Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 19 August 2009

• 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

Heinz Nawratil (again)

I am re-posting this request for comment relating to Heinz Nawratil in the Expulsion of Germans - last time it was here but it didn't manage to attract much attention. Now the page has been protected pending the resolution of the BLP issue.

There are two questions here. 1) Can Nawratil be described as "extreme right wing author" (or "nationalist") and 2) can it be mentioned that he has written articles for the Holocaust denial/revisionist Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review (which has been described as a "an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations").

The "extreme right wing" is sourced to an article by Ingo Haar, a respected German historian. Haar in turn is relying on Martin Broszat, one of the most well known and prominent German historians of the post war period. The article is in Polish (though the author is German) and I have provided the relevant translation at the talk page. The source itself is here: (pdf). The claim has been made that this is only an "indirect connection" and not enough for a BLP statement.

One of Nawratil's articles for the Journal of Historical Review is here . In the article Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as "the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth" (this should probably be enough to call Nawratil a Holocaust denier)

So far the only outside comment has stated that this is enough to source the claim and not violate BLP.

I would very much appreciate it if further outside editors could take a look at the provided links and sources and comment on the articles' talk page or here.radek (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP problem. Sourcing being in other languages is not a problem under WP:V. The sourcing is clear and sufficient. The matter is also relevant to the subject at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawratil is misquoted above, the "quotes" from the Journal of Hist. Rev. are taken from the (italicized) introduction clearly not written by Nawratil, as the intro is referring to him as a third person. Further, I don't either see a problem with the language of the source, my problem is that if Nawratil is a neo_nazi, then many sources should say so, not just one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Still, he is writing for the major Holocaust denial journal/institute and praising a Holocaust denier. And we're not writing that he is a neo-nazi, rather that he is associated with the extreme right, which he obviously is, as the sources show.radek (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to note that we are not putting in the article that Nawratil is a 'neo-nazi' - since the sources don't say that. What is proposed that in the article he is referred to as 'associated with the extreme right' and a 'nationalist' - which the sources DO say, and that he writes for a Holocaust-denying journal - which he clearly does.radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source which clearly takes a similar view of his writings : By far the most cited secondary source for the DVD-ROM's "background" passages is Heinz Nawratil's Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, first published in 1982 and re-issued almost annually ever since. It is an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization. An excerpt titled "Prelude to Expulsion," for example, placed in the midst of video clips about the fall of Breslau, provides an account of German-Polish relations from 1918 through 1939 that consists exclusively of Polish mistreatment of Germans. The bibliography provided by the DVD-ROM is taken directly from the (then) most recent addition of Nawratil's Schwarzbuch. It includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime' but none published in eastern Europe, either before or after 1989. Read as a text document, in other words, Die Grosse Flucht is jarringly dated and one-sided, a kind of time capsule of the rhetoric of the Bund der Vertriebenen circa 1955radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

More sources - in German

My German's next to non existent but thanks to the wonders of technology and babel fish a few relevant German language sources can be added here. For example this . As far as I can make out on page 35 it states that Heinz Nawratil published together with Jorg Haider (who, according to Wiki's own article was known "for comments that were widely condemned as praising Nazi policies or as xenophobic or anti-Semitic") and Gerhard Frey ("politician and chairman of the far-right party Deutsche Volksunion, which he founded in 1971") through a publishing house of Grabert (here's google translation of German wiki on what is "one of the largest and most well-known extreme right-wing publishing houses in the Federal Republic of Germany" and which as it happens, also launched the career of David Hoggan who's the guy who brought Holocaust denial to America) and which is described as a "central organ for revisionists" (i.e. Holocaust deniers) and something of a platform for writers of the "spectrum from radical right to neo-fascist". That last part I could use some help with if we have anyone who's fluent in German, but it's pretty clear what the gist is.

Since I'm doing this through online translators it's slow going but there's also this (crappy google translation here - but you can copy paste relevant passages into babel fish) - on page 18 it says (translated through Babelfish) apparently that Nawratil used to belong to the Wiking-Jugend ("a German Neo-Nazi organization modelled after the Hitlerjugend") and is listed among "the names of constituted right-wing extremists".

If anyone fluent in German wishes to provide more exact translation, I'd very much welcome it, but I think it's pretty obvious that if anything, the description that is being considered in the article text UNDERSTATES the degree of this guy's involvement with the extreme right.radek (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

the IMI source (an NGO) counts Nawratil as a "known right-wing extremist", and says he was an official in the Wiking-Jugend. Rd232 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. Does the other one say that he wrote articles with Jorg Haider for a Holocaust denying publisher?radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another one. Apparently Nawratil works for Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt as can be seen on this website: . The ZFI is, according to Wiki, "a historical revisionist association", which of course means Holocaust denial and it "is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany. On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied". And out of the three functionaries of the association the other one is no other than the Dr. Alfred Schickel that we've met above, the same guy who talks about the "extermination myth" and whom Nawratil praises in the pages of the IHR journal. Again, someone fluent in German may wish to provide of the organization's mission statement as found under "Aktivitäten" on their website.radek (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The link you give is not the website of the ZFI, it's of an anti-fascist NGO which lists Nawratil as a board member of the ZFI in its profile of the ZFI. I can't find a website for the ZFI. Rd232 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's not their website - I caught that and corrected my statement above. It looks like a site that keeps track of right wing extremists and groups.radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell the website says that the ZFI is a right wing think tank dedicated to the trivialization of Nazi war crimes. They also research war crimes against the Germans in the expulsions. I am busy now, let me check this out on the German internet later today--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointer, since the Nazis and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany, these folks set up front organizations that use code words to communicate with the extreme right.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This link is informative, the ZFI is apparently mainstream in Bavaria, kein wunder!! A SPD delegate in Bavaria, a stronghold of the CSU, is questioning why the ZFI is not being sanctioned by the government. He questions why government officials sent greetings to the ZFI --Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael_O'Malley

• Michael_O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A prominent person my my industry came to me about the lack of wiki page on myself, and offered to put it together. I agreed, edited it, and posted it. If this is not acceptable can you please let me know the right way to go about it. //

"Michael O'Malley"

Jan Slota

Hello All. I removed a few images that linked Slota to a Neo-Nazi organization. Although he does tend to put his foot in his mouth and is not the best loved of Slovak politicians, he should not be linked to Nazism unless there is direct proof of his involvement with such a group. thanks User:Petethebeat

Jordan Palmer (social activist)

this page continues to be slandered and cannot prove anything. I am afraid of liability. Look at the talk page also. I think the page should be locked to new users. This person is involved in Gay rights and probably angers a lot of people. There is also a football player in Cincinnati named Jordan Palmer, and this person cites no credible references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentucky1333 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on adding some sourced content. -shirulashem 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily stricken out the unsourced negative BLP content in the mean time. -shirulashem 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

An IP has repeatedly inserted blatant factual errors to make the subject of the article look bad. Page protection or an IP block is requested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. They aren't blatant factual errors just because you disagree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. You repeatedly inserted that the errors that a WSJ editorial column 1) was a news article or in the news section and 2) accused the subject of the article of something that the article did not actually say. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1)It WAS an article from the news division, as opposed to the editorial division, though I was incorrect (NOT purposefully) that it was in the news pages. 2)to what are you referring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.131.95 (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) It was an editorial on the editorial page, period. To make anything else of it is OR designed to push your POV, as you have been doing. 2) You repeatedly in inserted the false statement saying the article said Totenberg did not disclose the reason for her firing. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) You tried to insinuate that Hunt was complicit in what the editorial division said. Not true. 2) If you are referring to the statement that she had left an impression about firing, may I remind you that I was restoring YOUR edit, and previously, an edit made by someone else a while back. The interpretation from the Kurtz article that she left that impression is more than defensible; the interpretation from the Hunt article that she did so is clear. Why do you have to resort to bullying tactics of trying to shut up people because they disagree with you or challenge your ability to have the last word?--76.7.131.95 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Untrue. I added a citation from a reliable source that stated that some journalists made the connection. 2) That disagreement has nothing to do with the separate factual error you repeatedly inserted, as I clearly noted above. Don't try to play the victim here. This isn't about a disagreement, I brought it to this noticeboard because of you are playing fast and loose with the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2) The wording that I restored, added by someone else a while back and deleted by you, said that HUNT charged that she had not disclosed the reason she left the National Observer.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And Hunt did NOT charge that, which makes it a factual error that YOU inserted into the article. I can't find anything in the edit history to show anyone but you inserting that factual error. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt DID charge that. Sorry, but if you look at versions back at least through May 2006, you'll see the words in the article.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Now don't insert factual errors into this discussion like saying that it didn't appear before I added it back.--76.7.131.95 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt DID NOT charge that. The old versions of the Misplaced Pages article do say that, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it make you not responsible for inserting factual errors when you have been notified that they are incorrect. Have you even read the article? Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Words I added back: "Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal brought up ..., -->and, relatedly, of not disclosing the true reason she left the National Observer.<--"

Hunt article:

In a recent Washington Post profile she talked about how she herself was a victim of sexual harassment when she worked at the now-defunct National Observer (which was published by Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of this newspaper). In the article, she left the impression that the harassment was behind her firing over charges of plagiarism.

Here are the facts.

In December 1972, the Washington Post's Myra MacPherson wrote a piece about Thomas P. O'Neill, who was about to be elected House majority leader. A week later, Ms. Totenberg wrote a profile of Rep. O'Neill for the Observer.

...

Ms. MacPherson, no longer with the Post, is "bothered" that last week's profile of Ms. Totenberg left the "implication that she left because of sexual harassment when there is strong evidence this was a serious case of plagiarism or a rewrite job."

Ms. Totenberg, in an interview, insists: "What I did or didn't do almost 20 years ago isn't the issue. I believe I left the Observer because I was being sexually harassed." But Lionel Linder, who was a top editor at the Observer in 1973 and is now the editor of the Commercial Appeal of Memphis, says flatly that Ms. Totenberg was fired because "whatever extenuating circumstances, it was clear that she plagiarized."

As Hunt clearly points out, Totenberg did NOT disclose the true reason that she left the Observer--plagiarism. Rather, Totenberg says she believes she left the Observer "because I was being sexually harassed."--71.80.34.146 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunt does not point that out at all. Read what you quoted. Hunt says "impression". He never says she did not disclose it, and it is clearly disclosed in the Kurtz article Hunt is complaining about. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, not to sidetrack the discussion, but why haven't you done a page protection or IP block? Are administrators not allowed to do that if they've been involved in debates on the associated talk pages?Chhe (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to use my administrative powers to avoid any potential conflict of interest issues. Ideally a third party would intervene and at the very least help revert the IPs edits. They do violate policy but I'm not sure they are so grossly offensive as to merit immediate action where I could justify breaking the 3RR, locking the page, etc. I'd prefer not to break policy to fight a policy breaker. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Megan Fox

• Megan Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparently Megan Fox made an offhand comment about Megatron from Transformers " out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America". User:Ashley92995 apparently believes that this comment deserves an entire paragraph in Megan Fox's article because the actress came under heat from some right-wing bloggers. I think it's both a case of recentism and giving what is an incredibly minor event undue weight, given that it got no real notice outside of the blogs.// Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Megan's comments had been put in the article A LONG TIME ago, almost around the time they were made. I won't deny that i was a Megan fanboy and as such, even though I concede that they were a stupid thing to say, there was no denying that she did say them. Also, there was no "apparently", the sources are sound, verifiable- she did say it. Unlike model Bar Rafaeli, whom also made an anti-military comment, Bar went out of her way to dispute what she said, said she was taken out of context, etc. Megan has never apologized or retracted the comments, instead relying on Paramounts PR department (imho) to keep this out of the public light, which largely worked. But it does not change the fact that she did say what she said and has never clarified what she said. The sources are sound and were put in a long time ago. I would also point out there are many on the left wing that would absolutely applaud Megan's comments if they read them here on Misplaced Pages. Ultimately, we are not here to give Megan a favorable edit to her Misplaced Pages page. We are here to give her page a fair look, and if it meets Misplaced Pages standards on Biography of Living Person, which are met, they should remain in the article.

My curious coincidence, by including them I feel there is a better argument for upgrading it now to Good Article status. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more mainstream source from THE INSIDERS's official website....say what you will about tabloid news organizations, but they are sort of in the business of reporting on celebritys and when they can verify this story, they would. Do you think for one second that if this story were untrue, that Megan would not be suing the crap out of them. Anyway, enjoy.

As I said at Talk:Megan Fox, there is no doubt that she made the comments, the issue at hand is whether those comments have been reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight, as this is a single comment, not widely reported, held against the totality of Fox's life. I think this fails on both counts. Kevin (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevin. As I've been trying to say, it was never a matter of verifiability but notability. No one's doubting that she said it. It just doesn't warrant inclusion on the article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems very undue, and not notable in the long term. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is notable, the only ones really fighting to oppose this are Megan's fanboys, and I admit to being one until this weekend (when I became a Sienna Miller fanboy). It's no less worthy or unworthy of inclusion then many other things that are unfavorable to someone but meet other Wiki standards. Again- There are people on the left that will applaud Megan's comments. When you look at the ABC NEWS story, where it gives it some mention (albeit largely edited), there is no doubt Megan's PR people were doing their best to supress the story, which is unto itself another issue. The fact that you guys are trying as hard as you are to keep it out is beside the point. Anyway, the sources I put up meet the reliability standard and verification is already there. While I can respect your reasons for keeping it off to protect Megan's reputation, that is besides the point- argue about it on some other fan site, but here at wikipedia, it is notable. If Megan had retracted the statement, clarified it, said she was taken out of context, that would certainly be reasons to remove it. But she has never done that, so it stands. Whippletheduck (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You seems to be suffering from a failure to assume good faith on the part of those who disagree with you. So if we remove the ad hominem part of your argument calling us fanboys, what we are left with is your opinion that the sources are reliable. As you have been told, the BLP policy specifically excludes using blogs as sources. YOu recently posted a link to The Insider, which notes at the bottom that it was submitted by a user. These are not reliable sources. If you can present a reliably sourced report (i.e. mainstream media reports) then it could stay, so long as it passes the hurdle of undue weight, otherwise it must be left out. Kevin (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Agreed, Kevin. Whipple, please don't poison the well here. I'm not a "fanboy" for anything, so accept the discussion here in good faith. Right now a Google news search for Megan Fox turns up nothing on this topic on the front page. Famous people say stupid things sometimes, controversy blows up and then goes away. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, my more current edit has MSN, ABCNEWS and other's cited as sources. In one of the replies, someone could not even dispute them, but acted like it was not enough. Nothing wrong with me calling you "fanboys", heck I was one of you in that I was aware of what Megan said, but was willing to look past it because I genuinely liked looking at Megan. However, now that I have seen GI JOE, Sienna Miller has taken Megan's place at #1 in hotness and now am more willing to make this discussion. Anyhow, NPOV states that ""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors." and some other things. Bottom line though, is that the newer edits highlight the ABC and MSN parts of the article. If you want to remove the part about "her comments don't make her shine" and a few other aspects of it, then that can be substained. And a Google search on Megan Fox Middle America brings the story right back up, so don't act like this is some sort of conspiracy to bring her down. If she were to retract or clarify her statement, that would be one thing. She has not done that. Whippletheduck (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If this were truly notable, why would it make a difference if she had retracted her statement? Dayewalker (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a case of WP:UNDUE. Just because a reliable source reports it, doesn't mean we should include it. For example, if Obama visits a city today and delivers a run of the mill speech, the news will report it, but that doesn't mean we need to rush to his bio and insert it. ABC, MSNBC etc report the news, Misplaced Pages is not the news. She said something that may or may not be dumb. So what? People remember her for her role as an entertainer. I think bio's should focus on significant live events, not just things to fill space. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We are also talkign about Notability here. If Obama said what Megan Fox said about how he plans to dole out health care.....if he used the exact same words and it was irrefutable what he said....your damn right it would be in the article for him to have said what Megan said. Also, remember that there are MANY on the left that would probably agree and applaud Megan for what she said, so this also cuts both ways. Anyhow, According to this......."Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors.", from the NPOV area, this is less about whether it should be in or not: the standards have been met. Megan's supporters (I won't call them fanboys since they are crying foul over it even though I mean it as a term of affection). And yes, there are going to be people that justifably will be upset that may not even know this happened, as Megan's PR people have done a great job spiking this story. Whippletheduck (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, we're talking notability, but your comments don't address notability at all. You're discussing how we would deal with it if the comments came from the President, and talking about the comments from an NPOV standpoint. However, this doesn't address the basic factor of notability, and undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The comparison is flawed because Obama would be talking about something that actually effected people, unlike Fox, who is nothing more than an actress.....which is simply a citizen with an opinion. Believe it or not, actresses have no real power. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whippletheduck, everyone here has heard your arguments, and remain unconvinced. There is absolutely no consensus here to include the "Middle America" comments that Fox made. Remember, no-one here disagrees that she made the comments - it is clear that she did. The issue is that her comments have not been discussed by mainstream media except as a passing mention, which means that to include them lends undue weight to an issue that mainstream media have largely ignored. If you intend to continue your argument, you need to address this point, and leave out mention of left wing/right wing/fanboys/Obama. Kevin (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one that brought Obaman or the Right/Left part into this discussion at all. Sandor was the one that kept complaining about how only right wing blogs and somewhere else ever reported on this as a reason not to include the article. When I called him out on it, it was someone else that brought Obama in as an example, and did not do a very good one, claiming that it would not be notable if Obama in a stump speech made the comment that Megan made----Does anyone beleive that if Obama said what Megan said that it would be the end of his presidency?

And you guys are all trying way too hard on this, threatening 3R as quickly as you are to try to spike this debate. if the Misplaced Pages standards are correct, then it is the content that needs to be addressed, not the number of editors that are involved. If you all agree that the sources are good (which I notice, none of you are criticizing anymore, which sounds like "well we can't refute those sources so lets make it an NOTABILITY ARGUMENT instead", which personally I think is rather cowardly.

I would not be surprised if a lot of the megan defenders are really affiilated with whatever agency represents Megan and are trying to spike this so it does not reflect badly on your client.

I suppose I can wait and see if she creates a history of additional ridiculous statements, she is only 23 so she has plenty time to do that, and then catalogue them. Good thing about Misplaced Pages is that edits and stuff stay in the system so it will be easy to regenerate whatever it is I need to do it. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're not addressing the notability issue here at all, rather you're choosing to cast aspersions on the motives of people who disagree with you. Consensus appears pretty clear the section isn't notable, if you disagree, please address the question. Dayewalker (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Kevin in his first chiming in, this is about reliably reported (i.e. by some source other than a blog), and whether a whole paragraph carries undue weight. The newer sources, specifically from MSN.COM and from ABCNEWS meet what he claimed and what others also agreed with him on, meet the Reliably Reported Standard. As to Undue Weight, it says we have to judge based on the reliability of the information, not the number of editors, that is right in the UNDUE WEIGHT criteria, with a specific quote as

""Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors.""

So, the question is, to both Kevin and to Sandor Clegane, you were saying one thing, both agreed, and now that the two issues you both specifically cited as making the entry are being met, you are now changing the argument to what now??? Whippletheduck (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not changed my position at all. The blogs cited (The Insider etc) are not reliable sources, and cannot be used in either the article, or in arguments about notability or undue weight. The MSN and ABC reports are reliable enough for use in a BLP, however they are barely passing mentions stating what Fox said. As such, when we look at the total reliable coverage of Fox's comments we have 2 extremely minor reports out of the hundreds of reputable mainstream media outlets. To use those reports would violate WP:UNDUE. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying what she said. However, for it to be notable (and not undue), it needs to received significant coverage in reliable secdonary sources. When famous people say dumb things, it's not necessarily notable. The Dixie Chicks comments about President Bush are a good example of notability, it received a ton of coverage and is still very much notable. As I said above, Googling news on Megan Fox doesn't return any major mentions of this. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the Dixie Chicks. "I'm embarrased that the president is from Texas" got a million times more attention then what Megan said (which was a million times more offensive) yet Natalie Maines got flat out crucified/burned in effigy/everything else that they did to her, which was a real shame. While I can see how people might have taken offense to the timing, at least Natalie Maines had the class to A) attempt to explain her statement, B) Issue an apology, and when that didn't work she more or less ran with it. Megan has never apologized or even been called out on what she said. Good point, Dayewalker!!! Whippletheduck (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think you understand what point I made. We're not here to say what's offensive, or to demand an apology or else we put it in the article. We're solely dealing with notability here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no no no no....go up to the beginning of this article. Notablity was NOT the cited problem. Both Kevin and Cleghorn both claimed it was the Sources and No Undue Weight of an entire paragraph about one incident in her article. Notability was not cited until later when they began losing both arguments, and now they want it about that plus Consensus. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharee Miller

I recieved a personal letter from Sharee who is my friend and she said she was ofically released as of July 29th and she wrote the letter to me dated 8-5-09. Someone better check facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.57.162 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal correspondence is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Williams

Jennifer Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of this biography has debatable notoriety. It appears to have been written by the subject herself or perhaps her employer, ESPN. After reviewing the revisions to this article it appears as if this biography was written for ESPN's own marketing or for the subject's self-promotion purposes.

Cutefluffybunny (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there appear to be no sources for any of the data cited. AfD?Martinlc (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

My request yesterday for page protection on Nicki Minaj was rejected for a reason I don't understand (the reason for rejection was because the IP who was vandalizing had been blocked, but there were at least 5 different IPs vandalizing yesterday alone). But the vandalism continues, and was just reverted by the very admin who rejected my protection request yesterday. This article badly needs protection, the attacks are disgusting, but nothing is being done. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I managed to squeeze out a 24h protection. Maybe next time list it at User:Lar/Liberal Semi, where it will likely receive a much longer protection. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nabih Berri Defamation

The biography article on Mr. Nabih Berri, the current Speaker of Parliament of Lebanon is ABSURD.

"It is widely believed that Berri has benefited from the large sums of money", "He, as well as Rafik Hariri and Walid Jumblatt, are viewed by many as having been puppets of the Syrian government during its 30-year military presence."

This is a clear absurd defamation that has to be corrected immediately. I understand that Misplaced Pages does not check every article, but there should be a minimum regulation.

We kindly request this complaint be taken seriously, and acted upon immediately.

Thanks in advance, W.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.235.38 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to a more neutral version of the article. I don't know about the accuracy, but the sources were organisations with aims to "promote American interests in the Middle East", and what appeared to be personal websites and blogs – probably failing the neutral point of view and reliable source guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for some statements, not for others

This reads far more like an op/ed piece rather than reporting, and as we know, "ews reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact"; "ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact." WP:RS. In what ways can we use that source in the context of WP:BLP, where we are concerned about "ontentious material ... poorly sourced" and directed to write "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"? Can we use it as a source that supports purported statements of fact about Palin, or only as a source for statements about the source's opinion of Palin?

I'll give some specifics. Fmr. Gov. Sarah Palin made some remarks critical of Obamacare; the source says that Palin is "wrong," and that "othing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision." Is that a reliable source for a fact claim in Palin's article that she is "wrong"? Or is it a reliable source only for a statement in the form of "the AP"--or Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, the nominal author of the source--"argues that Palin is wrong"? And either way, is it acceptable to substitute the loaded word "false" for the word "wrong" and citing the AP story? (Crossposted to RSN). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

not another Palindrama already The piece's statement is as much a statement of the opinion of the writer as to future possibilities as is Palin's herself. Stating an opinion as fact is a rhetorical shortcut widespread among unscrupulous/lazy journalists (and politicians, for that matter). But without question they are both opinions, and should be presented as such. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since she is wrong, I don't see what is contentious about the AP saying so. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I say that you're an idiot, you will no doubt object that I'm being contentious (among other things). Or rather, that my claim is contentious. It is hardly an answer for me to say "since you are an idiot, I don't see what is contentious about saying so." That would be circular reasoning, and you would rightly object. I'm not saying that you are an idiot, but I am saying that your reply is an identically circular argument to the one just shredded.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Politicans often say things that aren't true, and pointing an example out isn't automatically contentious. Can you find a source half as reliable as the AP supporting Palin's claim? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Dlabtot (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have to ask, you've not understood it. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, a fortiori in a BLP. It isn't incumbent on me to prove that she is right, it is incumbent on those who would add material claiming that she is right or that she is wrong to demonstrate its compliance with policy and that its inclusion is justified as a prudential matter.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand just fine. The burden HAS been met, and your assertions are nonsense. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Being in the news again of late and a subject of some interest, I had hoped that discussion on the Karl Rove talk page would iron out some editing differences and allow for a consensus, but I'm sorry to report that Malke 2010 has used the word 'libel' with reference to material written in the article, which ups the ante much higher than I care to take this matter. I request admin advice and action, if need be.

It appears to me that this is at least an example of indirect legal threats if not WP:LEGAL (made in the talk page at the bottom, section title 'Phony Citations #38 and #39 under heading, George W. Bush Administration'.) At the very least, this appears to me to designed to cause a 'chilling effect', which is also combined with uncivil discussion.

Reading the last few chapters of talk at the bottom of the talk page will quickly show the problem. This is not about 'left' or 'right' in my view, but what is best for Misplaced Pages. Thanks for your time on this. Jusdafax (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been attempting to edit the Karl Rove article for neutrality. As you will clearly see when you examine my contributions, I am working hard to remove the obvious bias, but every time I do this, another person comes along and reverts back to the old text. If you carefully examine the third paragraph in the lead, and again examine what is written under the heading, George W. Bush Administration, yo will see what I mean. The total lack of credible citations should be cause enough to remove these scurrilous claims. The editors doing this never bother to make the article better, just make it more hateful. It is a terrible biography and violates Misplaced Pages's rules on Biographies of Living Persons. You cannot claim someone has alleged crimes when no evidence was found to charge that person with a crime. And the section under George W. Bush where it is claimed that Rove increased the threat level during the 2004 campaign whenever Kerry's poll numbers rose, is simply made up. The editor, Chhe, claims it is an 'oft-cited' example of Rove's influence. Oft-cited where? If it is "oft-cited," then show us where it is cited and is that reference credible? But he can't do that. The people editing this page have a negative view of this man. If you carefully examine all the references, many of them are coming from left wing POV sources, such as the book by Wayne Slater and James Moore, "The Architect."

In addition, the entire overall content of the article is focused on painting this man in an entirely negative light. WP:UNDUE It gives undue weight to "scandals" where the special counsel found no cause to prosecute Rove. The third paragrah in the lead gives the distinct impression that Mr. Rove is a criminal who has escaped being charged with a crime to date. Mr. Rove is most famous for getting George Bush elected Gov of Texas twice and President twice, yet none of the methodology the man used, none of his passion for politics, none of his true background is presented in this article. This page is a distortion, as is the discussion on the talk page. Please lets keep in mind that children will be reading the biographies and they need objective facts and legitimate sources, not a diatribe from those prejudiced against this man.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of your edits. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For that matter either do I. However, Malke 2010 utterly fails to address the points I make in my initial observations, and instead attempts to muddy the waters here. To repeat, Malke's use of the word 'libel' on the discussion page appears to be an attempt to intimidate editors, and when combined with a hostile manner both in the discussion page and on my personal user page, seems to establish this brand-new, one-topic editor as someone who requires, in my view, admin action. Jusdafax (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe all of these comments speak for themselves. I did not violate any rules, especially as regards any claim of libel. I did not accuse anyone of libel. I characterized the entry that had no legitimate citation as being one that could be seen as libel. I did not direct this to any individual editor. All encyclopedia content must be verifiable. Inserting words like 'alleged crimes,' is not verified on the page. What crimes? What statutes were violated? Who is his accuser? What was the outcome? What are your sources? If they are second-hand, do they lead back to the original source? And is that source accurate in its facts and assertions? This is the biography of a living person and what is said about him is easily spread on the Internet, especially now that Misplaced Pages has become such a popular source. It is irresponsible to fill this biography with unverifiable citations or no citations at all. And it speaks volumes about the intentions of the editors who fill the page with negative after negative. This type of editing is clearly not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages which is what draws so many talented, informed individuals who work hard to make honest contributions. Again, I would ask that the administrators take over this page and rewrite it to bring it up to standard and then lock the page for a while so that perspective can be regained. Thank you,Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. First off, here is your paragraph on the Karl Rove talk/discussion page that I vigorously object to. Just because someone 'thinks' it might be true doesn't make it true. You don't have any sources the prove anything. You don't have any source that goes directly to Rove. Anecdotal claims are not references. This is a biography of a living person and Misplaced Pages rules are very specific. Filling Rove's article with unfounded claims and rumors is libel. And please, no more phony references.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I say again, I take this as an indirect legal threat, and I ask for the admins to at the very least give you a warning not to use this type of tactic here, if not more.

Secondly, it appears you seem not to have read the link I posted in the Karl Rove discussion page. I'll post it here, again: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12firings.html?hp

Notice that the attorney firings are under current investigation. To quote from the article: A federal prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, is continuing to investigate the firings, including whether officials gave false or misleading statements to Congress. Does that indicate anything to you? And how about this editorial in The New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html This itself is notable!

This is not the place to debate changes to the Karl Rove article. That would be, of course, the discussion page. But since you joined Misplaced Pages as an ostensibly brand-new editor, you have proven disruptive and even arguably threatening, as you pursue the one subject in all Misplaced Pages you appear to be interested in. I think a warning or a topic ban on you is in order, but thats for an admin to decide.

To the admins: I await a decision on this with considerable interest. My thanks to all concerned admins for your attention and consideration. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The entry you mentioned was not directed at anything you wrote and certainly not at you. You seem to be the only one threatening editors here as you are threatening me with censorship and article bans and next I suppose it will be the boogeymanMalke 2010 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a note - Malke2010's claims of a "total lack of credible citations" have often been shown to be simply false, (s/he really needs to learn how to google), or have been based on attempts to discredit RS sources. It's true that the Rove article has been poorly sourced in several places (i.e. a lot of non-RS, which either needs replacing by RS or the information removed) and is not infrequently weaselly worded. Attempts to go through the article are being disrupted by what seems very partisan behaviour, with Malke's frequent removal of well attested facts (whole paragraphs usually) that all just happen to show Rove in a poor light.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely, and I thank you for your past and current work on the page. Jusdafax (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As per above, VsevolodKrolikov is well aware that I was attempting to rework the sections and I was not aware of the sandobx, which he provided info on. So I did not mean to just delete sections for 'partisan behaviour,' etc. And if you examine my contributions you will see I did not go and do that again, nor have my contributions been partisan. I only came to the page because I wanted to find out where Rove had gone to school. That's it, really. And the first impression of this article was that it is seriously flawed with a disturbing slant against this man. And as to finding out where he went to school, the article rambles on so, it took quite a bit of sifting to figure out he didn't finish. And it doesn't even include that he attended three colleges and that he is nearly finished, etc. I got that from another site.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, Malke, please refrain from your growing habit of interjecting your posts in the middle of others on this page. Intentionally or not, your last interruption makes it look like I'm agreeing and thanking you, which is the opposite of my intent, which is in praise of Vsevolod. You continue, even here on a page the admins read and judge, to prove disruptive and lacking in common courtesy, which does not help your cause.

It is my hope that we will have a ruling on this matter soon. Jusdafax (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To the Administrators: When I first posted my concerns about the overwhelming negativity and bias slant of this article, this is what VsevolodKrolikov answered back on the Karl Rove talk page: I'll be honest. As a real-life individual, I detest Karl Rove with a deep-running passion only to match that of my loathing towards Margaret Thatcher and the toadies who supported her. As a[REDACTED] editor however, it's clear to me that this article has serious bias problems against Rove. There are too many unsourced accusations and weaselly words against him. I would ask those interested in making this better to put all personal feelings aside and edit to make it a decent article. There are other places on the internet to let your own bile pile forth. On[REDACTED] we put forth a balanced representation of verifiable facts and notable opinions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can add to that other than to second it(talk) 16:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. The article has had serious problems. Moreover, one must edit without one's prejudices interfering, as my actions in this article have clearly shown. On the other hand, Malke's support is disingenuous. S/he has edited tendentiously: removing sourced material; deliberately misrepresenting sources, and the availability of sources; pleaded with editors to censor the page for the sake of children (I'm not kidding); and insisted that we include hagiographic information. Editors have taken her/his assertion that s/he is new to[REDACTED] at face value and have sought to coach Malke in how to behave. It has been to no avail, with request turning to warning with little effect. For someone like myself who likes helping new users, it's all been a bit sad.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Again agree with Vsevolod, whose arguments I find to be both candid and cogent. Without guidance and a decision from the admins this discussion is circular. Admins: Please render a decision asap; in the meantime I have suggested editing resume on the Karl Rove article to both improve it and bring it up to date. Jusdafax (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Now we have Malke 2010 (talk) admitting on the Karl Rove discussion page s/he has been a Wikipedian for years, whereas s/he has previously portrayed himself as a newbee here. This then brings up the question, what was his/her previous identity, and why did s/he change it? The question goes to the heart of my contention that Malke is disruptive and has a clear, obsessive and 'far right' interest in Mr. Rove's Misplaced Pages entry. While I could wish the admins would act a bit faster, in this case the delay has allowed this new info to come to light. Suggest looking at Malke's user page, and since Malke now admits to being a Wikipedian for years (as seemed likely from an ability to quote (and repeated attempts to bend to advantage) numerous wiki-policies, the obvious question is, is Malke not a sock puppet? Jusdafax (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Contentious material about living person ==Petro Voinovsky==

• Petro Voinovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Amongst other errors indicating carelessness and falsifications, the article contains contentious information about a “living″ person that is clearly libelous and harmful given the lack of a single reliable source. In particular, I direct you to the middle of the second paragraph. I ask for assistance in immediately removing the contentious material, so as to avoid unnecessary rounds of edits. As a new user, I am more than happy to assist in this process. Please advise. Thank you. // Kerhonkson09 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done It's unclear whether Voinovsky is a living person or not - it says that he "died after 2003," but we have no details. WP:BLP mandates that "ontentious material ... that is unsourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I see the material you have in mind, it's certainly contentious, and it cites no sources. If he is alive, BLP applies, and the material should be removed immediately. Since we aren't sure, we should err on the side of caution, and I have accordinly removed the material. Even if Voinovsky has died, however, the clams made were unsourced and highly contentious, and removal is appropriate per WP:PROVEIT. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates - should this article exist?

I have a problem with this article's notability. It seems to be giving undue weight to an event in the lives of Barack Obama and Henry Louis Gates, and its notability appears temporary (i.e. it's not notable). Before putting up an AfD with a view to a merge to wikinews, I would like get opinions from BLPers on the nature of such articles. I raised this on the talkpage and it turned into a bit of a pointless spat. However, I genuinely don't see merit in the arguments put forward for keeping it as a separate article. I feel I must be missing something.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability just means that other reliable published sources have taken notice by writing about it. In terms of notability for Misplaced Pages purposes, this subject is way beyond any reasonable interpretation of that policy. You seem to be describing your subjective feelings about the subject(s), rather than objectively looking at the body of published work. There is no such thing as temporary notability. Published sources do not go away. Dhaluza (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This has made headlines around the world.. its certainly notable. Had Obama not got involved then i would agree it just belongs on Gates own article, but President Obamas comment and the following "Beer summit" at the White house totally makes it worthy of an entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely and totally notable. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point - is it notable enough to have its own article (rather than be part of the respective BLPs of Obama and Gates), and one of such length?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a major incident, it would be more of a problem to try and present balanced information on several peoples articles. Much better to have a single article covering the whole event. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, it was an incident that received significant national (and international) media coverage. It deserves it's own article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, and worthy of an article. (I support the comments by Dhaluza above on notability.) Pechmerle (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Notable and deserving of its own article. If we tried to capture the relevant detail in a main BLP article, there would be complaints about Weight.Mattnad (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I started this section to find out people's opinions of articles like this. I only think that Britishwatcher and Mattnad actually take the question seriously and give an answer; Britishwatcher's is persuasive. However, simply having national and international sources over a short period of time cannot be enough for notability in an encyclopedia. If this were enough, we could have justifiably have articles on Barack Obama's choice of pet dog for his daughters, David Beckham's confrontation with fans on his return to LA Galaxy and Vladimir Putin's public displays of his pectoral muscles. All of these have probably had more sustained and/or widespread international coverage than this incident will do. I worry that media coverage is taken as evidence of notability per se. It means that notability depends on erratic media interests, with the possibility that with prurience historically a thing of media fashion, we would be in the strange position of some decades having far more "notable" events than others. If you look at the talk page, a couple of users seriously put this event on the same level as the Hutton Inquiry. That to me suggests a surrendering of one's grip on reality to the mass media.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand the broader arguement and I think the only real answer is these issues are handled by the consensus of the community. We have guidelines but in the end we as a group decide how they apply to individual articles. If you took this article to AFD, or tried to propose a merge, the community would weigh the matter, and I suspect come down heavily on the side of retaining this article. As to something like Vladimir Putin's public displays of his pectoral muscles, I suspect the community would not be supportive of an article. Why the difference? Because the subjects are different. Can I point to a line in a guideline why? Not off the type of my head. But that's how the community does and should work. Using human judgement to decide exactly how to apply policies.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The kind of debate happens all the time on wikipedia, but usually on the article talk pages. As cube lurker mentioned, this theoretically could be merged into the Obama (somewhat) and Gates (more so) articles, but you'll need to see if there's alignment among editors. Mattnad (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up on the article talk page, under the helpful heading "Err...", but, as Mr. Krolikov acknowledged at the end, it received no support there, so he decided to bring the question here.--agr (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. Perhaps a beginner's error, but this effort could be construed as forum shopping.Mattnad (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping at all. I did not hide from the talk page that I raised it here, nor here that I had clearly been in a minority of one there, and my reasons for not moving to an AfD before asking here is because I felt I myself was probably missing something. There's no point proposing an AfD if the proposer is unfamiliar with the community's approach to this kind of article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question you asked was if the article should exist, because you questioned its notability. Clearly a story that gets national media attention in a contry as large as the U.S., evolves through multiple news cycles, generates a spectrum of reaction, and fosters political debate on several fronts, is well over the top in terms of WP:Notability (even before Obama weighed in). I think you are conflating notability with suitability for an article. Not everything that is notable is suitable, and WP:NOT addresses that, but WP:Misplaced Pages is not censored either. The examples you give are false equivilancies, because they did not have the same level or type of coverage--those subjects would generally fall under the tabliod news category of WP:NOT#Tabloid. Substaintial media coverage is evidence of notibility, per se, but not in and of itself sufficuent to support a suitable article; it's just one gating issue, and not the one you should be focusing on in this case, since it's a non-issue here.

As to whether the article should exist, since it is notable it should exist at least as a redirect because the subject is widely known, therefore AfD is inappropriate. If it were redirected, the content would need to be moved, because it is verifiable (there are over 50 references cited) and the community would not support its vanishing because that would be censorship. So the question is how would such a merge work? You have three main actors, Gates, Crowey and then Obama. Splitting the content between their biographies would take it out of context. In fact James Crowley (police officer) is a redirect to this article because of WP:BLP1E. And as has been pointed out, moving the content to these biographical articles would create a problem with undue WP:Weight as well. You make the argument about weight in your original post here, but keeping this content as a separate article is actually avoiding giving it undue weight in the context of the individuals. Henry Louis Gates will probably be most remembered for this event, but his biography should cover his entire life's works without dwelling on this.

Your points on the inconsistencies of media attention are well taken, but I just don't see how your overall argument rises above the emotional level as discussed in the essay WP:I just don't like it. Dhaluza (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dhaluza, I see your point about management of material entirely, and it's very well put. I no longer question the existence of the article, as I stated above in saying that a similar point made above was persuasive. In my defence, this was not the kind of argument put forward on the talk page. Part of the reason for wanting to talk about it here was the arguments put forward there.

I don't understand the principle you invoke in saying the other articles I suggested are disqualified because they are tabloidy, and I disagree about the level of coverage. Perhaps not in America, but in the rest of the world they probably receive as much attention - and no matter the size of the US, the rest of the world is bigger. Secondly, how do we decide what is tabloidy, without falling into the trap you (of course I think unfairly) accuse me of, which is the balance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Putin's display of his pecs probably has a bigger impact on Russian internal and international politics than is seemly, but the impact is there; Beckham is extremely notable and the event covered thoroughly, and arguably has a greater importance to the project of popularising and legitimising MLS (and, ultimately to the England football team) than this arrest has in terms of race relations in the US. The dog fuss has probably had a great impact on the sale of Portuguese water dogs. Isn't your dismissal of these topics as tabloid even more WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

In essence, my point is this - there seems to be a danger that[REDACTED] BLP notability is overinfluenced by the idiosyncracies of the mainstream media in the US. We could have been having this same argument fifteen years ago over OJ's gloves or Monica Lewinsky's semen-stained dress. After all, the national and international media attention was huge. What principles apart from community sentiment do we invoke? (another editor above says that there are no principles.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of Vladimir Putin's pecs that I saw was mostly tabloid material, and the discussion of it in news sources was gossipy, IMHO. So the subject is notable, but unless you could find sources that discussed it in a way that could be put in an encyclopedic context, it would not be a suitable subject for an article (if you saw reliable sources that seriously discussed its significant impact on foreign relations, then maybe it is a suitable subject after all). This is completly different from the Gates arrest, which was covered as hard news, and discussed in terms of racial profiling and proper police procedure, which are both issues of great import. Hence the false equivilance. I'm not judging relative importance in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world, because that is a fool's errand. WP:BIAS is not really an issue here, because this is a an event that happened in the U.S. Actually including more worldwide perspective would be appropriate, but your original suggestion was that the article should not exist at all.

BTW, I agree that the coverage in WP is strongly influenced by the MSM in the US. But that is a direct result of the WP:V policy. It sounds like your suggested alternative is to have WP editors exert a stronger influence than WP:RS, but I don't think that would have better results. Dhaluza (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. That the Gates arrest has been used as an opportunity to discuss on a national level other matters might indeed be a version of a rule of notability. By the way, saying baldly that I argued that an article should not exist is misleading - I questioned (or rather queried) the fact that this material was given a separate article away from the already existing BLPs. I've never questioned the notability of this event in terms of inclusion in those BLPs.

As a note, Putin's photos got lapped up by the tabloids and yellow press, of course, but these PR events (for that is what they are) have also been written in serious sources about as a clear indication of Putin's intention to maintain power, to show Medvedev as weaker, and to promote a more self-confident, assertive image in the near abroad. As a political scientist by training, I would find his pecs more notable, and Gates' arrest less notable in terms of probable long-term impact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you said you were posting here before starting an AfD, so forgive me for concluding that you did not think the article should exist. And I still think you need to go to WP:N to see what notability means in WP terms, and use it in those terms in discussions with other editors. For example it is not to be used as a test for inclusion in other articles, like the BLPs as you suggest.

As a political scientist, you should probably appreciate the distinction that Putin's public display of his pecs, rather than the pecs per se, is notable. Whether one or the other has more long term impact is debatable. I'm sure police departments around the U.S. and probably abroad will be updating their procedures and training as a result of this incident. But again, debating the relative importance is a fools errand.

Where to include the material is subject to editorial judgement. Putin's pecs should probably be handled at his bio page(and any related pages) if it would remain in proper context there (BTW, only the tabloid coverage is even mentioned there currentlty, so if you have sources for the relative import of their public display, you should work on incorporating them). If there were significant sources for expanding that material to the point where it was overwhelming his biography, then it should be summarized and split into a separate article. The point is that it's not the subjective judgement of the editors on the subject itself that matters, its the editorial judgement of how to put the verifiable content into the proper encyclopedic context that governs whether an article should exist. Dhaluza (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, it is expedient to organise material in this way. This is a perfectly good argument for me. The supposedly frivolous articles I suggested (and it was specifically "the public display of Putin's pecs", btw) would all easily pass WP:N; there is clearly another principle at work, which is necessity - do we need to have it as a separate article. I don't know if there is a policy to that effect, although on reflection it does seem to be operating from what I've seen of the past few months of my wiki-involvement. A couple of apologies: for brevity I did not separate out the difference between notability and "due-ness" ) (i.e. should a topic have its own article, and should it be included in any article), although I am aware of the difference. I appreciate this was careless. Also my suggesting AfD was misleading; I should have said a move to merge to a couple of BLPs and wikinews. I've been caught up in a few AfDs, with merging almost always on the agenda.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Outlaw motorcycle clubs and criminal activites in infobox.

I've been trying to improve the quality of the articles on Outlaw motorcycle clubs, many of which are in very poor shape. Most of them have an infobox with a formula like criminal activities: Drug dealing, Extortion, Prostitution..., e.g., Abutre's, Grim Reapers MC. Generally this list of crimes is uncited, or if it is cited, only a sort of general allegation by a law enforcement speaker will tick off a number of crimes, such as in Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club citing the Tri City Hearald (this was my edit). Most outlaw motorcycle clubs deny that they are criminal organizations, and say they can't be held responsible for the actions of individual members. Sometimes, but not always, the FBI or other agency will make a public statement that club is a criminal syndicate. It is usually easy to find news stories stating the names of known members of a club who were convicted of specific crimes. Actual convictions for racketeering or proof of widespread criminal conspiracy is more rare.

So my questions are:

1. When dealing with articles on a club, are the standards the same as all BLP in general? Or can uncited negative information simply be {{fact}} tagged in the hopes that it will improve in the future?
2. How much sourcing is needed to add a crime to the criminal activities: field in the infobox?
3. When is it appropriate to use an infobox with a name like "Infobox Criminal organization"?

This might be too many different things to discuss here. There are many other issues with thes motorcycle club articles you could get caught up in if you wanted to, and I'm only trying to fix one thing at a time. Mostly I want to know if I should blank the criminal activities field, or {{fact}} tag it.

Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for BLP

The article Kirtanananda Swami is being reviewed and is full of self published/unverifiable and other sources (such as video) that does seem to suggest WP:CBLANK. Specifically sections and footnotes are disputed. Can a few users with good experience in BLPs have a quick look at it please. Wikid 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note this article is currently undergoing AfD review here --ponyo (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Professor Carl Hewitt (repeated violation)

The following paragraph of the article violoates NPOV:

Hewitt's changes to the "Logic programming" article sparked some criticism by Robert Kowalski and the logic programming community.

According to Corruption of Misplaced Pages:

"Although lacking expertise in this particular area of Computer Science, Charles Matthews (a very high level Misplaced Pages official) favored Kowalski’s side of an academic dispute that he was having with Hewitt and using his Misplaced Pages power enforced it by censorship with the justification of “Neutral Point of View.” Furthermore, Matthews “tipped off” a reporter (who he had successfully “cultivated” to write stories favorable to Misplaced Pages) to enlist her in writing an article that libeled Hewitt. Matthews then became the principle unnamed source for the resulting Observer hatchet job appearing under the false guise of an independent “senior academic” in Hewitt's field of research casting aspersions on him. While he was upset with Hewitt because of their academic dispute, Kowalski confided in Matthews. As a result, Matthews sent the reporter off to interview Kowalski. Consequently, the reporter has tape recordings and emails of Kowalski saying some harsh things about Hewitt. (Kowalski has subsequently made amends in his emails to Hewitt; see Corruption of Misplaced Pages.)

When Matthews applied to be reappointed as an Arbitrator, Sarah McEwan (AKA SlimVirgin) raised the issue that "you discussed this story with the committee prior to publication , and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom member to do." However, Mathews was "unrepentant" about his behavior. His justification was that his instigation of the libelous Observer attack on Hewitt resulted in continued favorable publicity for Misplaced Pages by the same reporter. Also, the article served as an object lesson intended to intimidate other academics from challenging censorship by Misplaced Pages Administrators less the same thing happen to them. Matthews then "killified" McEwan for having raised the issue during his campaign for reappointment to the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee. But, still, Misplaced Pages offered no apology." 76.254.235.105 (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

71.198.220.76 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence and the preceding paragraph which I think is what you are after. The sources were particularly poor for a BLP. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Magic Johnson (living person article)

I thought someone should know and edit the Magic Johnson article because it calls him a 'nigger' ("Magic Johnson is a retired American nigger" goes the starting line). Also it was on the homepage and hotlisted for today, 14 August Eastern Standard Time) as a feature article.

Thanks

Fabian Martin Suchanek (living person article)

This biography page sounds like unwarranted self promotion by the same person. Please delete this biography page about Fabian.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmj005 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fabian Martin Suchanek. Rd232 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (Illusionist)

• David Copperfield (illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the quality of David Copperfield (illusionist). I made one blunt adjustment. I request uninvolved editors to go over the article with an eye toward WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and general improvements. The article seems heavy on scandals, litigation and controversies. Thank you for any help you can provide. Jehochman 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

David Yeagley

His biography is a lie. http://davidyeagley.blogspot.com/ documents this with newspaper articles and research done on him by real indians. It's self promoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.43.243 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs (and other self-published sources) are largely unacceptable references (see WP:SPS). However, if there is false/unsourced information in the David A. Yeagley article, feel free to remove it and explain in the edit summary. hmwitht 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolving differences between WP:TVS practice and Wiki policy and guidelines

Members of WP:TVS project are protecting edits that are contrary to WP:BIO, WP:COATRACK, and WP:NOTINHERITED. In particular User:Neutralhomer tends to support his edits as being "established practice", rather than by addressing Wiki policy and guidelines. He has occasionally been hostile and abusive to editors questioning his actions, reverting a number of types of legitimate edits as "vandalism", with no other explanation. The matter was put to the Mediation Cabal here , but User:Neutralhomer did not acknowledge the request.

This matter affects 100s of articles that are beginning to being misused for the promotion of careers of non-notable people after they leave the TV station which is the subject of the article. This matter has been unresolved for some time now, and I would like to feel free to remove those elements of the TV station articles that the community feels are inappropriate. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

These are the edits: , , , . There were three types of changes: removal of inappropriate bio material of non-notables who had left the station, removal of scheduling (which is not the matter I'm bringing to this group), and removal of overlinking, following WP:CONTEXT (also not the issue at hand). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SCANDAL ERRR O ME

YOU HAVE MADE RECENT FALSE AND DEFAMATRY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ME. ON AUG 13 2009 IN MY ARTICLE "STANLEY HILTON,' you falsely stated that . I DEMAND YOU REMOVE IT IN 24 HOURS OR I WILL SUE YOU FOR DEFAMATION

STANLEY HILTON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.148.100 (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A stack of unsourced material in Stanley Hilton including the material referenced above has been removed in response to the above. Rd232 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

NPOV concerns and possible public shitstorm. Comment at Misplaced Pages:AN#Drama_regarding_Glenn_Beck.27s_WP_article.  Skomorokh  16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the subject underway already, compromises and additions are already forthcoming. Soxwon (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

The article Harriet Harman contains a statement that Ms. Harman's opponents nicknamed her "Harriet Harperson" because of her views on feminism. That the source meant to support the claim does so is not in dispute. One editor, however, thinks there is a problem with using the source is problematic because the news source allows members of the public to add comments on the same page as the story, and one member of the public added one saying, in essence, that Harman is crazy and should be institutionalised. The editor has not been terribly articulate in explaining his problem with using the article other than to say, erroneously, that it is "slanderous" and that since he wants it removed, it should be removed. The question for you is this: should an otherwise appropriate source be considered unusable because the source allows public comment and some yahoo has left an insulting remark in that comment forum regarding the living subject of our article? A previous discussion on this topic was started at Misplaced Pages talk:RS#News articles that allow comments, but editors there suggested starting over here. -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Any genuinely libellous material would be removed, or at least be the responsibility of the publisher. It wouldn't be an RS otherwise. The comments are clearly not part of the article. In this case the website merely repeats printed material available in physical archives.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider that as rude and derogatory comments about the subject of the biography are clearly visible in the comments section of this link that in this case it would be better not to use this link, we have other options so if the link is contentious then why keep it in the article? is the link and here is the specific comment I dislike to be linking to.

Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this story was carried in the print version, just switch the reference to refer to that - a url is *not* required for a reference. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes' that is a very good solution and I support it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution in this case, in general it should be clear that this sort of thing is not an actual BLP problem if the only source allows comments. Obvious examples of this sort would be how much of CNN.com now has comments sections. To say we could not link to articles their if there are problems in the comments sections is a bit ridiculous. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary solution. Of the approximately 10 people who have looked at the situation, only Off2riorob has a problem with it. Moreover, I see no note on the page that says it was carried in the print version, and I have no information to provide an adequate cite to the print version. Most importantly, I have a cite to an online source that only one editor has a problem with. There is no compelling reason to remove the link. If this is to be what we do at Misplaced Pages, how many links are we going to have to remove? There are thousand, probably millions of links to articles that have comments where in rude remarks are made about a living person. Bending to this is absurd. -Rrius (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution in this case is so simple that I fail to see your problem, we are not changing any policy here, we are looking at this single citation, that in this case only I am objecting to derogatory statements in the public comments, the simple solution has been suggested that the article is quoted and the link removed, none of the comment in the article will change at all, I start to wonder if you are more interested in inserting the link than the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this not the only link on Misplaced Pages to an article with a public comment insulting to the living subject of one of our articles, it is about more than just this link. If you want to find the print citation, fine, but the point of providing cites is so that other people can come along and verify for themselves that the sources says what we say it does.

As for what I am interested it, it is having the best Misplaced Pages possible. I have already bowed under to your unreasonable objections to the actual text despite the fact that there was no basis in Misplaced Pages policy for those objections. The text was verified by reliable sources, but you objected anyway. Now, one of the reliable sources I found to replace one of the first reliable sources has fallen afoul of your standards, though everyone else admits that there is nothing wrong with the link. The suggest that the link be eliminated is simply a compromise to make you walk away satisfied. For myself, I am sick of merely getting rid of you by giving up. You have yet to provide any reason whatsoever why a link such as this should not be included on Misplaced Pages. Since there is no basis in policy, even a misinterpretation of policy for your objection, there is no reason to give ground.

I am uncomfortable with replacing an online reference with an identical print one because it limits the class of people who can verify the accuracy of the Misplaced Pages claim. Few people in Britain, and almost no else in the world, have the means to go to the print source and verify what we claim it says. All the same, if you can provide the print information (date it was published in print and the page and section it was printed in), I will give this last bit of ground to be rid of you. I will not agree to less. There is no good reason to eliminate the online link, thus doing so without replacing it with a precise direction on where to find the article is unacceptable. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a bit carried away, this is the tiny comment that is being confirmed through this disputed citation...

Due to Harman's views on gender equality, her detractors have given her the nickname, 'Harriet Harperson'.

At present there are two links covering this tiny comment, there is already a citation from the daily mail that covers the comment, this disputed citation could easily just be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the little jabs and insults. I am not getting carried away. There is nothing wrong with the source or the link, and you have provided no reason to prohibit the link. Your whole argument is that one public comment is insulting toward Harman. Everyone who has taken a position on that other than you has said that fact is irrelevant, including the people who recommended not using the link and referring to the print source. All of Misplaced Pages is a collection of "tiny" statements. Those statement are required to be verified by reliable sources. You have not shown once how linking to the source at issue in any way fails to meet the requirement for a reliable source. Your initial claim was that the comment in at the linked page was "slanderous". You apparently now understand that it is not libelous, but merely insulting. That is not enough to preclude linking to the source. Even so, despite the fact that there is no reason to do so, I am willing to agree to use the print version if you will provide the information that the few people in the world with access to the print version would be able to use to find the source. That is more than reasonable. So don't bother telling me again that I am "getting carried away" or trying to besmirch Harman or just edit warring or more worried about inserting the cite than the text or whatever absurd characterisation of my motives you come up with next. Doing so is a form of personal attack, and I am sick of it. You have been doing that since very early in our discussions, and there is no excuse for it. Your continued failure to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks is dishonorable. Just because some insult comes into your head does not mean you need to express it. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is not can we do without the cite, but, rather, why must we do without the cite? The more verifiability we have for a fact the better; so, why discard a perfectly legitimate reference that conforms to all of Misplaced Pages's policies on citations and verifiability? It would seem that if you, Off2, feel public comments left on a media outlet's website are now to be counted as part of the published source itself, your task should not be to have this one source ejected. Instead, you should actually be pushing to have WP:BLP#Sources altered to include a new stipulation requiring that WP editors sift through all public comments on any web story to check that no remarks left violate Misplaced Pages's definition of "derogatory"; which may also have to be set out in black and white. As there can often be hundreds of public comments on one web published article, perhaps a large team of WP editors will be needed to study and vet the comments sections attached to thousands of potential sources out there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Rrius, I agree with you, It is not slanderous, it is merely insulting! However, we are not in the insulting business are we? Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And now we come back to this. By allowing the comment to stand, the Evening Standard is not endorsing the comment. Put another way, by allowing the comment to be there, the Evening Standard is not insulting Harman. In exactly the same way, by linking to the Evening Standard article, Misplaced Pages is not insulting Harman. Your concern that linking to the article will somehow put us in the "insulting business" is unfounded. As such, there is no reason not to link to the article. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The insult is there, I am simply asking that in this case we have other options, so...lets use them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that we'd only be using the alternative to suit your own personal dislike for a particular comment that, by your own admission, has nothing to do with the source itself. It could certainly be done, but it would validate the use of personal taste as a reason to discard an otherwise legitimate, usable source, thereby setting a horrible precedent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not personal taste at all, I was directed to the link after Rrius inserted it and I immediately saw the insulting comment from a member of the public and I am requesting that we don't link to it unless we really have to, thats all, not setting any horrible presedents at all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason not to use the source. That you ask is not a sufficient reason. You have asked, and been told that your request and reason for doing so are not enough to block the source, and by more than just me. I insist on the source because there are very few sources setting out where she got the nickname and why. One of those was previously objected to, by you and another editor, for no better reason than it is the Daily Mail. You also proved through your long objections that even saying that the nickname was meant to be insulting is controversial. At that point, you did not accept the Mail as a source for that claim, so why should anyone be satisfied that all future editors will? Equally important, when a claim in Misplaced Pages is controversial, it is quite normal to support it with more than one source, and removing the Standard would leave us with just one. There is a good reason to include it, and no reason not to, so it should stay. Despite the fact that there is no good reason to remove the link, I have agreed that I would not object to removing the link if you could provide a sufficient cite to the print version. Since you have not responded to that offer though I have made it at least twice, I have to assume you reject it. As such, the only reasonable alternative is to leave the link in place. -Rrius (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, thanks, I am not rejecting this offer, it was not my idea and it is unnecessary, the link is not needed at all, just take it out, or as has been suggested, link just to the paper, with the date. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rrius is asking that you provide all the reference information for the paper version of the article in compensation for rejecting the internet link. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. There's no reason in BLP to take out the link. It might be better if we had another identical link without the comments section but taking out the link simply because there is a comments section is not justified by anything in the letter or spirit of WP:BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I am uncertain of the "it" you are saying is unnecessary. It is necessary to have a cite to the source you are using to support the claim made. See WP:Cite. For an online source, that is a url directing the user to the source. For a print periodical, that is a cite to the work, issue, and page at the very least. I am saying that if you are rejecting the online source, you have to provide information for the other. I am very uncomforatble with doing that in the first place because we should make it easy for readers of the encyclopedia to verify our claims. It is far easier to do so online than in person. I have absolutely no access to print copies of the Evening Standard, and that holds for the overwhelming majority of non-Londoners. Even Londoners presumably have limited access. Even so, I have said I won't oppose a cite to the print version, but it must be a full cite. I should also note that the fact that I would agree to accept a print citation despite the availability of an online one does not mean other will go along with it. It is a simple fact that everyone who has commented on the issue has said the insult in the comments does not make the source unusable, and anyone would be justified to objecting to indulging you even to that extent. -Rrius (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have simply requested that this citation that includes a derogatory comment about the subject of the biography please be removed and as it is easy to do I fail to see your issues, the comment is small and easily cited elsewhere, and in fact is actually cited with the daily mail link. All of these comments are to resist my simple request. You are insisting on keeping the citation and yet it is actually not needed, oh well, I fail to see why you insist on keeping it. I have requested its removal and you want to keep it, so you are responsible for it not me. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So you keep saying. I have responded to this contention, and so has another editor. I have already given you good reasons for using both links, while you have provided none for leaving the one out. Your request means nothing if it is not based on anything substantial. Your entire reason for leaving the link out is some vague problem with an insulting comment on the linked page. You have not explained why that should matter, or why the same objection would not apply to every single article linked to by Misplaced Pages that contains an insult directed toward a living person. I am perfectly willing to be "responsible" for the link, whatever that mean. As for your failure to understand why I insist on including the link, I would direct you to the dozen or so times I have explained my position to you without your responding with something more substantive than "it's slanderous" (which you now admit you were wrong about), "it's insulting", or "because I asked". None of those is a good reason to accede to your request, and the policies and goals of the project militate in favour of including the link, so you should not be shocked at the lack of desire to indulge your whim. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

I came across another issue when reading the article which I've tried my best to resolve but hopefully someone can do better. See Talk:Harriet Harman#Fathers' rights protest Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette

Someone claiming to be Jenrette made significant changes to this article earlier today. I reverted those changes (some were unsourced, others appeared intended to sanitize the article by euphemizing references to sexual activity). Similar changes were made some time ago by a different username claiming to be Jenrette, and my responsive changes more or less track the response to the earlier editing (I did also add some sources and did a bit of cleanup). However, today's edits also added unsourced claims of a recent marriage, which I think I've managed to RS-verify, but that process led me to note a widely circulating report that her new husband is selling a special perfume commemorating the wedding, which I also added to the article. Anyway, when I read over my final text, I'm wondering if that version comes across as snarkier than it ought to be (it's hard to keep a straight face when discussing a guy who declares himself the "prince" of an Italian city-state that Napoleon liquidated about 200 years ago). A few extra eyes might be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. -Rrius (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on two new BLP-relevant essays

Currently at User:Jclemens/WI1E and User:Jclemens/WIALPI. I'm actively soliciting discussion, opposing viewpoints, and corroborating examples. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael J. Scott

• Michael J. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A recent allegation came out in the local paper about Scott (the Sheriff) being friends with a convicted felon. Thus far, there are no criminal allegations, just the appearence of impropriety and some allegations by fired or forced out employees that the man in question holds a lot of influence in the department. Really, at this point, there is nothing other than that appearence of inpropriety and even then, records show that once Scott became aware of the mans past, his contact with him dropped off considerably. Should this be included in its present form or even at all at this point?// Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

3 millionth article

...is some random BLP. There's currently nothing problematic but it will probably get a fair amount of vandalism as news sites pick up on this non-event. --NE2 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Katja Kassin

A number of IPs keep adding a link that claims Ms Kassin is or was an escort and keep changing the bio to say as such. As no one IP has made two reverts I think blocks on the IPs are impractical. However I don't think there is enough vandalism to get a semi-lock at RFPP. Is it possible to get the page locked for a month or so, plus have the link blacklisted (I have no idea how to do that). This should give those watching the page a break from the silly vandals. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Djanogly

Someone with the username user:djanogly has changed the content of this page, specifically removing referenced material that appeared in the national press. I have reinstated the page to be as it was immediately prior to djanogly's edits—GrahamSmith (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

While any inappropriate edits should be reverted, I would remind all editors that WP:COI explicitly does not forbid editors with a COI from editing, it is only strongly discouraged. In particular, this means edits by an editor even one with an obvious COI should not be reverted unless it is appropriate for other policy reasons, which of course includes removing material referenced by reliable secondary sources and making major undiscussed changes that are disputed; and of course these reasons should be the ones cited when reverting. Also when dealing with users with a COI, it is wise to inform them of policy preferably with their talk page (which I've now done) and also in the edit summary rather then continually reverting their edits without explanation since it is likely these editors will be unfamiliar with policy and may not be able to learn otherwise. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

LaSara FireFox

I'm looking for a little input on how to handle quite radical changes to a BLP article. Rogue.papa (talk · contribs) is re-writing LaSara FireFox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and, so far, essentially erasing Ms. FireFox's past books and accomplishments before 2006 when she had a "religious conversion experience". Now, the article was not great before this. The current version seems 1) more commercially focused, and 2) rather POV. So far no responses from User:Rogue.papa about concerns about these edits from two editors.

I'm bringing this here because it possibly has the aspect of possibly causing distress to the subject of the BLP article. It seems obvious to me that the article can't just ignore her past work, writings, interviews, etc, but sourcing on her "new" life work seems thin. I don't really have any investment in the article but I have edited it in the past so I feel a bit constrained about intervening too strongly as an admin. Would people be willing to take a look at the article and provide some feedback? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Rogue.papa has no interest in communicating about his revisions, although it's possible he is just too much of a newby to know about the talk pages. The revisions are almost devoid of citations, and ignore every aspect of the subject's past except a passing reference to her book Sexy Witch. Well-cited material has been deleted, all past positions, published works and media appearances, in fact everything the subject was known for before 2006 has been removed... and re-removed when restored with explanations and requests for justification for the action. Except for the book's publisher, the only citation is to her new website, which seems to be predominantly a commercial site for her present endeavors as a life coach, designer of something called "Gratitude Games", and an NLP practitioner & trainer.

In my opinion, without the deleted material (which has been restored by other editors) the subject is not notable enough for an article. With it, the article has survived a nomination for deletion, and has been expanded and better cited since then. I'm sure there are other articles whose subject would like to cherry-pick what information is in their article, but data is chosen by accuracy and support, not the subject's preference at a particular time of life. Furthermore, Rogue Papa's version does seem to be little more than an advertisement for the subject's commercial endeavors. Now commercial endeavors can still be notable, like AT&T, IBM, and Time Warner, but I agree with Pigman that the article without the deleted material is thin, and the citations/references nearly non-existent. I also share his concern about the wishes of the subject. Perhaps something can be added about her "conversion", and some of the rest can be changed to past tense. However, there is a limit to which an article can be expected to be re-written to please her, or whoever Rogue Papa is. An encyclopedia article is comprehensive, not just a "what I'm into nowadays" blog.

By the way, for what it's worth, I created the original article. Rosencomet (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article and added some material. If someone wants to add something about her "conversion" (and DOCUMENT it), it will be easier to separate the activities chronologically. Rosencomet (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rogue.papa (talk · contribs) did contact me on my talk page and I suspect this is mostly a misunderstanding of the nature of Misplaced Pages and appropriate editing. Since he clearly states on my talk page that "I am doing so on her request, as she wishes to not be related to The Church of All Worlds or her Pagan past in any biographical way," at the least there are issues. If he will communicate with other editors on the article talk page about his concerns, I'm sure the dispute will resolve. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks much better now. I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article, and we don't let subjects sanitise their articles in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Roy Gordon Lawrence

Someone may wish to look into both User:Levinstein/Roy Gordon Lawrence and User talk:Levinstein. This has the distinct scent of a crusade on a very touchy subject. --Calton | Talk 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers

There's a long, disjointed, slightly snarky, and tedious discusssion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard about the presumed sexuality of David Ogden Stiers. The thread is here. (This could have been posted here in the first place, but I was asked to provide a concrete example of a situation that I felt would be easier to discuss hypothetically.) In short, a low-traffic, little-known blog claims that Stiers told them in an interview that he was gay. The article on David Ogden Stiers contains the following passage: "In May 2009, it was reported by mainstream news sources that Stiers came out as gay, based on an interview published by the LGBT blog Gossip Boy" in the section "Personal life". Stiers has also been added to Category: Gay actors and Category:LGBT people from the United States on the same basis. There is a fair amount of talk page discussion about this (see here) but it seems to have devolved into actually contacting Stiers' publicist instead of examining the sourcing. Stiers has not said he was gay either previously or since. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The blog interview was reported by ABC News in May, and whilst it refers to the blog it describes the coming out and associated details as fact not as "blog claims something but we're hedging our bets", and the story is still on their website. . That seems good enough sourcing to me, in the absence of any contradictory WP:RS. Rd232 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If ABC had left out their source there would be no argument at all. That they included it shows that for this story, ABC finds the blog reliable enough to stake their reputation on. Kevin (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates arrest incident

Earlier today, user:Mattnad removed a passage from the article on Henry Louis Gates' arrest which stated that the Cambridge Police Department and Professor Gates, in a joint press release,

"called the incident "regrettable and unfortunate" and said it "should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department."

• Edit summary: Trim - quote box above has all the detail of the release

Mattnad's reasoning is that it degrades the article to have that wording twice in the article – once in the body text and once in a quote box (see current article status). I am not aware of any style guideline that says text in a quote box must not be repeated in the article proper. We have FAs that include such duplication (example: Abu Nidal).

So I would ask editors to comment on the following question:

• Given that we show a mugshot of Gates, is it overkill, from a BLP point of view, to mention in the body text that Gates and the Cambridge Police Department issued a press release saying the arrest should not be taken to reflect unfavorably on Gates' character and reputation, nor on that of Cambridge Police? Should this be deleted again from the article body? JN466 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• This editor neglected to mention he also added the same quote in the lede as well. I removed that third quote given his current effort to duplicate the message. At issue is weight and necessity. Why must we repeat this quote three times (if Jayen466 had his way). Prior to his edits, we had the press release specially quoted. The quote is already treated with emphasis and prominence unrivaled by any other quote in the article. The current quote box is also placed immediately below the photographs that Jayen466 fought to remove earlier to ensure that readers see and understand the press release. Given the quote box is a complete, obvious, given special emphasis, are reasonable WP:BLP concerns met? Mattnad (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattnad, would you please produce a diff where I added the same quote to the lede? I don't recall doing so. Thanks. JN466 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As requested . Mattnad (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is not the same text? I added the "unfortunate and regrettable" part to the lede, and restored the "should not be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation" part to the article body. What text is in the article three times? JN466 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you got me? Yes, you are not putting the exact same quote in several times. You are repeating the press release with variations of paraphrase and direct quotes and seeking to insert it multiple times in the article. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough. But it's still repeating the same information for reasons that do not serve the interests of the article or WP:BLP.Mattnad (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Luanne Rice Date or Magazine Title Correction Needed

On the page for Luanne Rice, it notes that she was born September 25, 1955, and that "her first short story was published in American Girl when she was fifteen." The issue is that if you click on the entry for American Girl, it links to a magazine that "was started in January 1993." Clearly there is a factual error. Luanne Rice was older than 15 in 1993. Unfortunately, I don't know what exactly is incorrect -- the name of the magazine, Luanne's age at the time, or the link to this specific magazine called American Girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawatters (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan (again)

Allo.
So, this is somewhat of an old topic, but it still keeps coming back up again.
The issue concerns whether or not to include categories in her article that identify her as bisexual (or lesbian, or whatever).
The BLP page says that we can't "out" people who haven't already outed themselves, but there's a slight debate on whether or not she's done that.
Like I said, this has come up before, including here. It always ended the same: Don't use the category until/unless the facts change in a way that warrants using it.
You can read those discussions, but the basic facts are thus:

• She probably has a girlfriend (but that fact isn't really of any relevance when it comes to BLP policy, RS, etc.)
• She's said that she is not lesbian, but may be bisexual (her word was "maybe")
• Her only unambiguous statement on the matter has been, "I don't want to classify myself".

That's why the category has always been left out. Because there's enough material on the subject to discuss the issue in the article text, but far below the minimum for adding a category, which is a definitive identification.
I would've removed the category myself, but the article is semi-protected. As such, an editor has slapped the category back up (without bothering to discuss it on the talk page), and I can't revert, even though it's against both BLP and past consensus.
So, (assuming you agree with my BLP concerns) could someone please remove the LGBT Actor category from the article until consensus changes in the article's talk page? 209.90.135.121 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.theinsider.com/news/2267243_Megan_Fox_Slams_Middle_America

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution