Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 2 December 2013

• 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

Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess

I have spent the past 4 or 5 days over on the Rupert Sheldrake article. I was going to jump in and help when I heard of the problem from the BBC coverage of the issue on the page. After going through it, I don't think I nor anyone can do much of anything and I don't want to get harassed like other editors who seem to jump in and help do. It's ridiculous to see what is happening there and no progress is getting made on very simple things like listing the man as a scientist with his proper degree, an argument going on for months now with no resolution. Rules are being stretched left and right. It's just a tit for tat that is going nowhere. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Philofellow...I have sadly spent the last month+ on this article, if only to prevent it becoming some sort of whipping post for radical 'scientific ideas'. Mr Sheldrake's page is becoming a war zone. His intro should ONLY contain his name, date of birth, job description, (that he is a scientist, was a scientist and will continue to be one regardless if certain people disagree with that point, he's referred to as such in a number of UK publications which I have already referenced, but have been ignored) and what he is famous for.... The problem is certain people don't agree with his theories, and think that scientists ONLY investigate certain areas of research, which completely misses the point. His name and data should be on this page, regardless of certain people's OPINIONS. It's now surfing very near to being libellous and as my husband is a lawyer and I'm a published author (so I'm very aware of libel issues) and have read most of Mr Sheldrake's books, I'm trying to help keep the peace and keep the intro on track but I was dismayed to read the words decidedly pseudo bla bla tonight and have made a revert, which I'm sure will be removed in less than a blink of an eye....I will persist, if only because I happen to like the man......This article is at pains to make Mr Sheldrake appear as some sort of wacky being, when in fact he's an intelligent, caring and interesting Human Being.....and since this is a biog of a LIVING person, surely we must be careful of certain people's opinions??/ I apologise for adding this comment here, but I added it at the end of this piece and it got rattled and wouldn't save so I've added it at the top of the page as it's extremely important to make sure a living biog article is not defamatory... xxxx Veryscarymary (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

VSM, you have been making the claims that the lead should be blanked for "potential libel" for a long time and you have been pointed to WP:LEAD and WP:BLP multiple times that the lead covers the important aspects of the subject of the article including any major controversies that are reliably sourced. Since Sheldrake's only notability is for the controversial pseudo-scientific works he promotes, they must be covered appropriately in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is entirely consistent with WP:FRINGE. Mainstream viewpoints are represented.

Isn't it strange how Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) turns up in November 2013 apparently partially familiar with Misplaced Pages policies? Weird. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the morphic resonance that people scoff at. Its obvious that the more people who know and use Misplaced Pages, the quicker new entrants will come being familiar with the systems. (except for some reason the mental block at comprehending WP:VALID never seems to go away) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, wikipedia, where editors are WP:NICE. Here is the second half of WP:VALID -- "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." (Translation: if it ain't mainstream, don't call it mainstream, nor imply it is.) "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them,"... (such as in an article about something completely unrelated per WP:ONEWAY) ..."and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

    There is nothing here that says, if you the editor dislike some of the ideas that some BLP has put forward, that you can omit Reliable Sources of your choice, cherrypick what facts to include in mainspace, and in general call anything reliably sourced you want to exclude WP:UNDUE. It is an absolute abuse of WP:VALID to say, that omit-stuff means we can downplay the fact the guy has a PhD, since if readers *knew* the guy had a PhD, that would unduly legitimize his work. Similarly, it is a horrid abuse of WP:FRINGE, to say that because *some* ideas are "accused of being pseudo" as Barney puts it below, that therefore every idea and every action and every BLP-detail are thus *also* now WP:FRINGE... including their religion, their mainstream professional credentials, and their philosophy-books... as opposed to just specifically their scientific-theories-or-pseudoscientific-concepts (which themselves must be kept firmly separated for folks like Sheldrake which have published both kinds of things).

    p.s. WP:AGF may help explain why PhilosophyFellow knows something about policy... just like myself, perhaps they read the five pillars prior to editing, and used their anon editing for some time, before signing up for a registered-username-account. But if you want to discuss who started editing when, introduced to[REDACTED] by whom, that info might be helpful in answering Roxy. Suggest instead that you stick to being WP:NICE and WP:AGF, plus specifically quote the sentences you are using to justify your actions, rather than always saying WP:PG is the justification for your actions. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I still dont get where you are coming from. we cannot /not/ cover the fringe concept because that is why the subject is notable, and so we must cover it as the mainstream academics cover it - ranging from dismissing it as irrelevant to considering it harmful pseudoscience that misguides the public and leads them to not understand science.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the article is consistent with WP FRINGE but that's the problem. It's a BLP page, not a page about some spook hunting theory. Editors, especially the ones responding here, are twisting all kinds of logic to create an impression of a living person that flies in the face of proper encyclopedia editing. That's just one of the problems. The other problem is that no matter how many times new voices come into the page to state the blatantly obvious - editors get attacked or harassed or are given circular argumentation and no progress ever gets made. If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment over arguing something as simple as the first sentence in a BLP. The only solution at this stage is just block all current editors from the page for the next 30 days and let a new crop of editors not associated with either Psi or Skepticism and let them work it out. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people are so fanatically committed to declaring people in areas of interest to them as "fringe" that they constantly violate "Misplaced Pages" policy. Maybe you have to document the issues and take it to WP:ANI to get an article ban on them or a topic ban if there are a series of related articles. I don't think it would hurt to tell editors who tried to edit and were harassed off about the WP:ANI, would it? Sometimes it takes several anis and visits to noticeboards before people figure out there is real bias (and probably hidden COI?) involved in stifling WP:RS info about individuals. Biased editors often try to get long quotes of criticism in, without there being even a one or two sentence explanation of overall views. That's probably your problem too. CM-DC talk 21:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) - the issue here is partly that a number of pointed criticisms have been made. It's not just "he's completely crazy" (I've left those out for BLP reasons). The criticism, repeated over and over again, is that his ideas on MR are so vague as to be worthless, and not scientific because they're not falsifiable and also not testable, inconsistent with existing scientific theories, and fail Occam's razor by invoking forces for which there is no evidence, avoiding peer review, and distorting the public's understanding of science. I've tried to find Sheldrake's responses to these criticism, but apart from one complaint that Steve Rose was basically being nasty to him, I can't really find where he's addressed it. WP:BLP doesn't mean whitewashing the article of all criticism (especially because if we don't summarise it and cite it and present it his fans try to claim said criticism doesn't exist). Yes, you are right that WP:ARB/PS applies and I wish it would be enforced more. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Every single statement in this diatribe is false. It's the criticisms of Sheldrake's theory that are "so vague as to be worthless." Morphic resonance is not only testable (and therefore by definition falsifiable) but has been put to the test several times, though of course any edit describing one of these tests is almost instantly reverted. Morphic resonance is in no way "inconsistent with existing scientific theories" and does not fail Occam's razor precisely because it does not invoke "forces for which there is no evidence." Sheldrake would love nothing more than to see his theory widely tested, with the results published in peer reviewed journals. I challenge you, Barney, to find a single source that provides substantive details behind any of these claims. And when you're done with that exercise in futility, how about reading one of Sheldrake's books, say, A New Science of Life? How about educating yourself on the man before disrupting his biography page? Editing the Sheldrake page requires two things: a knowledge of science and a knowledge of Sheldrake. I see no evidence of the latter in any of the editors currently controlling the page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) - so highlighting quite specific issues with philosophy of science is vague and meaningless is it? Just because this topic (philosophy of science, sociology of science, seems to be beyond your evidently meagre ability to understand basic topics, doesn't make it "vague and meaningless". Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To get specific, you need to explain why morphic resonance isn't testable despite many apparent tests having been conducted, which scientific theories it's incompatible with and what forces it invokes for which there is no evidence. Otherwise you're just repeating vague claims circulating in the media. While there's no reason the Sheldrake page can't include these claims, that doesn't mean we have to work under the assumption that they're true. When we do that, we're involving ourselves in a dispute rather than just reporting it. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney -- once again -- WP:NPA. "your evidently meager ability to understand basic topics". WP:ROPE. WP:NICE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:BLP is not a whitewash.

Philosophyfellow can you please state specifically what if anything is unsourced or is not representative of the mainstream academic perceptions of Sheldrake and his work? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Misplaced Pages has a general problem with BLPs of the originators of or noted campaigners for fringe theories. Supporters of such theories regularly (but quite improperly) try to use the BLP as a way of sneaking in support for the theory. But opponents of such theories also regularly (and in my opinion equally improperly) try to disparage the BLP subject as a way of attacking the theory. Frequently such opponents "win", as it is relatively easy for them to quote policies usuch as WP:FRINGE in apparent support of their editing, but this approach is confusing, for example, Rupert Sheldrake with morphic resonance: a BLP is not an article about a scientific theory. Uninvolved editors need to watch carefully for both types of error. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones (talk) Yes, you put it more succinctly than I. A sense of neutrality is lost on the page and it's become a tit for tat between the skeptics and the supporters. Misplaced Pages not a place for that battleground and we have to watch this carefully. The fact that this made it to the BBC and I have since found a number of bloggers covering this issue for the past few months is sign enough that this battleground needs to stop. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonathon is correct... and, if you look into the edit-history, there once *was* no conflation between the man and his theories. Over on deWiki, they still *have* two articles, but on enWiki there was an ill-advised merge-n-delete of the article covering morphic-stuff. Undoing that mistake was one of my first suggestions, but one of the editors involved in the merge-n-delete claims that Sheldrake-the-BLP and also Sheldrake-the-BLP's-theories-about-various-things must all be in the same article, because otherwise[REDACTED] will have a POV-fork. In other words, the *goal* seems to be the ability to apply WP:FRINGE to questions like the BLP's religious stance, and to whether or not the BLP has a PhD, and so on. If there were two articles or more articles, WP:FRINGE would only be rarely applicable. That said, there are deeper problems here, about whether or not[REDACTED] editors are permitted to discount reliable sources they disagree with, on that basis only. Especially, there are several attempts to discount *parts* of sources, through an abuse of WP:UNDUE. It is a sordid business, but many appearances at noticeboards, not to mention in the BBC and New Republic, have failed to bring sanity to the mainspace, or even the talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re the opening sentence, the conversation is only a day old. The root problem is that people either do not participate or do not participate constructively. vzaak (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The conversation is not a day old. If anyone goes through the talk section, they can see the same issue being addressed over and over in other topics going back some time. I went back a few months and it's the same questions and the same responses all with the same argument - 'Sheldrake cannot be listed as a biologist or a scientist even though the majority of all secondary sources refer to him this way as well as the primary sources because to do so would lend credibility to his work on morphic resonance'. Some editors at one point did not even want to refer to Sheldrakes 'Hypothesis of Formative Causation' as an actual hypothesis because that too would mislead readers on the page that the idea has scientific support. All one needs to do is collect the sources on the page that are being cited, find other proper RS sources and compare what the majority say. They say he is a biologist. They say he is doing scientific research. Because he is a biologist and because he is doing scientific research does not make his theories accurate. He could be absolutely wrong and still be a biologist doing scientific research into telepathy. If this page is having problems with the simple stuff like the opening sentence and can't use common sense to asses a sticky topic, the rest of the page is hopeless. Please, let's get these editors out of here and invite a new team to come in. This is becoming more about dynamics between editors and egos and it's never going to get resolved this way. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In that section I spent some time outlining the essential problem (conflicting sources) and presented possible solutions. However instead of engaging the issue, people are just asserting that their opinion is obviously correct and drawing caricatures of the other side. Both sides are doing this. vzaak (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any conflicting sources to Sheldrake either being a scientist or a biologist are in small number compared to the high number of quality sources that list him as such. How does Sheldrake list himself? As a a biologist. How many secondary sources support the primary source? Plenty. University of Cambridge should be enough, but even his most recent appointments list him that way. It would seem to make matters simple to list him as a biologist, or at least as a scientist which appeared to be the compromise before it was reverted. Any editors who have problems with morphic resonance or issues with Sheldrake performing faulty science can list those as quotes where relevant and that satisfies WP Fringe. This is such a simple issue to solve. If there are issues with conflicting sources, just use common sense and be careful not to interpret. The fact that the problems on the talk page prevent this easy step from occurring is why I think we need a change of the guard here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a simple issue, though people on both sides seem convinced that it is. Please, make your argument addressing conflicting sources at the talk page, not here. Remember I got reverted, too, after adding "scientist"; that is why that talk page section exists. If I add "scientist" again it would basically be warring. I wanted people to make arguments in that section, but that hasn't happened in any serious manner. vzaak (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't happened in any serious matter apparently for months. The warring has been going on for awhile. That's why we need to get a new team in here. Philosophyfellow (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The team is fine; it's just that policy does not support having an article that hides the contrast because Rupert's fringe views and those of mainstream science. MilesMoney (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If people are Not pushing a fanatical agenda, it should not be that difficult to have a description of what his views are and what the criticisms are, in a balanced manner. But when you find that people won't even admit what multiple solid refs show is their field of study or area of knowledge, then you have a major problem, just like you would if all criticisms were removed. I just read the Depak Chopra article "The Rise and Fall of Militant Skepticism" in the SF Gate about editing this and other articles about organized bias on wikipedia and I've found that problem in a number of areas. Let's be aware of it and figure out how to get editors to be more neutral - especially on BLPs. Unfortunately, as I found in editing a couple of them, some times threat of sanctions is the only thing that cools down temperatures. Trying not to get involved in more articles, but may take a look... CM-DC talk 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of organised sceptic activity on the Sheldrake page as suggested by all the gullible press reports, initiated by a blog post from a "psychic" editor? Instead of making wild accusations, present this evidence please. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

When you see the same issue jumping up on three noticeboards at once, you know something's up. And the description of issues above sounds like that. CM-DC talk 01:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Organised or not, one of the truly depressing things is that despite everyone seeming to recognise that there are differences that are being (re)hashed out on the talk page, a NPOV tag keeps coming and going at a dizzying rate - the very tag designed to alert readers to underlying disagreements of this nature! The Sokal/Dawkins stuff in the interactions section is a shameless display of WP:OR triumphing over WP:RS - how is is possible to edit constructively under such circumstances? Blippy (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone experienced with noticeboards should notice that this report is content-free—there are plenty of generic claims, but no specific issues. It's pretty simple: what text at Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP problem? Why?

@CM-DC: It would be better to examine the issues at the article before taking sides. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with @Johnuniq:. No specific issues have been mentioned. I read the article lede and everything seemed fine. What specific issues are there with this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well these responses are indicative of the problems faced. Numerous issues have already been flagged here. The NPOV tag, the Sokal & Dawkins content, the use of the word "theory" to describe MR, referring to Sheldrake as a biologist/scientist/biochemist. There are others. Or are you simply dismissing these out of hand as content-free generic non-specific issues? Blippy (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

THe issues, Blippy (talk · contribs) have been addressed. WP:IDONTHEARYOU isn't an excuse. You've been told why we can't call it a theory, you've been told why we can't use the Dawkins story, you've been told why we can't endorse him as a scientists if he is being accused of not doing science you've been told you must justify the NPOV tag with reference to sources and policy (especially WP:FRINGE). If these tired old refuted arguments are the best you can come up with, it's not good for your case now is it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Barney, please remember that this is a new noticeboard, and that people who have not been following the Sheldrake talkpage since the sea-change in mainspace this summer, may not understand exactly what you specifically mean when you say the "issues have been addressed". Please give the one-or-two-sentence-each summary, for 1) why reliable sources that call Sheldrake a biologist are kept out of mainspace, 2) why reliable sources giving Sokal's actual *serious* views on Sheldrake's work are kept out of mainspace (different Sokal's purposely-false-views expressed in the hoax-paper as you well know), and in particular 3) why[REDACTED] cannot "endorse" him by calling him a scientist "if he is being accused of not doing science". Are you saying that some animals are more equal than others, and some reliable sources trump others? Misplaced Pages is supposed to describe the conflict in Reliable Sources, not pick the winner. This is no place to WP:RGW, and try to keep gullible readers from thinking Sheldrake might have highly respectable scientific credentials... *especially* when those credentials are the very reason his telepathy-like theories allowed him to co-author half a dozen books. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq (talk). The opening comment from myself lays it out pretty clearly. The very first opening sentence in the article is the problem in question. I specifically mentioned the issues with referring to him as either a biologist or a scientist. I'm not sure how much clearer it could have been but hope you have clarity now. Any issues being brought up about 'organized skepticism' on the page are irrelevant. Organized or not, there is a battleground happening on the page between two sides of an issue.

@Barney, you're not being very forthcoming here. The fact that you would even write 'he has been accused of not doing science so we can't refer to him as a scientist' is a perfect example of biased editing that doesn't serve Misplaced Pages well. Let's get a new team in here who are not so emotionally attached to the outcome or how the world perceives Rupert Sheldrake. Philosophyfellow (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

calling or not calling someone "a scientist" is not a BLP issue. (particularly someone who has made their living for the past 30 years as a author) "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine any scientist would feel defamed if an article on Misplaced Pages claimed they were not a real scientist. Also, a BLP needs to be accurate, even if it's not libelous. Surely you are not suggesting that inaccuracies or misleading articles are acceptable as long as they are not defamatory, are you? Also, I have not seen one source that shows that Rupert Sheldrake has made his living for the past 30 years from writing books and has divorced himself from scientific research. The fact that these little opinions or interpretations of Sheldrake are making their way into a BLP is why we need a new team to come in and clean this mess up. Philosophyfellow (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Show me where the article claims that he is not a scientist ( that is not a reliably sourced quote from an expert)? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the editors who are claiming he is not a scientist doing real science and that claim informs the article. Diff 01 Anyone can see this diff which claimed he was a scientist was removed. Diff 02 citing the arguments listed here. Now he is not even listed as a researcher, just an author and lecturer. Surely any fair minded person would agree that it makes no sense to have either supporters or detractors inform the content of the article. Philosophyfellow (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article. You still have not identified any actual BLP concerns. You have identified that Sheldrake would like to have his article read as a promotional POV CV, but that doesnt really matter-we dont do that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: I could not ask for a more clear response that highlights the problem with biased editors in question. I rest my case. Philosophyfellow (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

While the article never says "Sheldrake is not a scientist" the article's history is littered with examples of the word "scientist" or "biologist" being deleted or reverted with dismissive edit summaries. And the Talk page has whole sections devoted to hammering home the proposition that calling Sheldrake a scientist or a biologist violates WP:FRINGE. The same argument can be found in the archives. Also, easily found in the archives and edit history of the article are crusades against describing morphic resonance a theory or a hypothesis. TRPoD, you have made these arguments and edits. It's extraordinarily disingenuous for you to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article." I imagine that sentence is true. But it's misleading, in the extreme. DiffsExamples to follow. David in DC (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 1

Examples of disingenuousness on current talk page:
"scientists do not cling to magical proposals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)"
"He is NOT a "proponent of an alternative scientific world-view" and mis-labeling him as such in the lead sentence is a non-starter.WP:NPOV / WP:VALID his is a pseudo-scientific world view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"
"The intro sentence must provide a basic context around the subject and why they are notable. Sheldrake is notable because of his lecturing and writing on fringe subjects and the rejection of those subjects by the mainstream. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"
"Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_. "Hypothesis" has multiple meanings, some of which are completely inappropriate for this article. There are other words that do not contain the same chance of presenting words in a way that would be able to be misinterpreted by our readers. We take the path that avoids misinterpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)"
"and he may still be carrying out "research" but as has been shown multiple times, to call it "scientific" research is to put a false label on it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
"I must have missed something. How does having a doctorate mean that everything that you do (even if what you are doing does not follow scientific standards) is qualified as scientific research? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"
""resting your case" on Content in Misplaced Pages is a very tenuous position to put yourself in. He is now an author on parapsychology and not a scientist at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)"
David in DC (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard for everything posted in this section. Even if disingenuousness of editors on a talk page could be established, this is the BLP noticeboard and the only thing relevant would be to explain what existing text is a BLP problem. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, John. The heart of the problem with the page is a determined, tooth-and-claw effort to derogate this Living Person by marginalizing him. We must not call him a scientist. We must not call his idea a theory or a hypothesis. That approach might be OK on an article about Morphic resonance. But not in a Biography. We MUST treat biographies of living fringe theorists differently than we treat their theories. When a principal warrior appears on the BLP Noticeboard to argue that "no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist"", that argument must be contradicted, in the same place. The examples above and the archived sections below establish, dispositively, that there are indeed ones (including TRPoD) trying to make this biography "say" that Sheldrake is not a scientist.David in DC (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A deletion of "Hypothesis"
and a couple of archived talk sections with TRPoD arguing vociferously against using "hypothesis" or "theory" to describe morphic resonance are sufficient to back my accusation of disingenuousnes of the sentence "But no one is stating they want to include "Sheldrake is not a scientist" in the article."
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Statement_by_TheRedPenOfDoom
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Decision
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Removing_reference_source_17:_Consensus_sought
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Morphic_resonance_as_.22alternative_theoretical_formulation.22
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Solidify_at_least_one_decision
David in DC (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, what exactly is the BLP issue of content in the article? (And I will fully stand by my analysis that "morphic resonance" should not be described as a "hypothesis" or "theory", terms which have multiple meanings most of which do not apply to the crackpot idea and we have words that better describe what MR is without the chance of misleading our readers to think it is something it is not and so we should use them.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The BLP issue is that there are sufficient reliable sources to call Sheldrake a biologist. Deleting the word (or the word scientist) from the lede, as has been done repeatedly, is derogation of the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. His recent work is quite well contextualized in the subheds about his books, public appearances and interactions with other scientists. No sane reader could read the article and think he was anywhere but out on the fringe. Calling him a biologist, as the sources do, misleads no one. Neither does calling his theories "theories" nor his hypothesis a "hypothesis". A months-long campaign against these words violates BLP and brings disrepute on our project.

WP:FRINGE is not license to turn a BLP into an ATTACK piece. David in DC (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and again, I am not seeing how not calling somebody a "scientist" and not calling something a "hypothesis" is either an ATTACK or a BLP issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear there is little understanding of that. It's why we need to get a new team in here who does. Philosophyfellow (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately TRiPod it is your willingness to "fully stand by analysis" that is symptomatic (causal?) of the problem. Editors are performing WP:OR and analysis instead of simply relying on WP:RS's. There are umpteen WP:RS's which refer to Sheldrake as a scientist, biochemist, biologist. There are as many more with refer to MR as a theory and/or hypothesis. However you continue to insist that your analysis is what matters. This is not how WP operates, despite your (and others) insistence that it does. The Sokal & Dawkins interaction pieces suffer from exactly the same problem. In fact, the problem also arises in the insistence to not allow a stand alone article on MR to exist despite it being so prominent in so many different fora. Blippy (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Blippy is making a valid point, and as for TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's comment about the innocuous nature of removing descriptors, they change the entire context of the discussion and role of those involved. "The man had an idea about eggs" connotes some clueless guy who's hungry, "the scientist had a theory/hypothesis about eggs" connotes an academic who had a structured, researched argument about bird embryos.

Whether that structure stands up to scrutiny and that argument is correct is irrelevant, the issue is that descriptors matter and their use or abuse reflects the legitimacy of the BLP they're present in. The Cap'n (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and per WP:VALID, Sheldrake is hungry. show that there is any significant or even "minor" support in the mainstream academic community for Sheldrakes WP:REDFLAG ideas. using terminology that promotes otherwise is the violation of NPOV and BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of WP:WIKILAWYERING, but WP:'s have been bandied around pretty loosely as a justification for just about everything, so let's take a look at the text of the two links you attached. WP:REDFLAG is referring to editors making fringe claims about legitimate topics, not to the articles on fringe claims themselves. Thus someone who tries to edit the JFK page to say Kennedy was killed by the Illuminati would be a red flag, but the page on the Illuminati itself would not. In the same way no one is not making fringe claims about Sheldrake, but rather reporting accurately on a man who has made fringe claims. There's an important distinction in the burden of proof.

As for WP:VALID, it says:

"We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." (emphasis added)

The focus is on neutrality, balanced legitimacy and context, not on restricting any factual information that might legitimize the subject. 2/3 of Sheldrake's article is contextual info about his contested place in the scientific community, so there is no case to be made for his legitimacy being misconstrued unduly. For this article to be a legitimate BLP, we cannot fall into the trap of using WP:VALID & WP:REDFLAG to justify violating NPOV. There is no danger of Sheldrake being depicted as mainstream, no language indicative of misrepresentation and no reason to avoid descriptors that are sourced and common sense. The Cap'n (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but is any text currently at Rupert Sheldrake a violation of WP:BLP? If so, what text, and why. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to prove a negative. The problem isn't in the current words of, for example, the lede. The problem is the routine deletion of words from the lede. Important words for making this article BLP-compliant are absent, because FRINGE-fighters wheel war to revert or delete them. Here's an example, just from the lede, although they happen throughout the article.

In the lede, the BLP violations are what happens when someone tries to call Sheldrake a biologist or his work a theory. I've just done both, because fixing a BLP violation does not require consensus. I hope to be proven wrong, but I expect to be reverted. David in DC (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing that you certainly HAVENT done is show the affirmative that Sheldrake has any size support in the mainstream academic community - Please provide some before you keep claiming there is ANY POV problems in the article's presenting of him as someone without support in the mainstream academic community. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My similar efforts have been reverted persistently, so I will be (pleasantly) surprised if yours aren't! WP:BLP is predicated on NPOV, NOR, and V. All the claims mentioned above fall under these three policy areas. The Sokal bit is an obvious piece of OR, as is this bizarre notion that Sheldrake not be referred to as a scientist/biologist/biochemist, and that his theory not be described as a theory. We know it's OR because of all the Verifiable sources that use this language. Sokal arguably violates NPOV too, since it only serves to link Sheldrake to a hoax that he had no part in i.e. a smear. NPOV is also relevant to the exclusion of the Dawkins incident (which satisfies WP:V) since Dawkins is critical of Sheldrake and this incident provides an important (according to RS's) example of how he has had to defend himself against "abuse" and "prejudice" that have been "have been unfair and uninformed". How is it presenting a fair and balanced view of things to exclude such things? And as for this odd notion that there is some sort of OTHER standard of proof that has to be satisfied for Sheldrake, where does that come from? This is BLP. The Sheldrake page is not a FRINGE page - Sheldrake is real, so is his life, so are his efforts/work, and his reception. We don't pretend the controversy doesn't exist or that because not everyone agrees with him that he therefore doesn't exist or do anything of NOTE. There are multiple RS's for the suggested edits. End of story. Blippy (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

thank you for providing the evidence to show that there is not any mainstream support of his ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and please provide a rationale for why including Chopra's criticism of Dawkins that only includes Chopra and Sheldrakes take on something Dawkins decided not to do (not include Sheldrake in his TV show) in the article about Sheldrake is a BLP compliant action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the BLP problem. . It took about an hour. Using the words misleads no one and does not violate WP:FRINGE. Deleting them is derogatory toward the Living Person who is the subject of this Biography. Fixing WP:BLP violations does not require consensus. But it's impossible to fix them here, because of determined edit-warring by editors with a skeptical POV. WP:NPOV would be to call him a biologist (or scientist), call his ideas hypotheses (or theories) and use the body of the article to tell the story of his life, including the voluminous (and accurate - I'm not a Sheldrake acolyte) material from reliable sources critiquing the ideas he promotes that are deeply flawed. Adding material opposing the theories is totally justifiable. Derogating the living person by deleting reliably sourced biographical info about him is not. David in DC (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

we do not participate in Sheldrakes promotion of pseudoscience by using scientific terminology where non-scientific terminology is not only adequate but more accurate. There is no BLP violation in using more accurate terminology.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) Your terminology and phraseology are wholly inappropriate, judgemental and biased. (2) Describing Sheldrake's views does not "participate" in the "promotion" of his ideas, any more than the Wiki article about the Nazis does the same. (3) Using scientific terminology does not lend undue credibility to his ideas, any more than, for example, the use of the word "theory" to described "Phlogiston theory" or "Nordström's theory of gravitation". Likewise the suggestion is contradicted by a source that you offered, ie. Rose's paper which uses the term "hypothesis" extensively, but leaves the reader in no doubt of his position against Sheldrake's views. (4) NPOV describes views neutrally, not judgementally, ie. without bias (WP:NPOV, first sentence.) --Iantresman (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and it was bound to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedantic correction: Godwin's law specifically requires that one side *call* the other side a Nazi, or at least, imply that the other side is no better than the fuhrer. Iantresman is not calling anybody that, or even coming close to implying that; they could just have easily said that the Sarah Palin article is fair, or the Barack Obama article is fair... or what the heck, even that the Kim a-new-star-appeared-in-the-heavens-the-day-he-was-born Jong-il BLP article is fair, compared to the one-sided Sheldrake article. Quite frankly, the articles on the national socialist party, and on the fuhrer, are written by pansies, people afraid to say what those folks *really* did.

  Folks defending the Sheldrake mainspace as NPOV, please, compare the Rupert Sheldrake article to the Charles Hapgood article, two scientists gone to the dark side, and notice the difference in tone, and one-sided-ness. That is the point Iantresman was trying to make: we treat the nazis more fairly than Sheldrake, and they are all dead, so BLP restrictions do not even apply. The problem is not that Sheldrake is pure as driven snow, the problem is the mindset that sources agreeing with Sheldrake, about anything whether it be his academic credentials or his telepathy-theories, simply because they agree with Sheldrake about anything at all, therefore must be fringe. This is a deep misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, which demands we reflect the reliable sources, all of them, not just ones we prefer, not just ones that are true, but all of them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And indeed it did. Perhaps if you could address what appears to be a common sense rebuttal to your argument instead of offering snarky commentary the page could actually get somewhere instead of being stopped for personal reasons. That fact that some editors are unable to progress their arguments past a reasonable point informs us that we need to get a team in here who can. Philosophyfellow (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake arbitrary break 2

As an uninvolved party, maybe I can help propose a compromise acceptable to both sides. This is, in one sense, and unusual dispute because it is not as much between advocates of different views of the article subject, but instead between advocates of different policies. After reading the dispute and related materials, the issues appear to be simply:

1. Should Sheldrake be described in the led as some flavor of scientist?
2. Should morphic resonance be described as a theory or hypothesis?

Sheldrake is currently described as: "an English author and lecturer on science-related issues" I see nothing in MOS:LEAD, WP:MOSBIO, WP:FRINGE, or WP:BLP that suggests this is an unacceptable or derogatory description. It is eminently neutral and clearly identifies his current, primary activities. Sheldrake may call himself a scientist, but we are under no obligation to favor the subject's views about themselves in any description them. Removing the word "biologist" or its variations from the first sentence is especially not a problem when the immediately following sentence identifies him as a "biologist," "biochemist," and "plant physiologist." If the various advocates are dead set on integrating biologist into the first sentence, then perhaps, "an English former biologist who currently writes and lectures on science-related issues," would bridge the gap.

The dispute over the use of "theory" versus "idea" is one that appears to depend on different definitions of "theory." In one sense, both are correct. American Heritage Dictionary variously defines "theory" as:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. (skipped)
3. (skipped)
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation
5. (skipped)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

From his detractors' perspective, Sheldrake's morphic resonance clearly fits one of the latter two definitions. From his own point of view, it clearly fits the first. Regardless, using the world "theory" is a fitting description. It implies no endorsement unless one is determined to ignore the clear qualifiers that contextualize the way morphic resonance is described in the article. "Idea," by contrast, strikes me as not sufficient to describe the primary intellectual activity that the subject is engaged in. Either way, the point is not so much about the inadequacy of "idea" as the adequacy of "theory." "Theory" means both what supporters and detractors want it to mean. The difference in views is more about the connotation of this word than the denotation. Connotations are of primary linguistic importance when other context is lacking, which is not the case here. I hope this helps the involved editors reach consensus. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

While I think the first part of your analysis is correct, the second part is not. As a pseudo-scientist, Sheldrake is laying a fake scientific veneer over non-scientific acts. We should not be collaborating in such a process by using terms which have among their meanings some that are specific to the scientific arena and applying the words in a manner which supports a casual lay reader into assuming that Sheldrakes ideas are more scientific than they are, particularly when we can appropriately use terms (like idea or concept) that will not inappropriately promoting the misunderstanding of science and the place of Sheldrakes pseudoscience ideas in the world of actual science. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake and others tend to use "hypothesis", which is a compromise in the sense it is not quite a theory, and more than just an idea. --Iantresman (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I can see how this may seem like a helpful offer, but I am not sure it addresses the problems raised by others. The issue some editors are having is that WP is choosing to remove his credentials as a scientist so as to frame his entire biography as having little integrity to make the claims Sheldrake makes. That's the issue. It's not between supporters of WP policy, it's the question "Is Sheldrake credible as a scientist to question the foundations of science and perform research into telepathy or promote his hypothesis of Morphic Resonance?" As you can imagine - that's a debate editors should not be having, especially when sources conflict. The editors on the other side are providing sources that support removing scientist or biologist, but these sources are opinionated sources. If the truth be known, there are sources out there that could support both sides of the argument, making this more complex than it appears to a new reader. There are no reliable sources that suggest Sheldrake is no longer doing science. All reliable sources list Sheldrake as a biologist who is currently doing research into claims of telepathy in animals and humans. There is a conflation between the *type* of research Sheldrake is doing, which is on the fringes of science, with the quality of research he is performing.

In terms of referring to 'hypothesis' or 'theory' - it is entirely neutral to refer to his Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance as an hypothesis, because again primary sources support this as well as secondary sources. It's also the title of his Book, The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. And technically it is an hypothesis and Sheldrake never refers to it as a theory. Sheldrake has a BA in Philosophy from Harvard as well as his own PhD in Biochemistry. There are no sources, or any precedent that I am aware of that support stripping Sheldrake of his academic credibility as a primary source especially when secondary academic sources support it.

So essentially we have editors on the one side who consider Sheldrake to be performing a kind of fraud by pulling the wool over people's eyes, and on the other side editors who believe that such a treatment of Sheldrake is biased, turning this whole issue into an ideological battleground that has no place on Misplaced Pages. Remember, this is a BLP, so it's very important we get it right, not to just protect the reader, but to protect the living person. The fair treatment would be to list Sheldrake as his credentials suggest and state very clearly the opposing side of the issue with proper sources. We can't choose one over the other, that's what's happening in this battlefield. We have to present both. It's the only way to stay neutral. And it's also the simplest solution.

Thanks for your good work though. I hope you stick around. FYI I keep telling myself I am done with this. I may step away from this I can see why so many are getting rattled. It's a frazzling situation. Hopefully this is my final word on the issue :) Philosophyfellow (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears the leading advocates are both opposed to the suggested compromise. I'm not sure this is a sign that it is a bad suggestion or, possibly, a sign it is an actual compromise. What I am sure of is that positions are hardening, and further discussion between these two parties is unlikely to establish a consensus in the absence of other voices. I suggest the way out may be for an RfC be opened on these two points and both agree to abide by those RfC results. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I admire your boundless sense of optimism, Eggishorn. How it survives the treatment of your eminently reasonable compromise proposal, I cannot fathom. But admire it, I do. Thank you for trying. David in DC (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Eggishorn, your points are well-taken, but in this case compromise on particular content-positions is 100% premature; any content-discussion will result in hardening of positions, and permanent grudges, methinks. The policy-misunderstanding must be fixed, first. Apologies for the wall-of-text; David can translate, if necessary, he speaks pidgin-74-eze.

  This they simply cannot do; so sayeth pillar two. After *that* WP:CHERRYPICKING problem is well and truly settled, then -- and only then -- will settling the content-disputes even begin to be possible. (The skeptics firmly believe that taking a pro-Sheldrake quote... or even a neutral-towards-Sheldrake quote... and an anti-Sheldrake quote... from the SAME SOURCE... is cherrypicking on the part of the apparently-vastly-numerous-army of Sheldrake fanbois! To include impeccably-neutral David our BLP specialist... not to mention recent arrivals like myself, PhilosophyFellow, TheCapn, etc... when in fact the *actual* Sheldrake fanbois were harried off[REDACTED] long ago.) I predict content-disputes will evaporate, nigh-instantaneously, compared to the past four months of WP:battleground, once the core problem of we-are-not-cherrypicking-because-fringe-redflag-pseudo is finally resolved.

  If the core question is left unsolved, namely, whether there *is* in fact a skeptic point-of-view, or not, and if so, whether SkePOV is, or is not, straight-up *identical* to NPOV... lacking those answers, Sheldrake's BLP will be at the noticeboards indefinitely, until enough editors from one faction of this four-sided conflict die of old age, or ArbCom intervenes... but note that if SkePOV==NPOV, the *meaning* of the 2010 decision changes greatly. Hope This Helps. Arthritis. Making. It. Hard. To. Type. Please. End. The. Madness.... —74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr, but actually we are required to weigh and give value to the sources, and give more weight to the peer reviewed academic sources as per POLICIES: WP:REDFLAG, WP:VALID, and Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fortuantely we have lots of reliable secondary sources that have done that for us, which I have listed here(permalink). Of course we should state the position of the few academic primary sources we have, and we should look at any secondary sources you provide. I have been requesting them for some time now. --Iantresman (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried. So many sticks, so little life left in the poor equine. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging according to publish or perish, is Sheldrake dead or alive as a scientist? Is he dead or alive as a pseudoscientist? Mind you that biology as a science is not concerned telepathy and does not research it, instead parapsychology (a pseudoscience) does that. You speak of science and of organized skepticism. Well, science is organized skepticism. So pretending that scientists should not be skeptical is like pretending that the Pope should not be a man. If Sheldrake is the victim of organized skepticism this proves that he isn't a scientist (if he ever was one). Scientists actually benefit from organized skepticism and are required to organize themselves as skeptics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake publishes, of course... and notability is not temporary... but since you asked: philosophy-of-science (2012 book), parapsychology (previous two books), phytomorphology-and-pseudophysics(first two books), theology(two co-authorships). According to Iantresman, he has published reasonably-mainstream-scientific papers in 2012/2010/2009, and in the previous millenium published something like fifty indisputably-mainstream-science papers. Sheldrake is also still invited to lecture, including during the past few years, about his mainstream-bio-research axion-phytomorphology stuff. But the problem here is not whether Sheldrake "is" a scientist, based on logical reasoning by wikipedians, which is WP:OR. (( If you **want** that, my own take is he's a semi-active scientist mostly constrained by funding rather than ability, and a *very* active parapsychologist -- but not as active as he would like to be -- again the funding-constraints play a key role. His redoubled notoriety in 2012 and 2013 methinks are an attempt to generate publicity, book sales, and thereby research-funding, for both his science-and-his-psuedoscience. ))

  The core problem is sticking to *ALL* the Reliable Sources, and never trying to eliminate those some subset of the *editors* happen to disagree with. The related problem is trying to apply the pseudo label *outside* the realm of science-based-claims itself: if Sheldrake's subquantum physics is pseudo per Reliable Sources, well then fair enough... but that does not mean his PhD is now pseudo too, nor that his books on spirituality are now pseudo, nor that his position on how research-funding-infrastructure ought to be reformed is somehow pseudo-politics-of-science! WP:FRINGE is being abusively expanded way beyond the question of is-he-or-is-he-not-currently-a-scientist. p.s. Sheldrake claims to be attacked by Organized Skeptik Konspirators... see my WP:OR for this above... but the truth is, the Sheldrake BLP article is (just since ~July 2013... contrast with deWiki on the same topic) an un-centrally-organized emergent phenomena, of personally-skeptical editors that simply deeply misunderstand the very-restricted scope of WP:FRINGE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is not a "very narrow and limited scope" for WP:UNDUE / WP:VALID / WP:PSCI (part of the POLICY level document) and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision. There are many people who seem to fail to either understand or acknowledge that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please consider commenting here, if you're previously uninvolved. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has been withdrawn.

I believe that we are back where we started with a "complaint" about a BLP issue that has not defined or identified any actual BLP issue with the article. Can a neutral admin please close this? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

A sockpuppet investigation has been created for Philosophyfellow, the originator of this BLPN thread. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman. vzaak (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Tumbleman (talk · contribs) and has been blocked. vzaak (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A new arbitration request...

has been filed here. David in DC (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am therefore bringing the matter here for discussion. Comments regarding whether the statement is a BLP violation would be appreciated, as would the edit-warring being dealt with if it continues while the matter is under discussion. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess Neljack has given up harassing Wehwalt and moved on to me. I took great pains to ensure that my post was BLP-compliant. Neljack is operating on some kind of bizarre assumption that removing edits he doesn't like bears the finality of a WMF office-action. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to harass anyone. I am just trying to ensure that the BLP policy is complied with. I certainly do not suggest that my actions are final - that is why I have brought the matter here for discussion. All I have said is that policy requires that the disputed material stay out while discussion is occurring, since it can only be restored by consensus when it has been removed on BLP grounds. See this from BLP: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." I hope we can have a constructive and civil discussion about the material in issue. Neljack (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are, and yes, you have. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down. I don't know how else "this so-called "gender change" was done for one of the most disgusting reasons humanly imaginable" can be read as anything else as but a BLP violation. But Joe, since you've said you crafted this statement carefully to avoid BLP, can you please explain that rationale now?Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. You just repeated the sentence word-for-word, yet I don't see Neljack trolling your comments. The alternative is for me to actually spell out why Karr has done this. As Someguy says below, I have instead urged editors to read the article and follow the links. Anyone who does that, and still wishes to defend Karr is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article, and you read the alleged reason that Alexis Reich had a change of gender identity, you will understand what would lead someone to believe what Joe does. But however repulsive someone finds a living person's alleged motives, those feelings have no place in pretty much any discussion on Misplaced Pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite aware. However I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he could somehow convince others that it's not a BLP violation, because he says he crafted that statement carefully to avoid BLP. I don't see any other way to look at it, but I'm willing to listen. But he's not speaking up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained it again and again. Having been shown the door at the Natalee Holloway FAR he was disrupting, Neljack has obviously moved on to continue harassing others elsewhere. He is under some bizarre belief that he maintains right-of-first-refusal to all edits to the Karr AfD. He also has the bizarre belief that if he doesn't like something, he can simply call it "a BLP violation", and that his opinion alone stands as "unrevertable". Bzzzt. Error. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP removed, Joe blocked, so I guess this is done.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the BLP has not (yet) been removed, given that the deletion discussion has not (yet) been closed. Also note that there is a section above (here at BLPN) that is still open regarding this same BLP (click here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Carboni

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

He's not-notable in a big way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.238.44 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

eric johnson

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

In his wiki it states "Fellow Texan, the late comedian Bill Hicks, opened for Eric Johnson on at least one occasion in the Eighties. The highly intoxicated Hicks made light of Eric's lack of hit singles, as well as his vegetarian and teetotal lifestyle, by suggesting that if Eric were to eat a Hamburger and drink a beer he would be able to write more popular songs. After this incident Bill Hicks was not asked to open for Johnson ever again."Which is not true.In an interview,Eric tells a totally different story

I’ve read that the late comedian Bill Hicks was fan of yours, but was pulled as an opening act for you after making some ill-advised drunken comments about you onstage. Did you have any contact with him after that?

Eric - "I don’t think that’s exactly true. He always opened shows for us, and there was never a time that he didn’t open a show. He would do it anytime that we could work it out, and he got really popular and his career did real well, so he was out to make his own fame. The only thing was, for whatever reason our audience has always eight-year-old kids and 80-year-old people, and it was always kind of a running joke that when Bill would open the shows for us we’d say, “Hey Bill, can you kind of just make it R-rated, you know? Just back off the X-rated stuff a little bit? Because there’s eight-year-old kids out here.” And he’d go, “Yeah, sure, sure, sure, no problem.” Then he’d go out and do the X-rated show (laughs).

That was the only thing, but no, there was never a problem or anything. After we played he would always come back and criticize my show. He would tell me, “You’ve gotta to talk to the audience more, you’ve gotta put on more of a show,” you know? “You’re staring at the floor, too.” He really cared about the show and how to make it better."

A lot of people don’t realize he was a fair guitar player in his own right.

Eric -"Yeah."

Do you remember the last time you spoke with him?

Eric- "It was at one of my shows in Houston. That was probably a year or so before he passed away." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.201.17 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Engy Ghozlan

Just raising this here to check I handled it correctly - the Engy Ghozlan article was prodded yesterday by someone from a shared IP saying "as the personal subject of this article, I do not wish to be on this site, for potentially endangering reasons. Kindly delete this page". The article seems strongly sourced, Ghozlan is a prominent enough activist and spokesperson, and I could see nothing "endangering" about the article, so I removed the prod with a mention of WP:AUTOPROB if the editor still had concerns. I can't see any policy mechanisms that should be tripped by "subject requests deletion for safety reasons" (and am aware that this could easily be a critic of Ghozlan wanting her article removed), but thought I'd bring it over here in case there was anything I was unaware of. --McGeddon (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. From an IP registered to the University of Sussex? And a lot of disruptive editing on that page, looks like. Perhaps she has pushed some buttons somewhere, or perhaps it's actually her. I'd recommend contacting OTRS, but I'm not sure a message posted to that talk page is the best way to reach her. §FreeRangeFrog 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've since contacted Ghozlan privately and have been able to confirm that she did in fact make the deletion request. Looking again at the sources, there are just a couple that quote her as a spokesperson or activist (rather than having Ghozlan as the subject of the article) and a couple of WP:PRIMARY blog interviews, so perhaps this article never met WP:GNG in the first place. Shall I prod/AfD it, or recommend that she contact OTRS? --McGeddon (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Joellen Riley

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

Dear Misplaced Pages volunteers

I'd like to report a concern with an article on Joellen Riley, one of my colleagues here at the University. I noticed that recently an account of Prof Riley's public statements during an industrial dispute has appeared on her page at Joellen Riley. The information under the "Monumental" Intervention into Industrial Controversy at Sydney University' heading is extremely biased and unfair. Its basically a hatchet job and defamatory.

I don't feel I can make the changes myself because I am also conflicted by having a personal and professional connection with Prof Riley but, if it were possible I would like this section to be edited by an independent person so as to be more balanced. This should be fairly easily done as her comments were made in Australian newspapers as were those of people who disagreed with her I very much appreciate your work and I am also a donor to Misplaced Pages and I am worried about this unbalanced content.

Best regards

C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.210 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussed with the editor responsible here. The extensive editorializing concerning the subject has been removed from the article (twice now, but the editor has now agreed to refrain). Dwpaul 15:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

On Talk:George Zimmerman, a dynamic IP has been repeatedly inserting content similar to this. Probably either watchful WP:DENY or protected changes on the talk page are needed since it would be inadvisable to block the /16 owned by the University of Oregon (however, all so far seem to have come from 140.211.66.x and 140.211.67.x, so there may be a much smaller range that could work). VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is that edit a blockable violation of BLP policy? Yes, it is hostile, sarcastic, and angry in tone. Yes, it is a comment about the subject instead of a comment about the subject article. Yes, it was neither NPOV nor verifiable. That all said, how is it defamatory or libelous or in any other way an "egregious" violation of WP:BLP? It was correctly removed from the talk page and life carries on. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a blockable offense. The person who made this notice simply polices the discussion board of that page, and is hypervigilant in not allowing critical views of George Zimmerman to be included in the article. This person is a supporter of George Zimmerman and doesn't like anything critical to be inserted into the article about George Zimmerman. When something critical about George Zimmerman arises in a notable news source (that is, in a source that is hard to discredit), this person ridicules the news source and tries to portray George Zimmerman as the victim -- and on that basis attempts to build an argument that notable sources shouldn't be included in the article when they are critical of George Zimmerman. Re-examine that section in question and you will see this person making comments that do not belong on the discussion page either (references to the girlfriend as being in hot water and losing credibility), comments portraying George Zimmerman as something of a victim of a smear campaign conducted by his ex-girlfriend, the police, and the media. 208.54.32.210 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The above, by 208.54.32.210, is un-constructive and borders on being a personal attack. The claims of hyper-vigilance are out of place. The notion of being a "supporter of George Zimmerman" is unclear to the point of meaninglessness. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly a personal attack to make the observation that this editor is among two or three of the editors of this page who makes it difficult to insert anything critical of Zimmerman into the page. It was a struggle to even get a picture of Zimmerman inserted. I believe this editor even tried to get Zimmerman's mugshot deleted from Misplaced Pages because it was "disparaging" to have it on Misplaced Pages. As to the comment about hyper vigilance, this editor's page makes reference to their tendency to monitor new pages. Observation (backed up by evidence), not personal attack. (One of the other editors of this page who makes it difficult to insert critical information is a self proclaimed "masculinist" and guns rights supporter.) 208.54.32.210 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of a mugshot is legitimate enough that someone who argues it is not a vandal. We have WP:MUG for a reason. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I never said this person was a vandal. I said they were hyper vigilant on the George Zimmerman page, and I backed up that claim by, (1) referencing said editor's user page where he identified himself as monitoring new pages (which the Zimmerman page is), and (2) by noting that this editor attempted to have the Zimmerman mug shot deleted, claiming it was "defamation" to have it on Misplaced Pages, a nomination that was denied because it is clear to most people that having a mug shot of George Zimmerman on Misplaced Pages is entirely logical as he is known solely as the defendant of a murder trial. Certainly there is a reason that Misplaced Pages has guidelines for mugshots, and as per community consensus is George Zimmerman meets the guidelines for having a mug shot on Misplaced Pages. Thank you. 172.56.8.27 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Franklin child abuse allegations

Talk:Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

There is a "BLP violation" argument being made that any references to the Franklin allegations: testimony, court proceedings, official legislature statements, etc. which call into question the trial verdict or nature of the trial in general, can not be added to the article because, even though none of the accused individuals are mentioned, someone may infer that this implicates one of the living accused by extension. (Larry King)

While I can understand how someone may logically infer this connection, but I am also certain that this is an unfair and unreasonable abuse of Crying BLP. The Franklin child abuse allegations are much larger in scope than a single person. They involve many diverse parties, investigative committees, witnesses, courtroom proceedings, interactions, media reactions, etc. These references include official legislative statements reliably sourced by mainstream newspapers.

It seems very unreasonable that BLP should be able to block reliable information about a subject, a subject far greater in scope than the 'living person', when the 'living person' is not even mentioned in those references.

The dispute is over this edit and the following references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations&oldid=583149106

The Legislature's Franklin Committee, officially charged with the investigation, criticized a grand jury's conclusion that child-sexual-abuse allegations against prominent men amounted to "a carefully crafted hoax." Former State Senator Loran Schmit, a member of the Franklin legislative committee, testified that he still found credible the sexual-abuse allegations. "It would be very difficult for them, in my opinion, to make up those stories," Schmit testified in the Douglas County District Court perjury trial of Alisha Owen. The Franklin legislative committee expressed concern that the grand jury indicted two people who said they were victims of or witnesses to sexual abuse. "Alisha Owen and Paul Bonacci are charged with perjury and Troy Boner and Danny King are not," the Franklin legislative committee report said. "As we see it, the victims who stand by their story are charged with perjury, while those that have admitted to false statements before the committee are not. That makes little sense to us. Either all of them should have been indicted or none of them. The message is mixed and appears to favor encouraging the recanting as a way to avoid the hazards of criminal prosecution. It also tells persons they can lie under oath to legislative committees, so long as they change their story by the time they get to court. Neither message is a good one."

70.16.207.76 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This IP editor has been over at that page being nothing but disruptive. This may be a first in that someone that wants to violate BLP and particularly BLPCRIME has decided that the best venue to seek assistance in this endeavor is here.--MONGO 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor was specifically told to bring the issue here by an admin.

This issue was already addressed. The content that keeps trying to get introduced has been removed many times over the years as can be seen in the archive. Even Jimbo stubbed before, I believe. The quotes above are completely without context with an attempt to smear. Just a cursory review of the archives and other sources confirms the cherry-picking and story telling that is necessary to perpetuate hoaxes and conspiracy theories. It does so at the expense of living people and our BLP and BLPCRIME policy. Please close. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Flonight deleted it to eliminate all the BLP issues and NuclearWarfare recreated it as a stub....then the conspiracy theory POV pushers showed up and slowly made the article a wreck again.--MONGO 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The above users are the ones accused of Crying BLP, so obviously they can not be expected to moderate the issue. As user DHeyward claims, because someone may draw an inference to an accused party, absolutely no general statements on the trial can be discussed, despite the fact that these statements come from official legislature and are widely discussed within the mainstream media, and contain no mention of any living persons. These users are essentially demanding practically the entire encyclopedic knowledge of a major state-wide event be censored because someone may indirectly draw inference to a living person who was only partially involved and not even mentioned in said references. This is certainly an abuse of BLP.

Furthermore: Comments pertaining to this issue have now been deleted from the Talk page, comments from myself and user JodyB who was actually agreeing with the BLP violation. So someone is deleting Talk comments from both sides of the argument.

I believe both the article and the now-vandalized talk page are in serious need of moderation. Thank you. 70.16.207.78 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish...the only thing removed from the talkpage was some of your trolling.--MONGO 02:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The comments that you vandalized were part of a reasonable discussion on BLP violation, and contained a specific WP policy citation on potential abuse of BLP. The comments have now been restored for anyone else to read. 70.16.207.78 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll stub the article out and have semi-protection applied to the article to prevent your further disruption. You have the BLP policy backwards....but you either don't care, haven't read it or you're a buffoon.--MONGO 14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests in Talk for over a month, none of the above have quoted a single specific BLP policy that is being violated. Editors keep referring to personally "know that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory," straw man arguments or umbrella claims of BLP violations. The majority of the edits being reverted, such as the timeline of the investigation, the Nebraska Foster Care Board's mention of the laws specifically changed as a result of the Franklin case and an edit replacing a claim not in the source with the one that actually was, does not involve, mention, imply or refer to any of the accused so I fail to see how these are a BLP violation as claimed. Despite claims of rampant edit warring, after edits have been reverted it has generally been taken to the talk page for discussion yet the first time the page was locked there was no edit warring at all while the second time it was locked it was not for warring as claimed, the IP reverted two reverts, the first was replacing the edit with extra refs while the second was replacing the edit after removing text that he thought may be a BLP violation, both good faith edits based on the low quality of the information given to him. I believe the problem is the lack of reliable reasoning by the opposing editors, is it any wonder the IP and myself can't pin down what the problem is? Wayne (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Numerous editors over the years have repeatedly explained to you why your argument is against policy, but you refuse to understand it. The article had to be deleted and then recreated as a stub to eliminate all the BLP violations you and others had swamped the article with. Now it's again shortened but has some of the issues that weren't in the original stub...but that's not enough for you as expanding on the conspiracy theories and violating BLP seems to be your goal.--MONGO 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you refuse to tell a new editor what specific policies he is violating so that he can comply, especially as he has attempted to work with you. Your continuing incivility makes it even harder to accept good faith on your part. You still refuse to say what specific policies were violated with those three reliably sourced edits I made.
I challenge you to show that these three edits are a violation of BLP or anything to do with conspiracy theories as you claim. Wayne (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Also an explanation would be nice for your deletion of long standing text. It was first deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with an added ref only to see you delete it again with the comment "revert per BLP it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". The O. J. Simpson murder case has an entire section for his civil trial guilty verdict yet he was found innocent at a court trial which carries considerably more weight than a Grand Jury finding which does not have court oversight. Wayne (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific policies...how many times does BLP have to be explained? JodyB pointed out BLPCRIME, Tom Harrison explained things as did DHeyward...in the past other editors and administrators have explained these matters to you...but you're not paying attention. This isn't the only time you fail to understand the policies over the years. Someone trying to work with me...neither you nor the IP have shown anything other than a disregard for the repeated efforts of others to explain things. Your POV pushing of fringe nonsense in this article and articles such as Kerry and Kay Danes (Which Jimbo Wales ended up stubbing) indciates you have an agenda here that is incompatible with our policies. The edit you made here is immaterial and nothing but innuendo and a BLP violation...but you don't understand that either because you are incapable or deliberately want to violate policy. As is true with those that oftentimes promote fringe and conspiracy theories, you find the fanatsy more interesting than the truth, but this website doesn't exist to promote falshoods in the manner and way you want to promote them, which is to do so as if these fantasies are in fact reality.--MONGO 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So you decline to justify the reversions and choose to continue your tactic of making personal and Ad hominem attacks instead. There is nothing fringe in the three Franklin edits I made as they are simply reliably sourced statements of fact making no false or unsupported claims. I again challenge you...prove those edits are "fanatsy" (sic) or stop being so childish. JodyB, Tom Harrison and DHeyward are all friends of yours (according to the editor interaction tool) who came to the page specifically to support you, none explained what the problem was in any more detail than you did. We need independent editors to cite specific policy violations. Wayne (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Borchers

I'd like to have more sets of eyes looking at this article. It's been heavily edited by a SPA. It appears to me to be skewed toward peacockery - making minor things appear major, omitting contextual information to mislead, and adding citations that don't really support the assertions. Thanks for taking a look at it. 71.139.152.181 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

There is an edit war going on at Alexander Hamilton in which one editor USER:Pmanderson repeatedly removes a quotation about Hamilton by historian Sean Wilentz (who won the Pulitzer prize) saying that it is "defamatory" of Wilentz to quote him. The other editors all disagree and say the quotation is proper and should be kept. The talk page shows Pmanderson had been highly antagonistic for years on the Hamilton article and in 2012 was banned for one year for his disruptions on another article. We need a determination by this board whether the added text is "defamatory" re Wilentz or not. The disputed text is this:

Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend very much in Hamilton's favor, even though Wilentz himself does not go along with it:

"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property." Sean Wilentz, "Book Reviews," Journal of American History Sept, 2010 v. 97# 2 p 476 Rjensen (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is indeed conducting an edit war. He is quoting out of context to add undue weight to his party position. Wilentz's review is available ; for those to whom this is not accessible, I quote a summary of the review by a third editor: " there are in fact two moderately-opposing perspectives on how to summarize Hamilton it seems to me like it is important to be fair. I think there is no further citation needed, because actually the rest of the article cited does make clear (fairly clear) Wilentz's point of view. The citation is a book review, and Wilentz says this about the author (Gordon S. Wood) in regard to the quote: "Wood differs sharply from these current interpretations and also with most previous ones." Then Wilentz goes on to praise Wood's point of view, making fairly clear where he (Wilentz) falls. It is interesting what Wilentz says in the last sentence of the review, by the way: "It is a mark of Wood's achievement that historians will be arguing with his interpretations, and learning from them, for a very long time to come." " Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pmanderson repeatedly erases the text because he says it is "defamatory". He will not say on the talk page or here why it is defamatory to quote a scholar. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton has been dead for 209 years so I'd say that's well outside of what the BLP policy considers "recently deceased". Take it to DRN instead, or file an ANI report if merited. §FreeRangeFrog 21:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wilentz is the living person in question here, but I fail to see how it is "defamatory" to quote him accurately. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bob Huff

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

Bob Huff is the Senate Republican Leader in the California State Senate. He represents the 29th Senate District covering portions of Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. I am his Communications Director, and responsible for monitoring content on his Misplaced Pages page.

Be advised that someone, I'm not sure who it was (all I get is a set of numbers), did a complete hack job on the Senator over the weekend. His entire page was erased and replaced with new information, a task completed by someone who knew what they were doing and has worked on Misplaced Pages pages before. They showed a level of experience beyond mine.

I'm not that good, yet. But I'm getting there.

Was the new information inaccurate? Yes. Libelous? Without a doubt. Sources cited were web pages that are generally critical of Republicans and supportive of Democrats.

I have since taken steps to repair this damage but I'm still working on this. Information now on the Misplaced Pages page is taken directly from Senator Huff's biography on his State Senate website .

Billbird2111 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)billbird2111Billbird2111 (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Taking information directly from another source is a violation of copyright law. Please read: WP:COPYVIO. 70.134.228.224 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Billbird2111 (talk Unless I created that other source, which I did. I'm directly responsible for the language on the Senator's biography since I wrote it on his behalf and he gave his approval to have it posted on his website. There is no violation of copyright law. —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

READ THE GUIDELINES (WP:COPYVIO). It doesn't matter who created the content. You need to demonstrate in writing that the copyright owner has granted permission for the content to be used on Misplaced Pages. READ THE GUIDELINES (WP:DCM, WP:PERMISSION). 70.134.228.224 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as (or more) significantly, as the Senator's Communications Director, your creation and ongoing maintenance (especially to the exclusion of other editors) of a Misplaced Pages article concerning your employer violates Misplaced Pages's policies on conflict of interest, and your creating it as a replica of the Senator's Web page (and your apparent attempt to keep it so) violates the Misplaced Pages core principle of neutral point of view. Please review those policies also. You can contribute to the article by providing other editors (without COI) information and suggestions via the article's Talk page, but you should not be editing it yourself. Dwpaul 05:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversation with Mr. Bird continued here: User_talk:NeilN#Bob_Huff. Based on this, I think there may be more issues coming up. --NeilN 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Bob Huff 71.139.157.123 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC Notice: Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP

I have opened an RfC on articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, often in a misleading way and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families".Smeat75 (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reggie Burnette

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

Everyone please watchlist this article. An ip editor has been attempting to make this grossly undue by over reporting a sexual incident. -Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Tara Platt

Someone please review this. One editor insists upon restoring unsourced information in this BLP.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm being bold and have restored the filmography and biography section, adding sources to the article per WP:V and WP:BLP. Consider this report resolved and your concerns acknowledged. There has been other mass filmography removals on voice actors, but they were all restored. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Resolved tag here, as this is very much not resolved. While Sjones23 has indeed added some references to the article, large chunks of it remain without. I'm copying here what I wrote at Talk:Tara Platt:

Yes, I removed the filmography because it was (a) totally unreferenced and (b) in list format. I am completely mystified by the restoration of unreferenced material to this article by Sjones23. Do we have some guideline somewhere that WP:V does not apply to anime voice-over actors? That FilmandTVFan28 thinks that "Her filmography is correct" and doesn't "want to have anymore problems again" is completely irrelevant here. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources, not the assurances of one editor. Similar considerations apply at Steve Staley, Wendee Lee, Cristina Valenzuela, Courtenay Taylor, Karen Strassman and Mary Elizabeth McGlynn, where in each case either Sjones23, FilmandTVFan28 or AngusWOOF has added massive amounts of completely unreferenced material to the article. Can anyone explain to me why those editors think unsourced material is acceptable here, because I'm having trouble understanding that?

Please note that I am not suggesting or implying any improper action by those three editors other than the addition of unreferenced material to BLP articles. Other similar articles where masses of unreferenced stuff have been re-added include Laura Bailey (voice actress), Veronica Taylor, Johnny Yong Bosch and Kari Wahlgren; in the first of those, a considerable and laudable effort to add references has been made, but much of it is still without. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't assume that restoring the filmography is the same as adding massive amounts of unreferenced material. The articles should be tagged with BLP sources and BLP unsourced first and that should prompt editors to add sources. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

James McGibney

Can we please have some BLP experts review this article, the majority of the information is very negative and questionably sourced with edit wars abounding. I don't think this is an area where I can personally help from the BLP sides but there are loads here that can give it a once over. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

jane march

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

Filmography: Stalker 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.201.93 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Auric talk 00:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has an extended history of coatrack-related problems. Noneless, it has been relatively quiet for some time. However, a WP:SPA who wants to "protect" the article subject has returned after over a year of no editing and slashed the article. Two editors (not me) have reverted the SPA, but she insisted. I warned her for edit warring (she was up to three reverts). Her talk page comments have been singularly unhelpful.

I just started a topic on the talk page to encapsulate the history of the problem (it has to do with Joan Juliet Buck and an article she wrote in Vogue) and the history of the SPA. The topic is fairly long, but it still doesn't completely capture everything that happened in 2012 and since. I have also reverted the article to the status quo ante.

More eyes would be helpful on the article, and any comments on the talk page would be even better. As I stated there, I have no objection to revisiting the issues. Indeed, content-wise I probably think the material in the al-Assad article is too prominent (and repetitive of what is in the Buck article), but my views are just those of one editor and not necessarily the consensus of the community, or at least of those editors who are interested in expressing an opinion. In the meantime, the SPA cannot unilaterally impose her views on this or any other article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Savage Love

There's an edit war going on about a description of the author of the column--not about whether the things said are true (no one is disputing the truth of the claims in question), but simply about whether the claims are *properly sourced*. The only sources I can find for most of the claims are, well, specific examples of the column in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtrible (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Barry_McCaffrey

In the page about General Barry McCaffrey, previous authors wrote extensively about Seymour Hersh's critique of the "left hook" attack that essentially ended the first Gulf War. Hersh's opinion column in New Yorker was first laudatory, then critical, and editor-in-chief David Remnick supported Hersh in an editorial in the same issue of the magazine. Hersh is a widely-respected author and a frequent critic of government actions.

The problem is that the account of Hersh's column was the ONLY discussion of the "left hook" attack, slanting the entire page away from General McCaffrey's accomplishments and toward appearing to be an article largely critical of General McCaffrey. That slant is not fair.

Tonight, I added extensive information about the "left hook" attack, putting together pieces from disparate sources on World Wide Web, since no single authoritative soure exists about the battle plan, its execution, and its aftermath.

I shall ask General McCaffrey for a copy of his after-action report entitled "24th Infantry Division Ground Operations." If that document still exists, it belongs in the public domain.

I did not subtract from the discussion of Hersh's column, but I added his initial laudatory comments as well as the above material and extensive additional references.

I hope that my additions "stick," and that we can re-shape the page to be fair to all parties.

Jay.wind (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

John Rhys-Davies

John Rhys-Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A SPA posted this Talk:John Rhys-Davies#Edit request 29 November 2013 today. I can't find anything to confirm the info so I thought I would ask the members of this wikiproject to take a look at things and add your input as you see fit. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

B. Kwaku Duren

Article suffers from a number of issues. Lacks inline citations which makes it unclear where information comes from, including potentially libelous information on criminal history and the shooting death of his sister. Article also has NPOV concerns that date back to October 2010. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Will Botwin

Seems to be poorly sourced and rather offensive... Cogito-Ergo-Sum 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made by User:I Am Peripatetic and 108.182.106.111; false information had been added on several occasions in the last two years and was still there, and the references had been removed in one of the IP edits. Peter James (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Walker's "friend"

There is a single line in one source so far that states only:"Event organizers identified the second victim as Roger Rodas". Is that really enough to call that an accurate fact right now? That looks very much like gossip we would not mention yet, until an official announcement.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Aamer Rahman

The citation for the following sensational statement seems odd: "Rahman was born with an extra finger on each hand and without the male appendage. He was born with testis, however the penis was absent. Surgeons amputated the extra fingers, and used the tissue and skin from one of the fingers to replace the missing penis, and thus attached the deboned finger to the penal shaft."

Footnote 10 links to a purported AlJazeera article, but only a Scribd version of the the article (with many typos) and not a link to AlJazeera was provided. Further, running a google search for the name of that article produces no results. While it is possible that the citation provided is to a translation of an article (perhaps) only available in Arabic, it just seems unlikely that such a sensational story is not publicized elsewhere (besides the fact that AlJazeera has a strong web news presence and theoretically would have a link to this story, given that it was allegedly written a few days ago); especially if the subject spent a significant part of his life in an English-speaking country (assuming the other details of the article are accurate).

It's a fake news article, as are the others on the Scribd page, probably from a "newspaper generator" site. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Casey Eastham

Personal website link is broken. Website linked no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.210.213 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• The website exists - a space was missing between the URL and text of the link. Peter James (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Lamborn Wilson

Some experienced eyes, specifically on the criticisms and controversies section, are likely needed. I can't tell if anything about NAMBLA should be included, if it's that noteworthy, etc. But it does seem poorly presented. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Vipin Brar

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

Vipin Brar has not done anything substantial to be given space on wikipedia, he has no contribution for veterinary profession . I was part of this movement and know this person. The citation are not showing his involvement in any matter. Kindly review and delete his webpage. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Only 2 of the 10 cited sources mention the subject of this article; one is the subject's own Web site, and the other claims to be a newspaper article but is a link to a privately hosted JPEG image, not the newspaper's site, and contains typographical errors that bring its authenticity into question. As a BLP, this article should be, at the very least, cleaned up to remove information about various events described but not demonstrably linked to the subject, and possibly deleted altogether. In the meantime, I have placed Template:BLP noticeboard on the article. Dwpaul 01:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• The editor who reviewed the original AfC of this article had reservations about many aspects of this article (discussed with the editor who created it here and elsewhere on his Talk page) that seemingly remain unresolved (but it was created just the same). Dwpaul 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• The only one of the references (that is not the subject's Web site) that actually mentions the subject of the article appears to contain a falsification. It claims to be a reproduction of a page from the Hindustan Times. However, the email address "chdnewsdesk@gmail.com" appearing in the JPEG image does not appear on any HT articles. The site uses chdnewsdesk@hindustantimes.com in its bylines. Dwpaul 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you take this matter to Articles for Deletion as claims of non-notability are not a BLP issue. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/28/science-move-away-materialism-sheldrake
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/i-know-im-right-so-why-be_b_81095.html
3. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/02/philosophy-sheldrake-science
4. http://district29.cssrc.us/content/biography

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution