Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:15, 10 March 2009

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

• 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

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

Archived Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons:

James B. Lockhart III

James B. Lockhart III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).

This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).

DGG (talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.

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

This user twice (this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.)

Primary sources - the author himself

I've run into an issue on a specific biography, but it probably has wider implications. For a couple of years I've been monitoring the biography of Mark Steyn, a columnist and author. Now this fellow Steyn apparently has his fans and detractors, and every few weeks I go in and clear out the stuff that violates BLP. Recently I removed the insertion of a quote from one of his hundreds of columns, as a combination of a WP:BLP and WP:NOR violation. I based this removal primarily on the BLP statement "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material was not published by the subject about himself (i.e. it is not a statement like "I grew up in Liverpool and attended Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School"), was based on a primary source (his own writings), was provided was without context, and was clearly inserted as an attempt to discredit him in some way; thus, its removal. As I said on the article's talk page:

Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks.

Since then, the editor who inserted it, and one other editor objected, even restoring the material. When I insisted that they find secondary sources that discussed the statement, they searched the internet, and managed to discover this source, a book review which mentioned the statement in passing. I've continued to remove the statement as an obvious violation of the very principles of WP:BLP; rather than attempt to show what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, it is an obvious attempt to reflect negatively on the subject, using primary sources (his own writings). I've also warned them that if they continue to restore it, I will block them for doing so. In reply, they have now argued that because I have been removing the material, that means I am now "in a content dispute" with them, and no longer acting in an administrative capacity. I've pointed out to them the absurdity of this claim; it would mean that any admin who removed BLP-violating material was now "in a content dispute" regarding the material, and could therefore no longer act in an administrative capacity, but they are insistent. Given their continuing insistence that the material does not violate BLP, and that by removing the material I have suddenly become "involved in a content dispute", I've come to this board for additional opinions. Jayjg 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply. I am one of these editors. Here is the compromise material that I proposed at Talk:Mark Steyn. After fellow journalist Robert Fisk, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, was badly beaten up by Afghan refugees, Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's account of the incident, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." . The material is very clearly and reliably sourced, and note that the Steyn article is headed "A self-loathing multiculaturalist gets his due", so I do not see any breach of neutrality, and Steyn's remarks seem significant enough to me. Other sources have been given too, but Jayjg claims that they have all mentioned the remarks in passing, and that more sources that discuss the remarks are needed. But discussion mostly belongs in blogs and forums which are not accepted, although the other editor states that Fisk has discussed the subject in his book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. If we have to find non-blog and non-forum sources that discuss significance of everything like this in biographies, then there needs to be a lot of deleting. What is there to discuss about Steyn's remarks? They speak for themselves. Viewfinder (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You say the Steyn's remarks "speak for themselves", but without reliable secondary sources discussing them, what exactly do they say? In the absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement, what can we say about the relevance, notability, importance, etc. of this statement to Steyn's biography, thought, worldview? Jayjg 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how in-depth a discussion are you looking for, Jayjg, seeing as discussing it "in passing" does not meet your standard? As you've been told, Steyn's remarks are notable because they show a very unusual attitude for a journalist to have toward a colleague. You forgot this link I provided on the talk page: . Fisk also referred to the statement in a lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporánia de Barcelona on 26 September 2002, and it's discussed on page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank for reminding me about the above source. Here in an extract: When he was almost killed by an enraged mob of Afghan refugees during the American invasion, Fisk wrote a column saying if he had been in their shoes, he too would have attacked any Westerner he saw, which led some readers to send him Christmas cards expressing their disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." This sentiment was more or less echoed by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which ran an article bearing the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." The right-wing columnist Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's column, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Is this merely a mention in passing? I see commentary on Steyn's remarks here. Viewfinder (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am still unable to see a clause in WP:BLP which demands that secondary sources which "discuss" the statement must be found. If that is our position, I think that that needs stating on WP:BLP more specifically. Viewfinder (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While not discussing the sourcing here, the requirement for secondary sources is a clear implication of NOR, whether or not they're BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That about wraps it up, I reckon. The counter-arguments have dwindled away to nothing. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon so too. I could repeat the arguments, but that would be pointless. I could restore the material, but its life will likely be shorter than the block that I will get for so doing. But no matter how we word the material, it will be seen as seriously negative by MS and his supporters, and carefully selected for the purposes of damaging him. It seems that admin have been given the power to revert such material, and block those who contribute it, however verifiable it may be. My impression is that there are well resourced supporters of conservative journalists who dislike us "losers" at Misplaced Pages, and that admins therefore consider that they cannot be too careful. Viewfinder (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any reliable secondary sources that have discussed the material, and you have been told on the Talk: page by more than one person that it is a BLP violation. For example: Speaking in an administrative capacity, I concur with Jayjg. That indeed about wraps it up. Failing a third party consensus here that it can be added, if I see either of you adding it again, I will first protect the article, and, if need be, block the offenders. Jayjg 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been provided with umpteen sources, all of which you have wriggled around by stretching Misplaced Pages's requirements well past their breaking points. You and others are making a mockery of your positions as administrators, and not for the first time. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "umpteen sources" like this, a personal website, and a speech made by Robert Fisk. On the contrary, it is you who are trying to make a mockery of WP:BLP; not on my watch, though. Jayjg 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are listed at Talk:Mark_Steyn#Review_of_.22sources_to_date.22. Unfortunately, whether or not we think there ought to be, there is not consensus in support of the addition of the material as currently proposed. But the incident is verifiable and should be included in the biography. More examples of and excerpts from independent media coverage of the incident should enable it to stick. Viewfinder (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 1

An uninvolved admin – meaning someone who isn't a regular editor of Middle-East related pages, and who is neither friend nor foe of Jayjg – should take this matter out of his hands. I am far from uninvolved by my own definition, but looking closely at the talk pages and the sources adduced thus far, there doesn't appear to be any BLP problem. None whatsoever. There are multiple secondary sources discussing Steyn's statement; all of them are excellent, high-profile mainstream reliable sources. When Jayjg describes an "absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement," he's simply hoping you won't actually check and discover that he's making this up.

The facts here are very simple. In a rather infamous op-ed for a very high-profile newspaper (the Wall Street Journal), Steyn laughingly cheered on the savage mob beating of a very prominent journalist. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the Steyn op-ed – and specifically addressing the very sentence of Stein's that Jay is threatening to block editors for mentioning in the article – including by the victim of the mob beating, the celebrated journalist Robert Fisk. Here's what Fisk has to say about the Steyn quote:

Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of the Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writer's disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." The "Fisk Doctrine," he went on, "taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility not only the perpetrators of Sept. 11 but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless."

Quite apart from the fact that most of the journalists who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves taking advantage of the Taliban's defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that I in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11 — or, at the least, that I would absolve the mass murderers. More important, the article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was in the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story would have fit neatly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war with no reference to civilian deaths from US B- 52 bombers and no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be "liberating" these people, not killing their relatives. Of course, my crime — the Journal gave Steyn's column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" — was to report the "why" as well as the "what and where." Wallis, David ed. Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Nation Books, 2004: 371-373.

Jay says of this passage that its "relevance is unclear," and complains that it was "found by googling Google Books."

Other secondary sources specifically discussing the Steyn quote include the London Independent (a major British broadsheet), Salon.com, and the New Zealand Herald. The CBC's Evan Solomon also discussed the significance of the Steyn quote in an interview with Fisk for the television show Hot Type.

Three things are absolutely clear: (1) there are multiple secondary sources discussing this quote; (2) there is nothing here even remotely approaching a BLP violation; and (3) Jayjg is here as a party to a content dispute, in an area of the encyclopedia where he has a known bias. This last issue is the gravest by far. In misrepresenting his own role here, in pretending to be simply an admin safeguarding BLP rather than a party to a content dispute, Jay is trying to justify the use of his admin tools as weapons in order to win that content dispute. Hence all his threats to other editors. This is a very serious form of admin abuse, the sort that might well merit desysoping. At any rate, this entire episode represents not a BLP issue, but an admin-abuse issue, and should be moved, accordingly, to the AN/I page.--G-Dett (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will preface this by saying that Jayjg has asked for my opinion on this matter. I do not, however, think that makes me biased in the matter -- I don't have an ideological commitment in the dispute, nor indeed a particularly close friendship with Jayjg. I think I can comment sensibly on the matter.

Firstly, with regards to the text in the lead. The absence of discussion of these matters in the body of the article makes them unsuitable for inclusion in the lead, where they have the potential to give a non-neutral impression. If there is substance to the discussion, it should be included in the text of the article.

Secondly, with regards to the quote from the WSJ article. The use of the quotation as it stands is staggeringly non-neutral. As it is, it is a quotation from the middle of the article that does not take into consideration the article's general tone or the context of the statement -- the presentation in the Misplaced Pages article gives the impression that he considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous; Steyn's article makes it very clear that it is the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up that is humorous. The presentation of the quotation is not neutral and as such it is a violation of BLP. If there is a genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy. As it is, it is not neutral and Jayjg is quite right to remove it.

As I have not looked too far into the history of this dispute, I have no opinion as to the appropriateness of Jayjg himself taking administrative actions, but I feel very strongly that he is correct to make these removals.

] 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, your post is a very reasonable assessment of the content issue; I find it in many respects quite convincing. And Jayjg is entirely within his rights to agree with you and edit accordingly. Where he is not within his rights is in (a) threatening to block other editors who take the opposing position, (b) misrepresenting this as a BLP issue, and (c) falsely claiming (from the very heading he's given this thread on down) that there is an "absence of reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement."--G-Dett (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not going to discuss Jayjg's approach, but it avowedly is a BLP issue. They are both (in their current presentation) non-neutral, negative statements on a biography of a living person. That's about the best definition of a "BLP issue" I can think of. ] 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of one better: negative material that is dubiously sourced.

Anyway, here's my suggestion. Why don't you take over the matter from here? You can address the neutrality issues surrounding the presentation of the quote, without falsely claiming there are no reliable secondary sources discussing it, without threatening to block fellow editors if they disagree with you, and without pretending that it isn't a content dispute. It's really win-win-win: the article improves; the cynicism that sets in when an admin abuses his privileges is stemmed or even reversed; and the ugly drama of pursuing Jay's abuse as a formal matter is avoided.--G-Dett (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful analysis and comments, Sam. You're the third uninvolved administrator who has commented on this issue, and you both have agreed with my view that the material violated WP:BLP. And I completely agree that if there is a "genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy." That's exactly why I've been asking for reliable secondary sources that discuss the statement. I've asked a couple of other uninvolved admins to take a look at this too, and am hoping that they will have the time to analyze the issue and express their views. In the meantime, I will continue to act in an administrative capacity on this article to remove all WP:BLP violations, and ensure that none are inserted. Jayjg 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam's stated reason for opposing the material as currently written is completely different from yours. It would be interesting to know who the other two uninvolved admins are, whether you emailed them privately like you did Sam, and whether they took you at your word when you falsely asserted that secondary sources discussing the quote were lacking. If they believed you on this last, that would of course render their opinions on the BLP issue irrelevant.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 2

Possible compromise:

Noting the irony of anti-Western writer Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whom he sympathized with, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime" and wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Fisk criticized the remark as insensitive.

This would necessarily belong in the text of the article, not the lead. THF (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, my concern, as before, is unlike, say, the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair that we don't seem to have reliable secondary sources that discuss this "incident". Steyn wrote it, Fisk responded briefly in a speech and in his book, and a couple of book reviews note it. From where would a proper WP:BLP-compliant analysis come? Jayjg 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I may be mistaken here, but you seem to be requiring a tertiary source. The secondary source is Fisk's commentary (and the commentary of others) on Steyn's essay, and the case has been made that that secondary commentary is notable. The reason we then go to the primary source is to give Steyn a chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context so that the article isn't twisted by Fisk's tendentious reading. You seem to be concerned that the result will make Steyn look bad, but it's only going to look bad to Fisk partisans wearing blinders. Everyone else is going to chuckle.

I agree that the text you removed was correctly removed. But the issue is one of NPOV because of the failure to put the text in context, and that's readily resolved. THF (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm really only looking for secondary sources. Steyn wrote something, Fisk briefly responded; it seems to have pretty much vanished from the public eye since then. Now, if there were reliable secondary sources that discussed this; as you say "put the text in context", then I'd be fine with the addition. That's what I've been insisting on, that's what Sam Korn insisted on, and that's what, I think, you've been talking about too. Jayjg 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief note for casual readers, and others uninitiated in the elaborate wikilawyering GAME being played here: there are indeed several excellent secondary sources that discuss the matter and put it explicitly in context. Jay knows this well, but is pretending not to.--G-Dett (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Fisk's complaint is so ludicrous that only the sympatico are seizing on it. So editors can either leave it unanswered or, more fairly, let Steyn's words speak for themselves. NB it's not just Fisk; Kamiya also made the same disingenuous comment on the language in the Steyn column. So one's hard-pressed to say that it's not notable, when it's been noted, and, realistically, Steyn's columns don't get all that much attention outside the blog world. (Separately, there's an NPOV problem in Robert Fisk, where Steyn's words are mischaracterized.) THF (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, after I warned Lapsed Pacifist that if he added the material to the article again I would protect it, or block him, he added it instead to the Fisk article without an edit summary either. That's the kind of tendentious editing that really makes a mockery of WP:BLP. I'll have to block him if he continues. Regarding your point, I'm not really looking at whether or not Steyn's comment or Fisk's responses were fair, I'm just trying to make sure that it's notable and fairly reported. I'm still not seeing much attention to the comment or analysis of it. Jayjg 20:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree no mention of this belongs in the lead. Your proposed wording is an improvement. I think Sam may still object to it because in his view the article should be careful not to "give the impression that considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous." I don't fully share Sam's concern here, in part because it's very clear that Steyn did find the beating itself humorous–

You can understand why Mr. Fisk has been in low spirits of late: The much-feared "Arab street" is as seething and turbulent as a leafy cul-de-sac in Westchester County...But last weekend the people finally roused themselves--and beat up Fisky! His car broke down just a stone's throw (as it turned out) from the Pakistani border and a crowd gathered. To the evident surprise of the man known to his readers as "the champion of the oppressed," the oppressed decided to take on the champ. They lunged for his wallet and began lobbing rocks. Yet even as the rubble bounced off his skull, Mr. Fisk was shrewd enough to look for the "root causes."

–and it's certainly clear that the Wall Street Journal's headline writer understood Steyn to be applauding the beating; the article is subtitled "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." But given that the quoted sentence ("heart of stone" etc.) is talking about laughing at Fisk's response, I concur with Sam that that's how it should be phrased.

How about something like this: Noting the irony of US-foreign-policy critic Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whose views he'd championed, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime." Regarding Fisk's subsequent expressions of sympathy for his attackers, Steyn wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Other commentators described Steyn's remark as "vicious" and tantamount to an endorsement of the attack. Fisk himself went further, arguing that Steyn's remarks implied that Fisk "in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11." Could probably be trimmed and tightened, but that's the essence of the episode.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"US-foreign-policy critic" for Fisk is perhaps too soft an appellation, since he's a conspiracy theorist of relatively extreme wackiness. "Other commentators" is WP:WEASELly, since it would be of some relevance if they were politically aligned (or not) with Fisk's views. "Tantamount to an endorsement of the attack" seems unfair in the current context, since, after all, it was Fisk's own endorsement of the attack ("I would've attacked me, too") that Steyn was humorously commenting upon (a point that my language above doesn't quite make, either). I'm fine with the choice of Fisk quote; that was certainly how I read Steyn. And Fisk, for that matter.

Of course, Jayjg is a thoughtful and persuasive editor, so if he disagrees with me for reasons I haven't thought of, I may need to reevaluate my position.

NB to interested editors that the same issue arises in the Robert Fisk article. THF (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Fisk was a conspiracy theorist, but I've only read his major works – Pity the Nation, The Great War for Civilisation, and of course his three decades of award-winning journalism for The Independent, which is one of Britain's two or three top mainstream broadsheets. I am aware that his writing is rhetorically bombastic, and that he takes his own derring-do during the Lebanese civil war quite seriously, sometimes wearyingly so, but that is of course quite a different thing from conspiracy theories. But perhaps you are more deeply read in his minor works, or perhaps you've had privileged access to his personal notebooks or something, and found what you thought was a conspiracy theory, in which case do share. The other possibility is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are parroting something you heard some lantern-jawed illiterate pundit or thoughtful/persuasive Wikipedian say, and are forgetting that this is the BLP noticeboard, good a place as any to start not slandering living people.

If "US foreign policy critic" sounds too euphemistic, could you suggest something else? Forgive my bluntness, but "anti-Western" sounds like something a blogger who doesn't know Fisk's work – and doesn't know what "Western" means for that matter – would say.

It's secondary-source commentators in Salon, The Independent, etc. who thought that Steyn's guffaws as a mob "beat up Fisky!" and "the rubble bounced off his skull" amounted to an endorsement of the attack. His WSJ editors thought that too, which is why they subtitled his article "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due."--G-Dett (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to play Argument Clinic here. Any fair reading of Steyn's column would acknowledge that he was commenting on Fisk's own endorsement of the attack and self-hatred. As for Fisk himself, he's accused the US of faking its account of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and destruction of WTC7, so "foreign policy critic" is far too mild a characterization of his anti-US extremism; WP:WEIGHT suggests he's lucky to get any mention in the Steyn article at all. "Radical" or "anti-western sympathizer" is not unique with me. THF (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right and you're wrong about a fair reading of Steyn's column. Only an unusually tone-deaf reader (or a non-native speaker) would fail to see that he's practically wetting his pants in hilarious glee as he recounts the near-fatal beating of Fisk. But you're right that where he explicitly describes his own "laughter," he's talking about his response to Fisk's sanctimonious expression of sympathy for the people who almost killed him.

What does "faking its account" mean? Does Fisk believe the US had a role in the 9-11 attacks? If so, wow, I have never, ever heard this. What I've heard him say is that while he has nagging questions about the attacks, these are rooted in personal and anecdotal evidence not professional research; here's what he says about "ravers" at talks of his who ask him why he doesn't "tell the truth about 9-11":

I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

"Western" refers to a whole trajectory of human culture compassing everything from Athenian democracy and Hellenistic culture to enlightenment humanism and liberal capitalism. There exists a handful of semi-literate contemporary elites, elites who in their own persons, ironically, do not bear much of the intellectual fruit of the Western tradition, who seem indeed not even to know what it is, who when talking about it tend to equate it with American political and military hegemony since World War II; for these hayseed elites, yes Robert Fisk is "anti-Western." For others, he is an extraordinary journalist and fierce, bombastic, and occasionally wearisome critic of American foreign policy.--G-Dett (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 3

I have noted the above discussion with interest. I am a bit concerned about Jayjg approaching other admins on this matter; there is a tendency in such situations, consciously or otherwise, to approach fellow admins likely to be sympathetic. Did he approach the admins who have commented on the talk page? Fisk may be radical but he is a writer for a major UK broadsheet and I see nothing about him that should disqualify him from mention in the Steyn article. "Anti-US extremist" appears to me to be unjustified but even if it is justified, Steyn's laugh about another journalist's response to a mob that beat him up, in an article entitled "a self loathing multiculturalist gets his due", seems pretty notable to me. Viewfinder (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewfinder, Sam Korn has explained quite clearly the nature of his relationship with me (or lack thereof). I specifically looked for experienced admins with whom I had few interactions, and who felt they were familiar with BLP. I did not approach the editors who commented on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who comes into this discussion professing neutrality but with the stated belief that Fisk's position on his beating is "ironic" might want to take a closer look at exactly how neutral they are. Jayjg, I notice you have yet to address any of the issues G-Dett raised about your stance. Don't be coy. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone not neutral. Regarding G-Dett's comments, I haven't read them, so I can't comment on them. I will, however, read any comments from third-party, neutral admins such as Sam Korn. Jayjg 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about disagreeing with me? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This, sadly, is a pattern. Posts Jay senses he can trivialize, he will; posts he finds challenging and trenchant, he strawmans; posts he knows are devastating, he pretends not to have read.--G-Dett (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not in the slightest think that Fisk believes his beating is "ironic". That is such an extraordinary assertion that I cannot begin to understand how you came to it. Lapsed Pacifist attacks my neutrality without the faintest idea about my political beliefs and with a decidedly bizarre interpretation of my comments on this matter. ] 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, you described "the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up." Lapsed Pacifist referred to this as your "belief that Fisk's position on his beating is 'ironic'," a summary which was fair and accurate. If you expressed yourself badly or carelessly, by all means clarify. But LP didn't say that you think Fisk believes his own beating to be 'ironic'. That "extraordinary assertion" is your own invention.--G-Dett (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You might better refer to it as my best attempt to understand a semantically unclear post. So Lapsed Pacifist is actually saying that I think it to be ironic. Quite what he is basing this on I have no idea. Maybe it is a rather free translation of the presentation in the Misplaced Pages article gives the impression that he considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous; Steyn's article makes it very clear that it is the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up that is humorous? That's a completely different kettle of fish. ] 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Sam. But I must say, I have a pretty good sense of syntax and semantics and I read your phrase about "the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up" exactly as Lapsed Pacifist did. Nor did I think that was a crazy position. Though I wouldn't call Fisk's position "ironic," I did find it an amusing example of his penchant for bombast. I'm pretty sympathetic to Fisk's politics, and I think he's an extraordinary journalist of the old school (foreign correspondents who know the region they cover intimately); and yet "Even I would beat myself up" became a Fisk-inspired laugh-line among me and my friends.

If you wished to distance yourself from Steyn's opinion, you might have written, Steyn's article makes it very clear that he regards Fisk's continued position in the wake of his beating to be ironic and humorous. I totally accept your clarification and can see your point more clearly now; if you step back, however, I think you'll see Lapsed Pacifist was posting in good faith. Cheers,--G-Dett (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"that is humorous to him" might have helped, I suppose. I still think it's quite a difficult reading of what I said. Anyway. ] 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting: "It should be pointed out that one of the main reasons given for the removal of the description of the Fisk incident from the Mark Steyn article was that the WP:BLP rules say that articles about living people should document what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. Since the description was about something Steyn wrote about somebody else rather than himself, it was held that the rules forbade its inclusion. Clearly, though, the description does not violate that rule when it is included in an article about Robert Fisk rather than Mark Steyn. In any case, in my opinion, commonsense implies that what the WP:BLP rule says about the inclusion of what the subject of an article says about a third-party should be interpreted differently when the subject is a journalist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)" Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lois Ayres (closed)

Sido (rapper)

Can someone who knows more about Sido than I do please check some of the information in there? The article cites no sources and some of the statements in there somehow surprise me. Thank you! darkweasel94 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a little makeover, using the de-wiki (and I dont even like the music). Should be alright now. Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rod Dreher

Can somebody keep an eye on this please? Some IPs keep re-adding a statement Dreher made a while ago about shooting trespassors in order to make him look bad. Hopefully people here agree that cherry-picking something outrageous a person has said, distorting it, and stripping it from its context isn't in keeping with BLP.70.20.106.127 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Anonymous IP Vandal(s) are making seriously flawed and inaccurate statements on the Yasser Latif Hamdani. Yasser Latif Hamdani is not an Ahmadi. He believes in a secular Pakistan and believes that Pakistan was created as a secular state by Jinnah. 125.21.165.158 in particular has been quite belligerant. History can be seen here. ]

221.132.117.17 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Jack Weiss

There's a city an LA City Attorney election today and one of the candidates, Jack Weiss, has had some dubious material inserted over the last few days. I've tried to clean it up somewhat but it needs more watchlisting, as might some of the other candidates. These pages will get more traffic than normal today. Phil153 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all of the unsourced material in the controversy section, as well as a bit sourced to a DA's office press release. Watchlisted also. Kevin (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Carl Fuisz

I'm concerned that a potentially libelous statement accusing Mr. Fuisz of being a CIA operative continues to be re-added after removal, primarily by Richard Norton. The text is sourced from a just published interview with Susan Lindauer (who is Richard Norton's cousin). Ms Lindauer was been found previously to be mentally unfit to stand trial. I think the inclusion of the statement as is with this source violates the guidelines in the living person biography section.Chitownhustler (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

John Yoo

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

Your standard COATRACK, SYN, POV, and BLP violations on everyone's favorite Berkeley professor. Absolutely no effort in the article to give Yoo's side of the story, even though he has been interviewed and has written about it, and a good third of the references in the footnotes don't even mention Yoo. Lots of original research, too. I'd scrub it, but then I'd get accused of furthering a right-wing conspiracy. THF (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

• Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP subject, a controversial South Indian guru, was subject to an apparent attempt on his life in 1993. What are editors' views on including graphic images of Sai Baba's dead assailants in his BLP? It strikes me such images would be okay in an article on that specific incident, but less so in the BLP of the person who was the target of the attack.

Needless to say, the whole Sathya_Sai_Baba#Murders_in_ashram section, starting with the title, appears quite far from balanced NPOV reporting, as does the article overall. Jayen466 11:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed here recently: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive58#Sathya Sai Baba. The "killings" section is long. Perhaps it'd be better spun off into an article of its own.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about the spin-off. Could you say which revision of the Sathya Sai Baba article you read? There have been edits around that section today, changing its length (and title). Jayen466 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference, this was the length the section had when I started this thread. Jayen466 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which version I looked at. Even the shorter version is still long. The killings themselves appear to be notable and there is apparently plenty of material available, including photos. With a standalone article all of that could go in.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayen466 10:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Coonerty

• Ryan Coonerty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rthunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have some WP:OWN concerns with this user regarding the biography of Ryan Coonerty. These seem to be reflected mostly in the Criticism section, where I'm mostly concerned that it influences the balance of the article a bit too much. I think it would be best if someone with a little bit more BLP knowledge than me would go over it. I was originally alerted to this article trough Google News feeding me this link --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like problem mostly is sourcing and NPOV. The user you mentioned appears to be aware of BLP implications here, so I don't really see the problem at this point. There are some comments from a year ago that confused me until I noticed that they were 2008. I'm discussing things on the talk page. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This controversy is covered in today's edition of the Santa Cruz local paper, fwiw. One person is quoted as saying his purpose in editing the page is to see that it "accurately represent the repressive nature of Ryan's rule in this ostensibly progressive town", and the subject of the biography is quoted as saying "I would rather just not have a Misplaced Pages page". So there does seem to be a bit of a problem. --Delirium (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd problem with multiple legal names

Nadya Suleman, Has been legally know or referenced with all the following names: Natalie Doud, Natalie Denise Suleman, Nadya Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Suleman Gutierrez Doud, Natalie Suleman-Gutierrez, Nadya Dodd, Nadya Denise Doud, and Natalie Denise Doud. The most common (by far) is 'Nadya Suleman' thus the article is titled that. But there is question as to weather which or any of the other names should also be listed? — raeky  15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) Raeky is faster than me :) Thanks for any help and see the talk page. --Tom 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the page should be redirect to Suleman octuplets and the redirect protected. This woman is notable for one single event, there is no reason to delve into her life any more than for that event: indeed, WP policy specifically discourages it. Let the media vultures do what they want, and lets get on with writing an encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the clear consensus that she needs her own page, see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman — raeky  15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That AfD was closed in less than 12 hours as a snowball. The closer had edited the article, as had two of (about) eight of the commenters. Hardly basis for "clear consensus" IMHO, and probably worth another shout (without prejudice, natch). Mr Stephen (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a deletionist at heart but think that an AFD has very little chance, but who knows. I would give it more time however. --Tom 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was closed because the person who originated it withdrew it, but every comment was for keep. If you think it's a serious issue nominate it again. — raeky  17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just have done, here. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Irregardless of the new AfD nomination(which I think is uncalled for) any recommendations on alternative names or rules. I've not noticed anything in policies that directly deals with a person who is known and referenced by this many names. — raeky  19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate names are usually given in the lead. The list above appears to include a few names recombined in to every possible configuration. Do we have reliable sources for each? It may be possible to boil them down to a few main ones, with variations. Something like, "Nadya (or Natalie) Dodd (or Doud) Gutierrez Suleman." Then the body of the text could explain how these different names came about, if known. But if some are very obscure or poorly sourced then just leave them off.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten O'Clock Classics

Can someone take a look at today's activity on this page? I have to leave so I cannot do so myself. The page was semi-protected for a month because of BLP violations. The protection is off, and it looks like the violations are back. The older edits say that the sourcing for the material is not sufficient. The sourcing on the new version needs to be checked to see if it is now sufficient for what the content says, or if it is more of the same that got the page semi-ed previously. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

TASTY COATRACK EATEN BY COATRACK MONSTER. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point I suggest dealing with it as vandalism / trolling. The content has been repeatedly and consistently deleted, and as soon as it's unprotected we have IP editors trolling with comments about "Internet censor". Probably best to reprotect for now. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Ten O'Clock Classics and the protected redirect at Ronen Segev were kept at previous AfDs (TOC, RS), so it's not suitable for prodding. I've no idea why long-term or permanent semi-protection isn't sufficient, since in all the time I've watched it I don't think I've ever seen anyone but anon IPs do the vandalizing.

Note also that Segev himself is OK with the article's existence, and has in fact allowed the use of copyrighted material within (see the TO'C talk page, and OTRS ticket 2006111410009853). I'll be online for a wee while, so I can keep it watched for the moment. --DeLarge (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Aristide Von Bienefeldt

This biography is complete bollocks. No such writer, no novels. Aristide Von Bienefeldt

David Boulton

• David Boulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - What the hell, five different guys all called David Boulton, all on one page, all of dubious notability. // Astronaut (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow. The David Boulton collective definitely lives up to the category "Living People". The article seems to have started off about 3 of 5, mentioning that he was no to be confused with the others. 1/5 seems most notable, and might warrent his own article. 2/5 is dubious. 4/5 and 5/5 should just be deleted as there is not enough data about them. Martin451 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• A good faith editor who wanted to help posted a request on the article's talk page, three days ago. It has received no answer, so far. Also note that a multi-stub is a valid article type. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A multi-stub a valid article type? That's the first one I've seen; and I've been here quite a while now. I would have expected a disambig page with links to separate articles for the notable David Boulton(s). Astronaut (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be most common for ancient people who languish somewhere between notability and non-notability. See, for example, Hippocrates (physician) or Andromachus (physician). It's somewhat less common for more recent people, but I don't think totally unknown. --Delirium (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Coles

Charlie Coles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User talk:Patiotable continues to add unsourced content to the article while also removed correct information. I have warned the user to no avail. The edits have become less-inflammatory over time, but continue to say the person will retire when there is no indication he will. // X96lee15 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The user made another edit, can an admin block him? — X96lee15 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef as an SPA devoted to defamation. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Malloy

Dan Malloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Occasionally, a user (usually an anonymous one) will remove relevant information regarding this Stamford, CT mayor's dispute with the fire department. It is, arguably, one of the defining aspects of his administration, and should not be removed without discussion. The most recent incident was shamelessly motivated by agenda, since the user not only removed every mention of the issue, but replaced it with unbridled praise for the mayor. It should be noted that the language that is repeatedly removed is itself the result of a resolved dispute; both anti-Malloy and pro-Malloy editors have agreed on its neutrality, which makes its removal all the less acceptable. Minaker (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer

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

Tycoon24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

These two users have been removing entire sections of the article, claiming that they are portraying Mr. Cramer in a negative light, and therefore should be removed. After several users (including Spitfire, Gnower, and myself) went back and forth with him and reverting his edits, he decided instead to stick to rephrasing one section and removing a couple of statements (and an accompanying source) which he considers "libelous" (see diff), even going so far as to call them a conspiracy theory (see diff). I'm not seeing how these statements would be considered either libelous or conspiracies. Any suggestions? Matt (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt

Your entry on me not only contravenes your guidelines, being biased, hostile, inaccurate and lacking in citations.

It is also libellous, thanks particularly to the most recent addition(s). Please remove it instantly, or remove every error and claim unsupported by citations.

Andrew Bolt

email addy rmv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.17.161 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

email addy removed, not a good idea and article linked, I'll have a look at it and try to address your concerns. Gnangarra 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I've cleaned it up, addressed areas of obvious concerns. It still needs further tidying up of reference etc... Gnangarra 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedians

Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians

I know, they're dead (allegedly) and it isn't an article, but the issues involved overlap with BLP so I'm coming here.

In a recent MfD of this page where the danger of fabrication was a concern (vs the unencyclopedic nature of the page) the consensus seemed to be "keep, but insist on sourcing". Unfortunately, those maintaining the page don't seem to care much about WP:V or the spirit of WP:BLP insisting that internal stuff and unverified e-mails will do as it is not an article.

I have repeatedly removed an entry on Emil Petkov which has a discussion (in Bulgarian) on a wikipage as its sole verification, but I'm being reverted by people insisting that that's sufficient verification. This page is wide open to the possibility of a damaging and hurtful fraud, as it names real-life individuals who happen to be (allegedly) wikipedians, assistance on maintaining this page would be helpful. I'd particularly invite people to check the verification of all other entries, and help me insit that any without hard verifiable corroboration are removed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has no relevance to BLP, since the "Emil Petkov" is a[REDACTED] account which asserts no actual person. Also, Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians is not a[REDACTED] article, the policy WP:V is not applicable in all its rigor, it is is a[REDACTED] community page, and verification withiun wikipedian's community is reasonable enough. I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to propagate a hoax. While I respect the concerns of Scott MacDonald, we are not talking about random vandals here. We are talking about a sizable community of bulgarian wikipedians who remember and respect and commemorate their notable contributor. The probability of hoax is extremely low in this case: WP:AGF trumps. - 7-bubёn >t 19:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to propagate a hoax I didn't believe somebody would post that in response to another editors concern. Oh well. --Tom 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the issue, not on me. My points are: (1)WP:V is not 100% applicable to[REDACTED] community pages and (2) WP:BLP is not applicable to internet accounts: I can register as user:Madonna, who will sue me? - 7-bubёn >t 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet accounts are beside the point. This page does not say "the owner of User:Madonna is said to be dead" it says "Joe Smith, who edited as User:Madonna, is dead". We are using a page to make statements about real world people, and we need some level of reliable real world sources for that. I'm afraid AGF will not do here. Our prevention against fraud or misstatement is not AGF but that other users can check was is said on the page. No, this is not an article, indeed it is not encyclopedic at all, but that would be an argument for deleting it if we can't ensure basic quality control, not for keeping all unverified claims.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect Scott concern, but please keep in mind that most of wikipedians are not celebrities so that their deaths are reported in NY Times. The verifiability rules for discussing of wikipedians in[REDACTED] pages must be relaxed. If not, we may delete 75% entries from this page, and in completely miss the purpose of this page. Al alternative would be to remove references to real names and use more cautionary phrasing about the external world. - 7-bubёn >t 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the entries are verified. And "relax" cannot equal unsourced. If we can't verify stuff, we should remove it. The same "this is not an encyclopedia entry" rational can lead to the conclusion "thus the information is unnecessary".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that there are different levels of necessary verification. If we are speaking exclusivety within "wikipedia universe", verification coming from a reasonable consensus of wikipedians, whoi claim that they received info from relatives, should be OK. - 7-bubёn >t 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're saying you trust Wikipedians? Do you trust used car salesmen too? --NE2 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I trust wikipedians. You have problems with that? Precisely because we trust wikipedians' consensus in nearly all wikipedia-internal issues[REDACTED] works. - 7-bubёn >t 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that this is an internal matter, we don't expect a notice in the NYTimes that picture abc has been released by xyz under CC - a simple email to ORTS will do. Similarly an internal process to verify the identities and status of the claimed deceased can be processed internally. If I get run over by a bus tomorrow my wife could email a checkuser with the account of my demise. He simply can check the IP data with my account and verify the source. It would be extremly unlikely that an the local paper would refer to my[REDACTED] account but with the above email the link to the news story can be made. OK not WP:RS rather WP:OR but this is not an article. Agathoclea (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few people who think quite strongly that death of wikipedians is an internal matter of high notability and irrelevant to all other[REDACTED] policies: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam. Laudak (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop flogging the dead horse Laudak. That debate just got WP:SNOWball kept because you clearly can't understand that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL refers to the article space as do our WP:V and WP:N policies. If we start requiring verifiable information from reliable sources for userspace then I guess 99.999% of user pages are gone. That'll really keep the volunteers of this project happy I'm sure... Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an outrageous personal attack, but I will ignore it. I find it ridiculous how a dead person can edit his user page for years. :-) (a morose and tasteless joke, I agree). Misplaced Pages user pages are for working on wikipedia. Once you start putting real-word information into user pages, where is the boundary between[REDACTED] and free hosting service for wikipedian's cliques, hobby circles, friend networks, etc.? Laudak (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:NPA seems on a par with your understanding of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop escalating personal insults. Laudak (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read policies and guidelines before citing them. Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tasteless indeed, so why write it? The boundary is quite easy, use common sense! Garion96 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" is to be involved only in borderline, shadow cases, and only when no one objects. My common sense is in an obvious disagreement with the one of User:Pedro, and I refuse to accept that he has sense more common than mine. In other words, common sense cannot supersede community consensus, and this section is an attempt to resolve the issue, so that we would not rely on some iindividual common sense, which otherwise is called "iLikeIt". Laudak (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You will no doubt now provide the link in which I have refernced "common sense" - for example in the closing of the above MFD - otherwise I can't see why you single me out. Stump up the verifiable evidence you seem so keen on Laudak.Pedro :  Chat  23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common sense" item refers to the remark of Garion96, please pay attention to talk threading. I am singling you out only for your quite derisive tone. Please tone down both on insults and irony. If you want me to provide a link, please say it plainly, without snickering. Yes I am keen on "verifiable evidence" and proud of that. If you look into my user page you will see quite a few seemingly nonsense articles I created, such as or "cigarette case" or "cigar box", nevertheless based on "verifiable evidence" Laudak (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I want you to provide a link where I have referenced common sense. Is that clear enough? If you cannot supply the link will you redact your comments? Pedro :  Chat  00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Scott has a point that we can't label "Mr XYZ" who edited as "User:ABC" as dead without some support. But equally I can't see our WP:OR and WP:RS mainspace policies apply so strictly. Surely best endeavour is sufficent here? Has anyone actually contacted Mike Godwin or the WMF about this? In the example above of Jeffpw we had confirmation via Checkuser and personal email from several long standing editors. It wouldn't stand up to mainspace I agree but so what? If I state on my user page what I do for a living, what my religion is and how may kids I have must I add a good reference? Pedro :  Chat  23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In your user page you may state all what you want about you, within reasonable bounds outlined in WP:USER. Laudak (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Laudak, I know I'm starting to sound like a stuck record, but I really would appreciate it if you read some stuff before commenting. Your inexperience is not helping you. No-one "owns" their userpage or any subspace. Anyone can contribute to it. Good manners says we don't edit another editors user pages but that's it. Jeffpw died - and this was verified by evidence frankly more reliable than a great many "reliable sources" we use for mainspace BLP stuff. But it was Original Research within a Misplaced Pages context. So, some simple facts;

• (1) The user who edited as Jeffpw died
• (2) This death was confirmed to a verifiable standard arguably far higher than many other "sources" we regularly use
• (3) No-one "owns" their user space
• (4) Any editor not specifically banned or under editing restrictions may edit anywhere except for protected areas (such as the WM interface)
• (5) There is no policy prohibiting memorial pages that are not in the article namespace
• (6) You can't libel the dead

So you point is what, exactly? Pedro :  Chat  00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, I am tired to pointing out our blatant disrespect. I will no longer tolerate it. This is my last answer.

• (1) Assume you are right.
• (2) then please provide the requested reference without revert warring
• (3) Where did I say otherwise?
• (4) Yes they may, as long as it contributes the overall task of creating wikipedia, which is specifically explained in policies about talk pages. In your user page you are allowed to put reasonable personal information, to the extent it profits the goals of wikipedia. For example, you cannot advertise your products or post galleries of your girlfriends there, you cannot post essays about your family descending from Capetings, etc.
• (5) Did I say otherwise? Misplaced Pages does not have policies for every mouseclick. That's why we all are talking in all these policy-related talk pages.
• (6) Oh yes you can, and you can be sued your pants off.

Good bye, I see no further sense in bickering with a person who likes to speak from the position of superiority and disrespect. Let some other people speak to the core topic. Laudak (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, well my post above part agreeing with Scott was trying to get this back on track. And in answer to 6. No, you're wrong. Pedro :  Chat  00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(6) He-he, actually you have to remember that (a) USA is not the whole world and (b) google is your best friend (after[REDACTED] of course :-). Correct answer: it depends. - 7-bubёn >t 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please stop with the "you can't libel the dead" crap. Maybe you can't, but that's beside the point. There are two problems here: 1) if the entry is unverified then the fact that the real-life person has died is unverified, so you may be talking about the living. Secondly, libel is not the only concern - embarrassing a real person, causing stress, etc to them or their families are also part of "do no harm".--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I wasn't aware of this page and I'm not sure its entirely appropriate for Misplaced Pages, precisely because of the verifiability issues. The whole way WP works is that online identities cannot normally be (reliably) connected with offline identities. Obviously there will be exceptions, eg WP:RS claims that X edited as User Y; and parts of the community may for various reasons be certain that User Y is person X. That still leaves an uncomfortable verifiability gap for a key B(x)LP issue, for a WP project page which serves no purpose in furthering the aims of the project (unless anyone wants to claim it is a sort of Hall of Fame which people want to get on when they die...). (In fact isn't it possible that people will be added to it who actively didn't want their offline/online identity publicised?) I'd say ditch the page, or failing that, err on the side of caution, qualifying all claims that aren't pretty rock-solid WP:RS-sourced. Rd232 13:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Plus, how many readers coming across the page will fully understand the meaning of the fact that it's not an article? Most will de facto treat it as if it is. Rd232 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the people who previously brought Deceased Wikipedians up for a MfD--where the community decided to keep Deceased Wikipedians--now bring this issue up here without informing people about this discussion. This is not an issue for BLP. As it states on the page, people have to provide information referenced info about the deceased individuals. This page is an important part of the Misplaced Pages community.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the devil --- and he appears. I did nominate JeffPW and Deceased Wikipedians for deletion. Again, Per WP:NOT which explicity states Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. I got a rapid (5 minute) closure on both nominations and a 3rr notice on my page for contesting. I haven't re-nominated either page because it's clear to me that the community wishes to keep both pages, despite both being against policy. Hey, I respect the consensus and will abide. However, I will suggest that the community then change the line or lines in WP:NOT#MEMORIAL to reflect this consensus. That way, this never happens again. It will be a matter of policy and therefore, beyond refute for anyone. As it stands now, it is now. — Kosh _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should a section listing an organisation's former employees be included, apparently motivated by their failure to disclose their connection with organisation? No notable activity on behalf of the organisation is included, merely the association. Rd232 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the article, I would argue towards a middle ground. It seems like it would be useful to name directors and otherwise-notable figures, but I don't see a good reason to name otherwise un-notable figures unless grounds for their inclusion are established. I would also suggest that the employees section be moved after the platform, as the article is about the platform and not the people, I presume. Awickert (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More specifically: I would suggest that Michael Shellenberger be retained, as he is a relatively high-profile figure in his own right. The director should also be retained as it seems to be of relevance to the organization. I'm not sure if the inclusion of the others is necessary, unless (as per above) they can be shown as notable (either to the organization or in their own right). Awickert (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But Shellenberger isn't and never was an employee of VIO (his company was contracted to do a poll and some unspecified lobbying) and is notable for completely unrelated reasons. See Talk:Michael Shellenberger. Rd232 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been similar BLP problems in other articles: Michael Shellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Mark Weisbrot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Center for Economic and Policy Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JRSP (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So my thought about retaining Shellenberger was that, assuming his employment (or contracting, or whatever) was important to the VIO, he has enough of a general background for it to be important. This is on the lines that if Michael Jordan advocated for something, it would be notable because he is notable. Rd232 takes the other side: that his association to the organization is unimportant (which Mr. Shellenberger himself seems to think). From reading the article and the Shellenberger source, clearly the recall election was important to Venezuela, and so if perhaps more information about the VIO and the recall election were added, Shellenberger's name should be there as a government-sponsored public relations and polling consultant. That might be the better way to do all of the names, in fact, to include them in more info about the VIO instead of just creating a laundry list that some editors find questionable. Awickert (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to add more actual info, and scrubbed the names of past employees and lobbyists as non-notable/unencyclopedic (among other issues). Rd232 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it is worth noting, to those not aware, that User:Alekboyd has very strong opinions on this specific subject (eg here and / (looking almost like a vendetta against VIO lobbyists) and (latter two domains both registered to alekboyd) - frankly if this were a court I'd ask him to recuse himself as I have doubts about his ability to fully respect WP:NPOV on this topic, but as it is, perhaps he could try and ease off a bit; Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and nor is it an extension of any editors' blogs. Rd232 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia had been involved resolving a similar (and perhaps the identical) dispute in this article when there was edit-warring going on between pro- and anti-Chavez editors, and perhaps someone should get that user involved. My sense is that User:Alekboyd is a bit aggressive in his characterization of sourced materials, something I've warned him about repeatedly, and that the pro-Chavez editors are also a bit over-aggressive in removing material that is sourced. THF (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Awickert (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the Michael Jordan example, not everything that a notable person does is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article, WP:WELLKNOWN is clear about that; there have been precedents like the Jenna Bush article where a verified information was left out because it was considered to be not relevant to the subject's notability. In the cases in discussion, I have noticed also inclusion of information not explicitly mentioned in sources and interpretation of primary sources. Another problem is undue weight, we cannot just pick an individual mentioned in a small paragraph in an article dealing about other thing and claim that this is a notable information about this individual. JRSP (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - I didn't realize the precedent against notable-person-everything-notable. I do still think that even if a laundry list of names is objectionable, it may work if it is incorporated into the article in a way that talks about what they do and makes it notable. I've also asked Alekboyd on his talk page to comment here about his justification for their inclusion, hopefully that will help. Awickert (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Those names are important for more often than not those people would write letter to editors, opeds or articles, under the guise of independent, uninterested readers, when in fact all falls within the remit of VIO's campaigns. Take Naiman and Wingerter: Naiman writes for the Huff Post, together with another Chavez apologist, in one article he mentions (casually?) that an excellent source of news on Venezuela has just come to being, that is Wingerter's BOREV.NET. Neither would say that they were employees of the Venezuelan regime and people who have not followed their activism would think "oh my gosh, what a wonderful tip!" As per Shellenberger: what made him notorious? How can it possibly be alleged that information about an environmentalist, whose services were contracted by a petrostate, and who sort of made it with the publication of a certain paper, published while he was under contract with the government of Venezuela, is not relevant, while all the while ignoring perfectly reliable sources that prove the point? --Alekboyd (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the allegedly misleading quote about Shellenberger was made by User:THF not by me. --Alekboyd (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't add information about living persons with the specific purpose of undermining their credibility. Whether true or not, whether verifiable or not; this kind of information must be notable and carefully sourced to comply with the BLP policy. Also, these people are presented as "employees of the Venezuelan government" but working (or having worked) for an organization does not necessarily imply you're an employee; for instance, we are not "wikipedia employees". We can't add information to insinuate that everything these persons do has been commissioned by the Venezuelan government. Regarding your question of "How can it possibly be alleged that information about an environmentalist, ... ", I will repeat it again: unless the notability of this information is assessed by multiple reliable secondary sources, it does not belong in wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia: we try to condense notable verifiable information that has already been presented somewhere else, this is not a place to expose original ideas or to "prove a point". JRSP (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose the issue is settled with the help of third parties. Until then, and given User:JRSP odd understanding of what is an employee, I am reverting changes made.--Alekboyd (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That is what is being done. However your insistence that *your* version is public whilst this happens (when you're in a minority of one, as far as I can see) strains my ability to WP:AGF. Ouch, managing it but it hurts. Rd232 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you continue to fail to argue how a list of past employees is encyclopedic. It isn't (and NB the one employee listed as current in the disputed isn't), as others here have basically agreed, unless (as I said before) their activities are notable. We do not list on Misplaced Pages all past employees for every business and institution, and you're only argument for VIO being an exception (they tried to hide it) though your ability to source the employment to WP:RS standards puts that in some doubt, but anyway) is invalid. Rd232 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So I've established that I don't know as much about precedents and soforth for politics/biography, but how about this as an idea. Alekboyd could create a third party website that lists folks associated with VIO, well-sourced, and place that website under the "external links".

Also, looking at the article for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental NGO (so somewhat similar in terms of being an organization with an agenda), the president and directors are listed; therefore, I think the VIO article should keep the director (and perhaps past directors?). Interestingly (and completely unknown to me), Venezuela and Citgo and Chavez are mentioned there as well with respect to the Kennedys, and not cited, so I'm going to hunt for a citation and delete if I don't find it. Awickert (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, couldn't find any source, removed. Although, Robert Kennedy is still mentioned there, and though he is a larger public figure than Shellenberger, it seems to be a parallel to Shellenberger's inclusion, provided Shellenberger did things for the VIO equal in magnitude to what Kennedy did for the NRDC. Awickert (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so we have two users User:Rd232 and User:JRSP reverting all my edits without further ado, and threatening with WP:3RR. Opinion from third parties, neither me nor users mentioned qualify, is required to reach consensus. Until the issue is resolved the version that should be published is the one previously existent, to which users User:SandyGeorgia, User:THF and User:Awickert contributed. Notability of information has been established by various mentions in WP:RS compliant sources.--Alekboyd (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reverting all my edits" - nonsense. You revert to your preferred version, without sufficient discussion, even though you're in a minority of one (so far). Again (been said several times before) in BLP cases caution applies and that also tilts the decision as to which version should be public at the moment, temporarily. (Of course, since no-one has agreed with you yet, you might consider whether a consensus hasn't already been reached, with you on the wrong side.) As to "threatening with WP:3RR", LMAO, you can't threaten with WP:3RR, it's just a hazard to watch out for. Rd232 15:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of creating a third party website and placing it under "external links": That won't work, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:EL#In biographies of living people; also if that site were created by an editor we could have a case of WP:COI. Now, to sort things out, we could try to separate different cases; for instance, we could start with the two persons listed as "past employees". Who supports removing this from the article? JRSP (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither the directors nor the employees seem to be notable qua employees of VIO (I see no WP:RS of them doing anything notable) but it is not unusual for current directors to be listed in WP. However we don't know who the current one is (according to this the one supposed to be current isn't any more). And AFAIK listing past employees and directors is rather less usual on WP; they are mentioned only if there is something substantial to say about notable activities for the organisation. In other words, there needs to be prose about (notable) things they did qua employees, not merely a list. Rd232 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated the same above, I agree with you that employees would be better-mentioned in context of their notable deeds with VIO. It seems that Alekboyd's main point is to show that these people who write "under the guise of independent, uninterested readers" have a bias by connecting them to their past employment. That seems to be fair enough to me, but in looking at other lobbying agencies, their inclusion in VIO does seem to go against the status quo. So my question is: is there room or precedent, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, for the inclusion of the bias of otherwise not-well-known writers of (I assume) apparently impartial reports and dubiously impartial articles and letters? Awickert (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It may seem "fair enough" to you, but it would breach multiple WP policies. To answer your question - there may be precedents somewhere, Misplaced Pages being as large and messy as it is, which is why precedents are used to inform policy, and in practice we rely on policy. The minimum for inclusion of these specific allegations would be a reliable source talking about this as a specific issue for VIO. Other evidence for these would be original research (possibly through WP:SYNTHESIS). And to include the names without being able to verify the allegations would clearly be inappropriate if the allegations are the justification given. However that justification is suspect: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a tool to right alleged wrongs. It is an encyclopedia. Rd232 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - so with that, I rest my case, and say that the best approach would be to retain the name of the director, retain the names of the agencies (as in the current version) with which said individuals were involved, and to return the names of the individuals if/when there is enough information in the article about their activities with the VIO, corroborated with sources, to warrant their inclusion. Does that sound OK to everyone? Sorry about how long it took me to get here, and thanks for your patience in explaining the Misplaced Pages policies around BLP. Awickert (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Several articles

213.46.9.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user has been warned twice about adding unverified material to articles. They have edited several articles substantially changing facts, or adding potentially libellous material. The IPs edits span over 30 articles, and I'm requesting a joint effort to undo thier work, and a temporary block. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

This article has received a fair amount of IP attention trying to add that Ms. Williams is dating Chad Gilbert, a drummer from some band. The additions seem to be coming from IPs of various geolocations, and are absolutely never sourced properly. Only two editors and myself are present to remove and fix this assertion, which has been brought up on the talk page but is never discussed by the said editors. I would request semi-protection of the article for a set period of time, or at least some eyes on this article, as I'm tired of coming back after a 3 day break and having to fix vandalism over the entire period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 1 week. In the future please keep in mind that protection requests are in WP:RFP. - 7-bubёn >t 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also asking for eyes; this page is regularly not only vandalized but has BLP violating material added to it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman aka "Octo-mom"

This article is an obvious trouble magnet, and many of the sources don't seem to actually back up the statements in the article. Also, her personal life has been reported on so widely, there may be details slipping into the article that aren't really appropriate. I think if a previously uninvolved party could swoop in and play referee and try to sort the wheat from the chaff in the references it would go a long way towards helping this article not devolve into an attack piece. More detail, way way more than you will want to read, is at the ongoing AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As the AfD has closed as Keep, I would support some uninvolved eyes on this article. That would be better for WP calmness than me doing a sweep on it, obviously. Physchim62 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger

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

It's escaped my notice for a while in editing and discussing the article, but it suddenly strikes me that it may well be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The solution would be an article on the book in question (The Death of Environmentalism), the co-authorship of which is the only reason he is notable. (His PR work etc, which has been the source of some heat, isn't notable.) Most of the article is about the book, which isn't even sole-authored by him. Comments? Move book stuff to book article and delete the bio? Rd232 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know very much about MS or his book (so I guess I don't oppose). I'd suggest you to contact user GreenExpert as he started the article and has been a main contributor to it. JRSP (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, but he hasn't edited since 15 Feb. Incidentally it doesn't matter whether you know about MS or his book (unless you want to develop more material on MS which isn't about his book) - the issue is the policy (WP:ONEEVENT). Interpretation of its application here by uninvolved editors is what I'm after. Rd232 00:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a borderline ONEEVENT to me. Shellenberger seems to have done some other stuff before which wouldn't be notable in itself but which could be discussed in a bio: the question is, does that really add anything to the discussion of Break Through? I'm not sure that it does, or rather, I think it could be a sentence or two in an article about Break Through.

More worrying is the tendency for WP:SOAPBOX and possibly WP:COI in the current article: should Shellenberger's various non-notable companies really be mentioned? On the whole, I would move this to Break Through and then prune the article of any material which wouldn't fit there. Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional: in 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..." Rd232 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done copy of relevant material to Break Through. Next step (once protection expires in a day or two) will be to AFD this article. Rd232 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Britt

The Bill Britt article has some serious unsourced allegations in Bill_Britt#Skaggs_Lawsuit. They were eventually sourced by providing links to court documents hosted on a non-RS site (http://www.amwaywiki.com - disclaimer, I admin the site). User:Shot Info has stated that such documents are not allowed as sources so has removed them, meaning the allegations are now unsourced. As such I believe they should be removed from a BLP immediately, however he's threatening me with an edit warring report (despite the fact one of my reverts was including the material, the other was removing it!) Additional input requested. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the source of the documents was one of the editor above's self-declared hobby sites. I personally welcome sourcing of the material from appropriate sites. I suspect they are out there hence the reason the article was tagged and the inappropriate RS' removed. Shot info (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shot info, I stated I admin the site in the OP. If you can find another source, find it, however BLP is clear that unsourced allegations should be removed. If other sources can be found then it can go back in. How about being constructive and looking for some alternative sources you find acceptable? Having said that, as court submissions, not judgements, consensus appears to be they wouldn't be acceptable in either case? --Insider201283 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There were two other similar sources in the article (which apparently Shot Info had no problem with) that I've now removed. One was trivial but the other also refers to court allegations. Also unsourced allegations of cult-like activities. I suggest as per BLP these should be removed as well. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD'd for notability issues Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt (2nd nomination). Rd232 01:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources, like court documents, are usually used only when they've been mentioned by reliable secondary sources. So if a newspaper covered the trial then quoting from the decision might be appropriate. But we shouldn't use legal documents in cases that haven't been reported on. Otherwise it would open the door to anything we find in databases, etc. See WP:PSTS   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chuck de Caro's page.

1- He wrote it himself 2- he exagerates what he has done. 3- His company exists only on paper, the plane and the staff do not exist,impossible to corroborate. 4- The links on his page are 20+ years old,outdated information. 5- Seems to be a narcisisstic monument to own self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearclight (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Leahy

I removed a single sentence that implied Senator Leahy may have caused someone to die. While a source was cited, there was no context given to the allegation. I left a note on the talk page requesting more information to put this statement into context. The inflammatory line has been re-inserted into the article, and the only comment left on the talk page was:

All the context is provided in the source. CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An accusation of manslaughter, without any explanation of the circumstances, doesn't seem like an appropriate entry in a BLP. Am I correct in my evaluation? Advice welcome, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you on this one. The whole article needs a lot of work, though... Poorly sourced, not well formatted or organized, looks like a good chunk of it is written by people on his staff (which, even if not true, means the point of view is not neutral) etc. Avruch 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong agree. The style of the article is not "conservative", as BLP requires for living people and as WP:LTRD strongly suggests for dead people. Insinuations have no place in an article of this type (or any article for that matter, but they are particularly bad on BLPs). Physchim62 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no accusation of manslaughter here. The text is all well sourced and written in an NPOV way. CENSEI (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In my country, causing the death of a person through negligence is often called manslaughter. Regardless of what you prefer to call it, it is still a serious charge to make against another person and should not be done lightly. Your reluctance to provide context to the charge has me concerned. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE:

I have removed the following vague insinuation 3 times now:

There is a possibility that a leak of his led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt.

CENSEI has now changed the insinuation to an actual manslaughter charge, and cited a 1987 Los Angeles Times article as a source:

During a 1985 interview with ABC News, Leahy revealed a top-secret intercept between the individuals responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking. This information was used to capture the hijackers and according to intelligence officials the leak led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt who was responsible for the intercept.

I checked the sources, and they do not support the content CENSEI is attempting to repeatedly inject into this BLP article. Quite the contrary, the LA Times source clearly states Lt. Col. Oliver L. North "was subsequently named by Newsweek as the leaker of information on the Achille Lauro hijacking." Someone is playing fast and loose with the facts here. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is Newsweek's claim, specificaly that North released the information, and there is much more to the times story than you are quoting here if you even looked at it at all considering its not on the web. If you want to reproduce snippets of the source, please do so with the full context and dont be deceptive about it. CENSEI (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3 page LA Times article cited by you says nothing to indicate Leahy had anything to do with the Achille Lauro incident, leaked information about that incident or the death of anyone. If you disagree, please quote the text here from that article that you feel supports your edit. Until then, please refrain from inserting that information. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how else to say this other than you are deliberately lying, so I will allw someone else to independently verify this. CENSEI (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edison Chen's prior lives?

In Edison Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), editor Benjwong (talk · contribs) has added, and continues to restore, a section about a "feng shui master's" " reincarnation analysis" of Chen. Discussion at Talk:Edison Chen#Past life, reincarnation analysis. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that speculation by a "feng shui master" about someone's reincarnation is not a WP:RS as required for a WP:BLP. Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also printed in South China Morning Post in English. That is a reliable source. Nobody is asking the user to believe or disbelieve. It is just cultural contents for the article. Benjwong (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Per WP:BLP, we write conservatively about living subjects.
2. Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources, we don't include fringe theories/pseudoscience details about an individual, unless said individual made the claim himself. Chen makes no claims about his feng shui or reincarnation beliefs in either source - thus we can't include this section in his article. On the other hand, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King documented his personal experiences with using mediums to contact deceased relatives and politicians in a series of diaries. Thus, those details are perfectly acceptable in his article, in spite of Wiki's policy on fringe theories. --Madchester (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I think you are twisting this rule to mean "spiritually conservative". Talking about reincarnation is alot more conservative in eastern culture than talking about the scandal.

2. To call fung shui an extremist and fringe theories - exposes your possible misunderstanding of the culture. A person in the Chinese entertainment circle of this level of fame has plenty of these types of public analysis. It is no different than using a source that points out an individual is christian. Literally it does not carry any more weight than that. The individual does not have to say he/she is a christian for that secondary source to count. In fact[REDACTED] prefers secondary source. Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong, I think you're missing the point. U.S. newspapers print horoscopes, and that doesn't make the horoscope a reliable source as to the individual that they purport to describe. The South China Morning Post, if reporting that the FSM speculated about Chen, is a reliable source that such speculation occurred. but the speculation itself remains unreliable, even if the existence of the speculation is verifiable. TJRC (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Horoscopes are not reliable. They are anonymous and do not point to any single individual. I don't see why you are bringing this up. Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that you added to the article? TJRC (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Has or has not is not the point. Lot's of things in this world can't be proven. Heaven, hell, whatever. In simple terms, this entry about past life is, "Someone credible said something not proven through a credible channel". It depends whether or not you think the whole thing is relevant at all. I'm not a wizz at wiki policies, so I won't comment on that. But definitely don't bring this to the same level as any old computer-generated horoscope. Dengero (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether reincarnation, etc. exist, but whether Chen himself has any opinions about them. Benjwong is making the assumption that b/c Chen is Chinese and in the HK enertainment industry, Chen automatically believes in feng shui and reincarnation. To include the current details in the article, you need to provide the burden of proof that he actually has such beliefs per WP:RS (incl. its provision of fringe theories/pseudoscience). Unless Chen makes these claims personally (or agrees/disagrees with said feng shui master's analysis) the details are irrevelant to the article, if not potentially libelious per WP:BLP ---Madchester (talk)

Please answer. Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article? TJRC (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"A fengshui expert somewhere said Chen's past life is XYZ".

"A car        expert somewhere said Chen's last car was XYZ".

Both would fit into the[REDACTED] biography guidelines just fine. It makes no difference whether Chen has ever publicly come out to say his last car was actually a XYZ automobile. A car expert somewhere knew his last car was an XYZ model. If the source is reliable, it goes into wiki. Chen may actually be a motorcycle driver. It doesn't matter. Misplaced Pages does not have a rule that requires public acknowledgement from the LIVING BIOGRAPHY subject. SCMP is reliable with credibility. SCMP also say Dala Lama was reincarnated. It has the right to, even if it cannot prove such is true. Benjwong (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: please answer. Is it your position that this FSM or the South China Morning Post is a reliable source for the assertion that Edison Chen has had prior lives as described in the passage that was added to the article? TJRC (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This information is poorly sourced possibly defmatory (a christian priest) information about a living person. It cannot be included. Hipocrite (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Ruttman

My bio says, "he earned $54,196 and the scorn of many in the NASCAR community". This is untrue. Please remove.

Thank you,

Joe Ruttman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is wrong too. I go by Joe Ruttman. My middle name is not Joesph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.240.235 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Both fixed. THF (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Libel concerning Satanic Warmaster artist from finland

Potentially libellous and extremely poorly sourced material concerning this finnish metal music artist's ideology. Clear indication of support towards illegal organizations etc. through very vague connections etc. The artist has made it clear in several occasions that his personal beliefs are towards Satanism, yet somehow a lot of bigots try to blame him for nazism for some utterly peculiar reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Satanic_Warmaster

The "Ideology" chapter is 100% against the biographies of living persons policy.

The only source used is an anarchist extremist propaganda book "unholy allianz" which is a full on attack towards heavy metal culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opferblut (talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not the only source. But material allegedly from it is hard to verify (a German book) and reviews of the book have criticised its research so it probably shouldn't be considered a reliable source anyway. I've edited the article slightly, this may be helpful. Rd232 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Does need work from a neutral editor who reads Finnish though. Rd232 14:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

Joel C. Rosenberg is undergoing some significant edits. IMO the old version was bad, and an editor has made some significant improvements. But both the old version and the new version feel very puffed-up. I tagged the new version as such (after the old version had the tags removed in the latest set of improvements) and the editor and I have had a discussion about some of the issues. That said, I'm going to bow out of the discussion (I really don't know anything about the subject nor am I good with BLPs) and would appreciate it if another editor would be so kind as to look over the article and figure out if A) my tag should be removed or B) how to improve the article. ThanksHobit (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution