it forward with a straight face. The act passed the Commons (340-142), passed the Lords (221-81), and was given royal assent by the Queen. It doesn't get any more lawful than that. It is therefore not necessary to say, on this one point, that it's "he said, they said". (What is lacking, as far as I am aware, is a reliable source that shows that Lord Monckton holds any such belief.)

  There is a separate question, much milder, where I believe Lord Monckton is also wrong, but it's much less dramatic a claim, and therefore much less bizarre, that he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote. That's different from claiming that the 1999 law is invalid, although it is a claim about nomenclature that is at odds with that law's own language.

  My concern is whether any of this back and forth is actually noteworthy enough to include in the article. I do not know for sure.

  I do think, on the other hand, that him not being a voting or sitting member of the House of Lords is rather important, and should perhaps be mentioned (not implying that he lied about it or tried to mislead people, I think) in the introduction. I say this mainly because I happened to glance at this article the other day (it is on my watch list for some reason) and read a bit about him, and totally failed to realize that he's never actually been in the House of Lords.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The best source I've found that Monckton actually believes that the act didn't nullify his claim to be a member of the house of lords is here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/answers_to_committee.html The SPPI is referenced in the SLT article as sponsoring Monckton. The post he made at Wattsupwiththat is less reliable, but Wasttsupwiththat is the leading climate skeptic blog, and therefore has some credibility. It seems unlikey though possible that an impostor there would go unnoticed or uncorrected by either Monckton or Anthony Watts. I think Moncton's claim that the act may be invalid may actually be technically correct. It appears that there actually was some sort of preceding rule or law that an act of parliament couldn't revoke the priveleges of a Lord unless the act did so specifically. It appears the paliament blundered in passing the wrong kind of law. But it's a mere technicality, and Monckton's lack of a claim to be able to vote demonstrates he's not challenging the practical effect of the law. I haven't seen anything that suggests that the parliament couldn't have passed specific laws just as easily if it had realized that it needed to. And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal. An example in the US is when Congress passes laws that the courts declare unconstitutional. It doesn't matter that Congress and the president have passed it.

    When I first heard the accusation against Monckton, my impression was that he had claimed to be a Lord but really wasn't. It made him sound kind of crazy. It all looks much different now that I know that he actually is an official British Lord and that his claim wasn't just made up but is rather a dispute over a technical legal issue. It still seems misleading though for him to insist that he is a member and make that claim without explanation. There is little doubt that he has claimed membership, there is little doubt that they have disclaimed his membership, and the technical legal issue is a little bit interesting. This info is usefully informative in the context of the climate change debate. Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process of those of us who can't take the time to research the issue in depth. So I'd say it should be in. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Don't apply U.S. constitutional theory to the U.K.. You'll go wildly astray, as you've done here. The U.K. doesn't have a written constitution, and constitutional law is a wholly different ballgame, with complex, subtle, and uncodified rules. House of Lords reform, for example, is complicated by issues of entrenchment — something that our article on entrenched clauses fails to even relate to the U.K. at all — and how one changes the structure of a Popular monarchy (AfD discussion) without knocking out the foundations. (There's a lot written in constitutional law texts challenging Dicey's view of entrenchment and the sovereignty of Parliament for being an adducement that is not in a de facto sense true at all. Our articles on this whole subject are far from complete, so don't treat them as Gospel, either. As you can see, we don't yet even have a complete description of what a popular monarchy is.) Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Because so few people and even scientists can actually DO climate science, the credibility of proponents on each side is central to the decision making process; I fail to see how Moncktons credibility over climate science is affected by his statements about the HoL - because someone is wrong/misguided/lying on one thing does not automatically extend to another (for example; if a respected climate scientist is having an affair and denies it does that undermine his credibility? I've seen that used before.....). It is simply an Ad-Hominem attack by his opponent. On the other hand if this grows outside the climate debate arguments and becomes a standalone issue (i.e. he publicly disputes the law as a separate issue) then it would become very interesting.
    • And just becasue the law was duly enacted and the law itself purports to remove Monckton's membership, doesn't mean the law is actually legal - as already pointed out law works very different over here. The fact of him being a Lord and his seat in parliament are entirely separate issues; it is indisputable that he is a hereditary peer! --Errant Tmorton166 10:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've found the official source of the statement by the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) at the bottom of this page http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80929w0021.htm In which she states "The effect of Letters Patent creating peerages can he changed by legislation which has that specific effect. It cannot be changed by legislation of general application." Mindbuilder (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've also found this governement site that shows the generic wording of letters patent https://opsi.gov.uk/si/si1988/Uksi_19881082_en_2.htm which in part say this "...he and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively may have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils..." Mindbuilder (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lord Mereworth and other lords are apparently threatening a lawsuit on the theory shared by Monckton http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html Mindbuilder (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unnecessary confusion here - Mindbuilder in particular is getting the details wrong. The facts are simple enough:

• Monckton is a peer, which means he can use the title of Lord. This fact is undisputed by anyone.
• Not all peers can sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right to sit in Parliament from all but 92 hereditary peers. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton's father was among one of those removed. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton gained his peerage in 2006 on the death of his father, seven years after the passage of the House of Lords Act. This fact is undisputed.
• Monckton has described himself as "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote" and "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" . This fact is undisputed.
• The House of Lords itself does not list Monckton as a member and has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member." This fact is undisputed.
• Peers are summoned to sit in the House of Lords through a writ of summons, not Letters Patent. The House of Lords Act means that all but 92 of the hereditary peers no longer receive writs of summons. It didn't repeal Letters Patent, which are instruments that grant titles. This fact is undisputed, as far as I know.

Mindbuilder, I'm afraid you are clearly approaching this from a US perspective which is misleading you. Unlike the US, the UK has a doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. It doesn't have the same constitutional setup as the US. The courts do not have the power to rule a law "unconstitutional" - they couldn't, since the UK doesn't have a constitution. Parliament legislates in the name of the Queen, and the courts apply the laws that Parliament passes, again acting in the name of the Queen. Jimbo, the claim that "he is a member of the House of Lords but without a right to sit or vote" is a dramatic and bizarre claim from a UK perspective. As a self-governing body, the House of Lords the only authority for stating who is and is not one of its members. It has said very clearly that Monckton is not and never has been a member, and that the status he claims for himself does not exist. The claim is equivalent to a US citizen saying "I'm a Senator but without a right to sit or vote". Would you not consider that a dramatic and bizarre claim? From a UK perspective Monckton's claim is equally extraordinary. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of getting into too much OR in terms of establishing the correct interpretation of the law here (I'm not accusing anyone of that, just raising a flag). I would agree with you, Chris, that Mockton's legal claim is probably without merit, but unless we can get an RS opinion about this, we don't need to worry too much about whether it is or it isn't.

In terms of what we need to say in the article: (1) It is obviously important that Monckton is a peer; (2) Per Jimbo (and I don't see any reason to object) it is important to clarify that he is not a legislator.

The remaining question is whether and how to report his claim to be a member of the UK legislature (which he appears to maintain - he does not retract it in the PDF cited by Mindbuilder). This seems to me to be primarily about WP:N, and there may be a case for excluding it. But there would not be, IMO, a case for excluding it under WP:BLP (because the essential facts are all well-sourced - including, handily, in a SELPUB), although we should obviously avoid implying that Mockton lied or misled. It does not mean we should avoid the subject area altogether in case a reader reaches the conclusion that he lied or misled, as long as our wording doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should avoid OR or interpretating the law. This isn't the place for it, and please note that I haven't said that Monckton's legal claim is without merit (IANAL). I believe the article did in the past say in the lead that Monckton was not a legislator, but this seems to have been lost at some stage for some reason. Unfortunately I don't think we can get around the dispute over Monckton's claim to be a member of the House of Lords. We have to say that he is not - this is pretty much essential, as many peers are legislators and it is important to note whether a particular peer is or is not a legislator. But NPOV dictates that if we say Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, we need to present Monckton's counter-claim for balance. The key question is what wording should be used. I suggest remanding that question to the article talk page, as this discussion has already taken up too much space here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-- It would be helpful to have more uninvolved editors look at this because most of those commenting have been involved in the controversy in one way or another. I am adding a section below for uninvolved editors, so please don't comment in that section if you've edited the article or the talk page or been involved in the probation enforcement or ArbComm case. The issue as presented is only one BLP concern among others in this article -- any objection if I relist this BLP and ask for comment on all the the ongoing BLP concerns on this article? I also edited the heading of this section so that the BLP name is included. Minor4th 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the heading - you'll break the incoming links from other pages. This is not the right place to have general BLP discussions about articles. If there are specific issues with a particular article, please raise it first on the article talk page. If the issue cannot be resolved there, then please bring it here. This noticeboard is not meant to be a substitute for article talk pages. The vast majority of BLP issues can be resolved on article talk pages without ever coming here (which is just as well, otherwise this noticeboard would be unmanageable). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Check BLP compliance of an article at this AfD

I can't get a response to my analysis from the page-watchers: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination). Please comment on whether you think the article may violate BLP. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

JournoList membership list

The sourcing for the purported list of members of this now defunct list-serv seems to be touch on the dodgy side for my tastes. Does this merit further review? Ronnotel (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure does. This is a powderkeg, to be sure. The more eyes on this the better. It's pretty obvious that the publication of the list of members was probably untoward. Compare to, for example, our Climatic Research Unit documents article where content is only sourced to secondary source commentators rather than the actual e-mail and document contents. This seems to be the best way to handle these things. If a third-party reliable source identifies someone, then use it. If it was done through an unauthorized personal information release, then do not. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

NYT identifies some of the people. RS in spades. Collect (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the NYT identifies them, or they identify themselves, I'm all for it. I would avoid using partisan articles or lists as sources. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't need the New York Times as a source. We need reliable sources. We have them. New York Times reporters and editors may have been on the list -- in fact, we know that Paul Krugman was. What's dodgy are statements unmoored to policy that claim we need an even higher standard than policy. The naming of a person who was a member of that discussion board is an elemental fact that a reliable source is unlikely to get wrong. Nearly all of the names come from articles in The Daily Caller. Those articles were news reports. No one beyond Misplaced Pages (and no one here) has disputed that The Daily Caller is inaccurate about the names. If you have a problem with The Daily Caller as a reliable source, make your case. Otherwise, you people two don't have a case, you have a dislike. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"You people" is probably mis-aimed - any attempt to draw a rhetorical boundary line that somehow includes SA and yours truly strikes me as a fool's errand. My only point is that we're messing with people's professions here - being labeled as a "JournoLister" can have a life-long impact for someone who styles themselves as a disinterested journalist. Dropping an accusation here or there can be an exceedingly easy way to settle whatever score someone needs settled. All I'm saying is we need to be exceedingly careful here.Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not messing with a single thing. We're using reliable sourcing to cover an encyclopedic topic. You don't think their bosses haven't already been clued in about this? You say: being labeled as a "JournoLister" can have a life-long impact -- oh, please. They participated in the group. Our coverage makes clear that to participate on some level is not to participate in every discussion or to have some kind of responsibility for every post made by all other participants. The journalistic ethics of this have been mentioned on the NPR website and at the L.A. Times website. and it doesn't look like there's a knee-jerk reaction to this. We aren't responsible for the potential idiocy of some employer now or in the future, as long as we're careful. But you're not talking about carefulness here. Dropping an accusation here -- no, no, no -- the list means only what it says it means: That person was a member, as reliable sources have already told the public. No accusation involved. If the journalists associated with a sketchy operation (meaning one in which there's reason for an employer to be concerned -- and since some members of the 400-member group were seeking to have journalists exploit their employers for partisan gain, why not? Seriously, why wouldn't an employer be concerned about it? Should we avoid covering an arrest or any scandal reported in the press? The same concerns would apply), then they may well in fact have something to explain to somebody now or in the future -- that doesn't make our coverage unfair in the least. It is not a scandal simply to belong to the group, but it is simply a fact that some behavior taking place in the group has been regarded widely as scandalous. We have no reason to be more concerned about the members of the group than we have to be concerned for their employers or readers/audience. "You people" means you two who made the same point, no more, no less. I didn't think you'd find it offensive (and I don't understand how it is offensive), but I'm crossing it out because I'm not here to make you uncomfortable (except uncomfortable with your statements!). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

" It is not a scandal simply to belong to the group..." - in which case, why is a list of names (of members of a discussion group) encyclopedic? If membership is not in itself notable or significant, why note it? Rd232 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the entire list from the current public article for BLP reasons - there are far too many redlink names, and a number of sources are not explicitly linking names to JournoList. The old version of the article can be found here, if it is later agreed that the list should be republished in whole or in part. Until then, it should not be republished. If someone wants to work on it in their userspace (with a {{userspace draft}} tag), they can do that, and post a link to it (it may make more sense as a standalone List anyway).

Now, as to whether this list, qua list, has encyclopedic merit, I would say unequivocally no. A membership list of a private discussion forum is not in itself a valid encyclopedic topic; and collecting employment affiliations to add to the list looks like a witchhunt. Given that many of the names are currently redlinks, there are also clear privacy issues. What is encyclopedic is the JournoList article, using reliable sources to note particular members for particular reasons. Those who want to maintain the list should be prepared to defend the list as a standalone page, since the list really does not belong inside the JournoList article, but as List of JournoList members. Rd232 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Journolist cont. (Jeffrey Toobin and Spencer Ackerman)

Editors are repeatedly inserting into these articles large paragraphs containing either one or both of:

• Out of context, dramatized quotes from Journolist emails which have no relevance to anything in else in the bio or career.
• Allegations stated as fact that the subject of the articles engaged in a conspiracy to alter news coverage, sourced only to partisan tabloid websites.

The articles involved are short, so this stuff doesn't belong on just WP:UNDUE grounds alone, much less other BLP/NPOV considerations. Gamaliel (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When the NYT publishes it, it is certainly usable. Try inter alia. As fpr the belief that if one has a sufficiently short BLP that therefore it can contain no controversy - that would require rewriting WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those two Times articles mentions either Toobin or Ackerman. Are you suggesting we use them to support negative material in those BLPs anyway? MastCell  22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am one of those editors involved in putting the material into the articles. Personally, the sources I've used/reinserted have not been "partisan tabloid." They've included Politico, The Christian Science Monitor, Fox News, and The Daily Caller (it was also discussed in the Wall Street Journal). I believe all pass muster as reliable sources. Much of what's been quoted is available in context at the Daily Caller links. They very much have relevance to these BLPs, since they go to the profession of these individuals--journalism. I have not personally made or reinserted "allegations stated as fact that the subject of the articles engaged in a conspiracy to alter news coverage." Drrll (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, those sources have discussed Journolist in general and the Weigel firing in particular. They have nothing to do with this quotes you've singled out, which have zero journalistic or encyclopedic value. Random private email quotes do not "go to the profession of these individuals" (did you mean professionalism?) and tell us nothing about their career or work. You also have yet to address the WP:UNDUE implications of having random private email quotes take about 25-33 percent of the article of a professional journalist. This is clearly absurd and you wouldn't stand for it if these were right wingers. Gamaliel (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Every source concerning JournoList used in the Toobin and Ackerman articles discusses these individuals in relation to JournoList. All of the sources used but Politico discuss specific quotes by Toobin/Ackerman (and its use makes no claims about their specific quotes). As far as the journalism profession goes, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility." Regarding this material taking such a large proportion of the articles, I think the problem is that the articles are too short in general--the JournoList material only takes a few paragraphs. The JournoList controversies are noteworthy enough to have been noted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Politico. As far as BLPs of conservatives go, plenty of them have many paragraphs of criticism about their words and actions. I don't see you having problems there. Drrll (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning their participation. But these journalists are not at the center of the Journolist controversies and these lurid pull quotes serve no encyclopedic purpose. If their professional integrity is in question, then quote a source saying that. If you are using the quotes to say that, then you are pushing an agenda in clear violation of WP policies. The fact that the articles are too short is immaterial. If they are too short, work on expanding the non-controversial parts. Their length does not give you a free pass to violate WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Spencer Ackerman suggesting to other journalists that Fred Barnes and others be accused of racism for no other reason than to gain some political advantage is a deep violation of journalistic ethics, even for a commentator. That's why there are sources out there criticizing Ackerman. That is an extremely important fact about Ackerman that belongs -- prominently -- in the article about him because it is a journalistic scandal. Why would you think this incident is not important? Why would you think it is not extremely important in even a short article about Ackerman on Misplaced Pages? It's a lurid quote because Ackerman's words are lurid. It isn't pushing an agenda when multiple sources have condemned Ackerman. It's information important to the subject. And Ackerman is very much at the center of the Journolist controversy. He's mentioned in more than one incident, and the racism incident is one of the most important of the increasing number of Journolist incidents. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scandal? A random pull quote is not a scandal. And if it is supposedly a scandal, find some mainstream, non-partisan sources to justify that, don't simply throw the quote out on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is the encylopaedic value of this list? What does it do, beyond seeking to embarrass the people listed?
• What are the criteria for inclusion in the list? The article mentions 400 members, but the list only includes a few dozen.
• Lists are meant to serve as navigational aids that bring together existing or potential articles. Several of these people do not appear to meet WP:N- Lindsay Beyerstein, for example, is simply listed a "blogger", and a quick google search turns up nothing to suggest that she would meet our criteria for a stand-alone biography.
• What's the rationale for including their employer? That seems like unwarranted inclusion of personal information. More to the point, the information about "employer" seems to be WP:OR In the case of Ed Kilgore, the listed source for the information is "Web page titled "Ed Kilgore/Senior Fellow" at the Progressive Policy Institute website, retrieved July 20, 2010". It's not like this is trivial information - Dave Weigel lost his job after his membership in the list was made public. Associating people's names with their employers is problematic. When that connection is not made by the original source, that's especially bad. Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Weigel did not lose his job for being on Journolist. He lost it because of some of the things that he wrote on Journalist that his employer -- Washington Post -- found objectionable. Merely being a member of Journolist, and identified as so, is just a fact. It doesn't carry any judgment of moral turpitude.~Mack2~ (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Weigel lost his job because of his associations with the list. That's the only verifiable fact. In case you didn't realise, the reasons given by a company for terminating an employee are not simply accepted as fact. They're designed for ass-covering, not careful and nuanced communications of facts. As for the idea that there are no negative associations with being a member of JournaList - if that's the case, then why is the conservative media raising such a shit-storm about it, and 'naming and shaming' people like Farrell? No, that's simply false. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true that he lost his job "because of his associations with the list." That is not a verifiable fact if you are implying a simple cause-effect relationship. Read the story in his own words here and here. I am not blaming Weigel or defending the WaPo's terrible response to the pressure to fire him after some of his writings on JournoList were published. But it was what he wrote and what was leaked from what he wrote that got him into trouble with his employer, not the fact that he was on JournoList.~Mack2~ (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, the full list has not been made public by reliable sources. What names have been reliably sourced are on the list. WP:LIST#Purposes of lists shows quite clearly that there are other purposes to lists than just "navigational aids". See also Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. This list is "embedded" in the article at present, but may be a stand-alone list later if it gets much bigger. All items do not need their own article -- policy is clear on that, and it's common sense. The rationale for including the employer (we probably need to change that to "affiliation" to cover blogs and group blogs more accurately) is that for most of these people, the reason that they are at all influential is that they are affiliated with a larger organization that is itself influential. The sortability feature allows readers to group all the "Politico" or "Nation" journalists together, for example, or find out quickly who that "Daily Caller" journalist was who belonged to the list. And Mack2 is right: Weigel lost his job for what he said, not for being on the list. There have been no mass firings. The value of the list is closely linked to the value of the article subject, of course. This subject is considered important in terms of journalism ethics, which is why it will continue to receive coverage and be commented on by prominent publications. It will be covered extensively in industry publications and, later, academic publications about journalism. It doesn't require a crystal ball to see that. If the list gets much longer, it will be worth it's own article page for space reasons or WP:UNDUE reasons. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (added to comment) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

the full list has not been made public by reliable sources - so your criterion for inclusion is "Names that have been made public"? That's your only criterion? People are being added to a List of Shame, regardless of notability, simply because someone has included them? And you don't see that as a huge problem?

All items do not need their own article -- policy is clear on that, and it's common sense - not true. There are no policies specific to list content, but the existing guidelines are clear: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Misplaced Pages articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future) It goes on to say Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity - but then you'd need to make the case that these people are "of particular importance".

The rationale for including the employer ... is that for most of these people, the reason that they are at all influential is that they are affiliated with a larger organization that is itself influential - again, you're adding people's employers to a List of Shame, employers that are, in many cases, not even mentioned by the sources...and this isn't a BLP violation?

Weigel lost his job for what he said, not for being on the list. There have been no mass firings - so a few firings is OK, as long as it isn't mass firings? People don't get fired because their employers discover they are liberals. People get fired because someone decides to make a stink about it and embarrass their employers. And how does that happen? Because people put together lists like this one.

Again you are vastly oversimplifying this. As I wrote above, it's simply not true that Weigel lost his job "because of his associations with the list." And your comment here about "a few firings is OK" also implies that others were fired for being associated with JournoList. Nobody has been fired simply for being associated with JournoList. You can read Weigel's account in his own words here and here. And Ezra Klein, who is the creator and manager of JournoList also worked for and still works for WaPo. If anybody was "associated" with JournoList it was Klein. And WaPo had no problem with that. It did have problems with what Weigel said about some conservatives, given that Weigel's "beat" dealt with some of the people he was critical of on JournoList. I think WaPo's craven caving to political pressure was a terrible decision. But again it was what Weigel wrote on JournoList, not his membership in that listserv, that got him into trouble with his bosses.~Mack2~ (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It will be covered extensively in industry publications - then wait for it. Don't make prediction about the future. Especially not when it comes to adding a List of Shame to the page, a list meant simply to embarrass the subject. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time in this thread that you have pointed to a policy (well, guideline) that says the exact opposite of what you say it says: Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people: Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity. Misplaced Pages is not covering this as a "List of Shame" and frankly, how dare you characterize my work here that way. Tone down your rhetoric or this will lead nowhere. I'm more than willing to listen to you or anybody with an open mind, but if you're going to make a battle out of this you are damn well not going to get consensus for anything, anywhere, so cool your jets. I very well understand the sensitivity of the subject. I also understand it's importance, and you would help the discussion -- and it would help keep your reaction cooler -- if you acknowledge that importance and acknowledge that David Weigel losing his job, Ezra Klein shutting the list down, 400 journalists, many from very influential publications, are all part of an important subject. The article has quite a lot in defense of the Journolist members because of a commitment among the editors who have edited the article so far to keep it as NPOV as possible. Please respect that. Help avoid turning this article into a battleground. You made a good point about Ed Kilgore earlier. When I get a chance I'll re-edit the article, or someone else may want to make the change. Gotta go for now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think generally (unless the quotes have been repeated by multiple, very reliable sources) we should be wary of using quotes from Journolist since some may have been taken out of context. That's been a problem with coverage of similar situations. I trust The Daily Caller with names of people who belonged to the list -- and no one has disputed whether or not someone was on the list -- but I'm more reluctant to use quotes unless it's very likely that the context doesn't matter. It helps if a particular statement has been widely reported and commented on by a good number of sources. Spencer Ackerman saying that someone like Fred Barnes should be accused of racism, apparently without any reason other than to gain some political advantage, is a statement that has been widely commented on, and Ackerman has now shut up about the matter. It may be worth quoting him. In another case, a Journolist member discussed whether the FCC could pull the broadcast license for Fox News. The Journolist member later objected to that comment being represented as advocating pulling the license. I included that objection in the article as soon as I saw it. That's the kind of accusation based on possible misreadings or out-of-context comments that we need to watch out for. In general, the people mentioned are WP:WELLKNOWN, except for the list, where they're essentially just listed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been pointed out by many in the press that The Daily Caller is yanking these quotes out of context and basically practicing yellow journalism. I'd be very hesitant about using a tabloid website like the Caller in a BLP for any reason. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See which is undoubtedly RS by WP:BLP standards, whish lists specific members of the list - including quite specifically Toobin and Ackerman. And which specifies the positions which were least acceptable. Collect (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If the editors advocating for inclusion were to limit themselves to material from an RS like the Post and not pushing the Daily Caller's conspiracy nonsense, then we might get closer to a mutually acceptable version that conforms to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that Gamaliel has gone ahead and yanked the Journolist material in its entirety from the Toobin article and all but the favorable material from the Ackerman article. Drrll (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Gamaliel. Even though JournoList is notable and an article has been written on it, including a list of known members, the fact that an individual was a member of the Journolist listserv is not necessarily notable in the biography of that person, and therefore needn't be mentioned in every biography. For some individuals it may be a very notable biographical fact (for Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel, for example). But in any case biographies are not just chasing the news of the moment. Nor are they diaries, gossip columns, or curriculum vitae. That a scandal-mongering blog chose to quote a couple of lines that a person wrote in a notable listserv does not make those lines notable in the life of that person, and thus they may not belong in the WP bio.~Mack2~ (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where in the press has been pointed out that these quotes are "out of context", or are these simply your own unsubstantiated claims? And how does a partisan source automatically get disqualified as a reliable source? NPOV does not mean the elimination of viewpoints. Truthsort (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. A partisan source does not "automatically get disqualified", a lurid partisan tabloid whose truthfulness is widely disputed does. Of course "NPOV does not mean the elimination of viewpoints", but neither does it require us to act as stenographer for a partisan tabloid. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald's article appears to be the target of some particularly bilious BLP violations recently: , , and all occurred within the past month. Currently the article is not under any sort of protection or probation; does anyone think it should be? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I watch listed it for another set of eyes. --Errant Tmorton166 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it for a long time for exactly this reason. The article is a vandalism magnet, unfortunately. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Inge

Brandon Inge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – The text in this edit: continues to be added to the article. The text is WP:SYN because insinuates the baseball team he plays for was worse because he was playing. The text illustrates the team's record, but there is no source that makes the connection — X96lee15 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I left the other user a note asking him to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages BLP policy