Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 3 July 2014

• 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.

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

James O'Higgins Norman‎, other BLPs & a knighthood from a dubious order

I have some concerns about honors and knighthoods listed at James O'Higgins Norman‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have a minor dispute about whether MStJ and KLJ are honors or memberships, but my major issue is with the list of knighthoods. Most are unsourced although some I think can be sourced. However, "Imperial House of Vietnam: Knight Commander, Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam" seems at best inappropriate. Our article on the Order of the Dragon of Annam makes it clear that no orders have been issued since 1945. The response to my removing this was "The Order of the Dragon of Annam was revived in 2002 by the direct descendent of the last Emperor of Vietnam. He was entitled to do thi sunder the various rules that govern orders etc. See explanation on http://www.imperialvietnam.net/dragonestablish.html Apart from the subject of this article others who were born after 1945 have received the Order after it was revived including a number of European royals - see http://en.wikipedia.org/Order_of_the_Dragon_of_Annam#Distinguished_knights_and_dames."

I'm very dubious about using this claimed revival of the order. Looking at the list of those who have supposedly been granted honors form this 'order'. It isn't mentioned at Kigeli V of Rwanda. It is mentioned at Norodom Sihanouk but sourced to Royalark.net (which is used multiple times as a source) and for which we have a clear consensus should never be used for BLPs. So that article needs a cleanup and we can't claim he has this knighthood. It is mentioned at Nicholas, Crown Prince of Montenegro but the source is under construction. It isn't mentioned in any of the articles of the other named recipients. In other words, out of 12 links, 2 mention it with dubious sources. I'm removing them all (not all are BLPs by the way, some are dead). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they need to be removed until we're satisfied that everything is legit. It could be quite embarrassing to the subject to have this sort of thing on their biography here -- i.e., if readers form the impression that the "honours" are bogus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked the editor to copy what he posted to the article talk page here, but he hasn't so I will:

"There are three forms or sources of legitimacy that support the revival of the Order of Annam. Without starting a whole new page on this, in summary:

The international principles for considering the validity of an Order of Knighthood are published by the International Commission on Order of Chivalry :::(ICOC) who state that:

The dynastic (or family or house) orders which belong jure sanguinis to a sovereign house (that is to those ruling or ex-ruling houses whose sovereign rank was internationally recognised at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814 or later) retain their full historical chivalric, nobiliary and social validity, notwithstanding all political changes. It is therefore considered ultra vires of any republican State to interfere, by legislation or administrative practice, with the princely dynastic family or house orders. That they may not be officially recognised by the new government does not affect their traditional validity or their accepted status in international heraldic, chivalric and nobiliary circles.

Other sources including World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Stair Santy and Rafe Heydel-Mankoo will confirm this.

It is based on the above principles that the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam had the right to revive an Order of Knighthood which had previously belonged/existed within his family.

Furthermore, the other reliable source on the validity of an Order is Canon Law which allows an Order to be revived within 100 years of the death of the last Knight of the Order in question. The revival by the Head of the Imperial House of Vietnam of the Order of the Dragon comes within this period of time (i.e. 1945 to 2002).

Finally, recognition comes in a third manner, that is to say, the fact that Heads of other Royal Houses accept the honour means that they are de facto recognising it and the Royal House from whom it is granted.

You are correct that there are at least two false orders operating under the same name. However, the genuine Order was conferred upon the subject of this article and this will be confirmed by contact with their Order's representatives."

Our article on the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry doesn't leave me filled with confidence. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it sounds like some sort of Old Boys Club. I'm not quite sure why we are being referred to it as I can't find this order on its lists at either or . Note that the ICOC is also called the "International Commission for Orders of Chivalry" As for the book World Orders of Knighthood and Merit I don't know what it says, but again it isn't clear why we are being referred to it as the website I'm told is the official one says "There is a book called "World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" which does not mention HIH Prince Regent Nguyen-phuc Buu Chanh. Why? A. That particular publication has a number of errors in it. Including various mentions attributed to the Imperial Nguyen Family of Vietnam." The website itself is pretty amateurish with pages that go nowhere. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to point out that the editor who wants to include this has said that there are two false orders - and I presume each of these orders will say there are two false orders - and we are supposed to add this? Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Response from Editor of James O'Higgins Norman page The reason I referred you to the ICOC website and the World Orders of Knighthood and Merit is that they both set out the generally accepted principles for discerning the legitimacy of an Order of Knighthood or Merit. But rather than engage with me on the validity of the honour bestowed on the subject of the article vis a vis these principles you have ignored them and instead offered circumstantial information including a reference to the quality of the Imperial House' website. Ollamhnua (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pankaj Oswal

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

Kindly take a look at the Pankaj Oswal article as it has not been written in a neutral manner. It is filled with racial abuse, and does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's standards on Quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.150.48 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism (done three days ago by an IP) reverted. Article watchlisted. Thank you very much for pointing this out. --NeilN 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Material on talk page of a BLP

• Ghervazen Longher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page of the above has a "Controversies" section with "On 18 September 2013, the prosecutors filed the criminal charges against Ghervazen Longher, accusing him on two counts conflicts of interest" and a link to a Romanian-language website. I had removed that, thinking that such material should either be in the article (and fully justified per WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:BLPCRIME), or not placed anywhere. However, the material has been re-added with some rewording. I noticed the addition while commenting at WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages where there is a proposal to systematically place relevant external links on article talk pages. Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the same context, I would like to ask how much this edit is ok or not.

Is it ok to mention that the prosecutors filled a criminal charge on corruption counts against a relatively unknown politician? He is quite unknown in Romania.

Is it ok to mention that into the talk page? WP:BLPCRIME:

• For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured

In this case he was not accused by his political or personal enemies but he was accused by the prosecutors who already filed criminal charges against him on conflict of interest counts. If the prosecutors would have filed criminal charges against him based on some suspicions and a few clues, that would have been something else. But he was accused based on clear evidence that he hired his brother and sister in his office.

I am not sure why the policy talks about relatively unknown people here. I can only imagine that's because the editors might forget about the fact that criminal charges were filed against him and, in 5 years when the court will give the final verdict (that's how much it takes on average in Romania) they won't update the article. But in this case, mentioning the criminal charges on the talk page helps the editors (who accidentally land to this talk page) not to forget about this case, so when they will see what I posted on the talk page, it will prompt them to search for the final verdict on that case. If the editors completely forget about Ghervazen Longher and they don't see the talk page either, they won't update the information, but at least the outdated information is in a talk page and not in the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The question of what is WP:DUE for insertion in an article frequently arises. Generally (and particularly for relatively unknown BLPs), accusations, charges, and arrests are not appropriate. For example, someone could be charged, and a year later the court case may reveal that the charge was based on lies, and the case is thrown out—there is generally no reason for the charge to be recorded on Misplaced Pages for the year that it takes for the final outcome. Therefore, articles generally wait for convictions (when the court case closes). Exceptions exist—for example if a reliable secondary source were to write an indepth article on a person and mention the significance of various charges, mention of that may well be appropriate. In conclusion, there is no reason to mention that someone was charged with two counts of conflict of interest in the article in question. Material which does not belong in the article most certainly does not belong on any other page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with this statement of the applicable rules. As a matter of principle, well-sourced information about actual charges of political corruption would seem to be relevant and important in an article about a political figure. This is not the same thing as asking whether or not we should report when an actor is arrested for shoplifting, or for that matter whether we should report when a political figure gets into some kind of trouble over his/her sex life, or something like that. Well-sourced information about an ongoing corruption trial of a sitting government official would seem to relate directly to the core facts that make the subject notable, and leaving it out may tend to violate WP:NPOV in the opposite direction. I'd also question the assumption that an elected political figure is a "relatively unknown" person: to the contrary, political figures are the paradigm examples of people who have voluntarily exposed themselves to public scrutiny, at least with respect to conduct directly relevant to their political activity. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be reasonable depending on the situation. However, in this case those of us who do not understand Romanian cannot grasp the background, and any report of a charge would represent 50% of the length of the biography—that pretty much rules it out because if the charge had to be mentioned to satisfy WP:N then WP:BLP1E would apply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Arxiloxos is right, a parliamentary is a very important person for a country. But in Romania, only like 10 or 20% of them are getting attention. Most of them are unknown to the people, the people never talk about them, and the national newspapers never talk about them. For many of them, not even the local newspapers don't bother to mention them. By the way, the news about Ghervazen Longher being investigated is more or less the only news article about him in national newspapers, and he is MP since 2004. That makes the news article I mentioned in the talk page even more valuable for the biography of such a member of the Parliament. I think there is a huge difference between a parliamentary being investigated for corruption and an actor being arrested for shoplifting. I really think it is relevant (WP:DUE) for the article, even if, in the end he comes out "clean". Romanian justice is famous for delaying such cases for 5 or 10 or 12 years even until the defendant can benefit of Prescription. Romanian justice is famous for working against the people, instead of working for the people. Therefore "clean" according to Romanian justice is many times equal to "dirty". It looks like the Romanian justice is some kind of washing machine. But sometimes, those who are charged are getting away with it even in USA. Mark Rich was investigated for a huge number of criminal charges and in the end he come out "clean", because someone (cough) decided to wash him and to make him "clean". Therefore, what should we do? We can't mention serious criminal charges just because those who are supposed to work for the people (judges, presidents) are instead cleaning the defendants and work against their people for a nice profit? (allegedly - of course! maybe they do it for humanist reasons) That would make me feel like I live in a dystopian world. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

John Fogelman

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

Sources keep repeatedly adding/reposting content from a tabloid site - TheWrap.com . The content contains quotes from "anonymous" sources that cannot be verified and should not be included in a factual biography.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid

Trimmed a bit (especially the external links, wow) and semi'd for a week. I also blocked one of the accounts involved because of their username. §FreeRangeFrog 00:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Terry Davis

Terry Davis (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Terry Davis lives in Good Thunder, no longer runs a motorcycle shop and had had recent major health problems (according to his own website) but I'm not experienced enough to make large-scale changes to his Wiki page.

Chip Berlet

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

The entry on me has been attacked for many years (since it was created in 2005) by fanatical critics of my research. Several of these persons have been banned from Misplaced Pages or suspended for periods of time. I spent weeks on a private discussion with Jimbo Wales and others on the topic of WikiStalking and dealing with passive-aggressive biased editors. There has yet to be a satisfactory solution to this problem, especially for folks like me who are not celebrities and cannot attract enough unbiased editors to rectify the situation.

Now the entry on me is a disgrace. Not only is there outdated and inaccurate information, but the whole entry now is based almost entirely on the POV of handful of critics. Mention of significant awards has been removed. Most of my most important scholarly journal articles and book chapters are not mentioned. The creation of a separate bibliography page has resulted primarily in the removal of almost all mentions of my scholarly work. Critics of my work wait a few weeks and then delete something positive and add something negative. A recent RFC resulted in one editor removing a lot of material without actually editing the entry to be fair or unbiased. I am not looking for a puff piece. I am looking for a fair and accurate entry.

Here are some of the people who slanted my page with biased critical material and were banned or otherwise sanctioned. This is just from 2005-2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Herschelkrustofsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Weed_Harper

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Cognition

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Paroxysm

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:NathanDW

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tsunami_Butler

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Chip_%27n_Dale_Berlet

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:SallyForth123

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Terrawatt

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:TableManners

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Niels_Gade

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Leatherstocking

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jossi

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Marvin_Diode

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Threeafterthree Chip.berlet (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

one preliminary comment: we do not routinely include articles and book chapters unless they should be particularly significant. Which is particular do you thing should be included? DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

These complaints seem very similar to the ones in the archive here by Cberlet. One thing I have to note I don't see anything actionable. You speak very general here. You mention editors here that were banned. Are you saying they were banned or sanctioned for editing your article. I also see that mention 2005-2008. Let me note that's it's 2014 and there have been numerous edits since then. Have you considered going to your talk page, being more specific and not adding a giant wall of text? You attracted some movement with your RFC. Your RFC is a bit of a nightmare. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Phil Hellmuth

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

Can someone familiar with poker sources review the "personality & controversy" section to ensure that the sourcing meets BLP levels of respectability? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fringe, published accusations of being a robot

Frank_Lucas_(Oklahoma)#Robot_accusation I am not entirely convinced this needs to be acted on, but ... really? Really? --j⚛e decker 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say inclusion is dubious - the story is about Murray, the man behind the claim, not Lucas. If general articles about Lucas discuss the claims (which seems unlikely) we might have to consider inclusion, but for now I can't see any justification for including wild conspiracy theories from an opposing candidate in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I know it's inappropriate, but WP:ILIKEIT. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now a discussion regarding this at Talk:Frank_Lucas_(Oklahoma). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Schenkhuizen

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

Large sections of unreferenced text.

For Example: "Grubby has been known for being part of one of the most successful WC3 teams in history, namely the British 4Kings. Later teams include the Danish MeetYourMakers and the North-American Evil Geniuses. Since 2011, Grubby has been teamless and is currently independently sponsored. Grubby enjoys a large fan base throughout the world and especially in China. He's sometimes characterized as being not one of the fastest players, but one that compensates with smart and effective play styles. He's presently a Starcraft II progamer playing as Protoss."

I think a good case could be made for removing the entire article as promotional. At least, the long list of successes should be limited to those where he actually placed first, as is normal for awards of all sorts. Personally, I think most of the articles in the several categories of professional WC3 and similar game players need re-evaluation. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked out big chunks of unsourced/promo stuff, probably needs more.--ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike Dailly

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

Excessive prominence of recent negative event--I'm not sure of pre-existing notability either. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

this editor Otto.sump is attacking the article and me now https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Otto.sump

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mosfetfaser&diff=614889867&oldid=614889725 Mosfetfaser (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Mengi Misplaced Pages Page

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

Persistently attempts to edit the profile page of Reginald Mengi are being removed within hours of the edit. This is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages which is to accurately inform the public. If Reginald Mengi choses to place a page on Misplaced Pages then it is a public page who should then be free to edit it accurately. This is not being allowed to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.242.104 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Misplaced Pages pages are not 'public' - this is a privately owned website. And secondly, any editing of pages is conditional on conforming with Misplaced Pages policies - most specifically in this case, that any controversial negative or positive material concerning living persons must be cited to a reliable source. This is not optional, and unsourced material must be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed several sections that were completely without sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike Ozekhome

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

A part of this article was blanketed. I have since cited source and references and will be glad to have constructive input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlomos (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 June 2014

Doren Robbins

Doren Robbins This article is a biography of a living person, and in April 2014 (as well as at least once before), it has been vandalized several times by user Thehype1, including antisemitic comments and false information about Doren Robbins's military history, mental health, birth date, and other personal information. The article itself is not in violation of the biographies of living persons policies, but as the original creator of this page, I would like to request page protection for Doren Robbins.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwood08 (talk • contribs)

WP:RPP <-- is thataway.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Peter Lynds

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

Requesting 3rd-party eyeballs for Peter Lynds. This article has had trouble for a long time with WP:UNDUE synthesis of unpublished work to paint a picture of Lynds as an established physicist. I and another editor have been trying to clean-up the article (efforts summarized at talk), but every attempt is reverted by an account named SamW2, which has only a few contributions (all on this article), but who seems to be an experienced editor (judging from the jargon used). The current version of the article is one that SamW2 keeps reveting back to. For your reference, the "cleaned version" that I believe should be used removes the undue text and adds a source from a peer-reviewed journal reporting that Lynds' primary paper has been preceded by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory (S E Robbins, 2004 On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13(4), 762-788: "Lynds, his reviewers and consultants (e.g., J.J.C. Smart) are apparently unaware of his total precedence by Bergson"). I hope we may get some opinions as to how to proceed here because the reverting is persistent and bordering on an edit war. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

SamW2 has been blocked for edit warring after I warned them to stop. §FreeRangeFrog 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it OK if we revert to the version that Agricola44 and I think is NPOV, or should we wait? We also both think the article should be deleted as not notable, but were going to hold off on initiating that until this process was complete.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. Ya'll might want to try WP:DRN for this, and make sure SamW2 participates. It seems more like a content dispute than a BLP one, and the account in question is probably the subject or related to them in some way. §FreeRangeFrog 23:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigative Project on Terrorism

A combination of WP:NOR, and WP:Defamation at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and Steven Emerson. I have repeatedly tried to delete the violating statement, but User:Serialjoepsycho keeps reverting it. See the following diff https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism&diff=614596007&oldid=614567674. Also, the article itself is inaccurate, and I have initiated a proposal to merge in an attempt to provide accurate information about the actual entity, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, rather than perpetuating all the confusion involving Steven Emerson as an individual, and/or as an individual heading up a think-tank called The Investigative Project. Editors appear to be confused over the identity of the non-profit foundation which was formed in 2006, and Steven Emerson, and Steven Emerson's work under The Investigative Project think-tank. Since it is not an actual BLP, but still violates BLP policy, I thought it best to bring it here for potential action. You can see the OR here in the info box where the editor attempted to combine all three entities into one. Perhaps some editors feel they have more freedom to violate BLP when the information is under an entity, and not an actual BLP. Finally, the statement misquotes, and/or misintreprets what the sources actually said, and what Steven Emerson actually said. Atsme☯ 17:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I as well as Sepsis II have reverted it. We have both stated the position that we do not feel there is a BLP violation. I suggested multiple times that Atsme use some form of dispute resolution, including suggesting BLPN if they disagreed. This is on the IPT talk page. Any other charge above unrelated to BLP I feel no need to respond to on this BLP noticeboard.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy states that in the event of a BLP violation, the offending statement should be deleted immediately, which I did only to have it reverted. As noted above by Serialjoepsycho, he and Sepsis don't consider it a BLP violation. Perhaps the reason they don't is because they don't understand the IPT article itself is ambiguous, misleading, and involves 3 separate entities as stated in the merge rationale. The diffs point to a blatant violation of BLP because the statement in the article includes the editor's own POV which differs from what the sources actually state. Serialjoepsycho's response; i.e., "no need to respond" - is the attitude that caused me to bring the offending diffs here. He refuses to acknowledge there is a BLP violation, much less the Misplaced Pages:No original research#Synthesis_of_published_material violations that have been committed by the existence of the article itself which is nothing more than a combination of information from different sources conglomerated to create the IPT article which creates the WP:BLP violation. Atsme☯ 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Two editors have commented that this was not a BLP. Atsme the only other editor to comment has undertaken a pervasive effort to whitewash the page. Two editors disagreed with his claim. I recommended he come here if disagreed. Noting the response above I'll go ahead and comment what I've already commented in the merge discussion. There is no reason to merge. He uses Cherry picked sources to make a case for merger. His sources do not differentiate IPT pre-incorporation from IPT post-incorporation. IPT as well as a number of other sources make the claim that IPT was founded in 1995. His case is solely original research. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The disputed diff cites two sources. The first source doesn't mention anything about the Oklahoma bombing and the second cited source is a press release and therefore not a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since neither cited source supported the content, I've (temporarily) removed it until consensus can be established. A Quest For Knowledge from the article. (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

After spending a little more time reading the article, it doesn't appear to be particularly well-written or well-sourced and may contain copyright violations. This might be one of those articles that's easier to fix by rewriting from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Bertlet

Does "violate WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and other policies" as asserted on my user talk page?

The accuser states his deliberate intent to get people blocked for such egregious edits, an edit which Chip Berlet himself found reasonable as opinion cited as opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chip Berlet did not find it reasonable at all.. Please take a moment to get your facts straight. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what the hell does

If folks want to restore the criticism of Laird Wilcox I have no objection. I appreciate the irony of Wilcox using the same method criticized in his criticism. Yet I note that I have two books, not three, and both Right-Wing Populism in America and Eyes Right received the Myers Award which led to the Drylongso Award.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

mean in that case? (The link you gave does not refer to Wilcox at all, and thus I am puzzled wht Brandt, Prouty et al are important in this discussion at all) Collect (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are confused. The link I gave refers directly to the removal of the Wilcox material, as demonstrated by the threading of the reply and the diff pointing directly to it. What else could it refer to? This material has been removed by several editors with the subject acknowledging the material was problematic. It has been added back in against consensus for no reason other than to malign the BLP. The source in question, The Washington Times does not meet the bar for reliability due to its explicit organizational bias against Berlet. If Collect thinks this is acceptable for BLPs then we have a larger problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The person is notable. The edit summary Don't see why an opinion published in the Moonie rag qualifies as notable or relevant.) shows the problem. The issue is whether a quote of an accepted expert in a field becomes trash if published by "Moonies." The odd part is the last sentence so "Moonie-fied" is, in fact, Berlet's position! Berlet believes that Wilcox is attempting to discredit his competition. Which is surely NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Washington a Times is a RS, and I'm amazed anyone would think otherwise. This addition violates BLP? How so? It seems fairly tame.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Justin Mateen

The article on Justin Mateen contains sourced material which is being removed anonymously.

Article Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Justin_Mateen

This article needs to be locked or monitored closely to prevent anonymous users from removing sourced and relevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisenbuger (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a double-edged issue, as partisans on both sides of a particular debate are engaging in scandalmongering and whitewashing. It is true that there have been attempts at removing all negative information, but you have inserted material based on original synthesis and court documents, which is not permitted.

More eyes and more reliable sources for this article are needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

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

Your attention is called to a Request for comment at Talk:Daniel_Amen#RFC: List of journal articles. 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a Getty Images page a reliable source for a potentially controversial claim about a living person

Is this Getty Images page (which I believe is self-published) a reliable sourced for the claim "She also took part as a nude model for the Matildas' calendar..." which appears in the BLP of Kim Revell?- MrX 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Yu need s specific reliable source making the claim. The source given does not name anyone, thus cannot be used to make a claim about a specific person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Already removed before I saw this thread... GiantSnowman 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Collect and GiantSnowman.- MrX 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

Jennifer Rubin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing dispute on that article about including critical material sourced to reliable sources. Some fresh eyes on this would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution